And for the record, I see no advantage in the run game for either team. If anything I would give it to UofL because their backs are just as good but I think they will have a better passing game which will help open up the running game imo.

How many of those people do you expect to play?

 

Barring injury I'd say all of them. Connor is the fullback, Allen is more of a 3rd down/short yardage back and Locke, Dixon and Smith should all see reps.

Barring injury I'd say all of them. Connor is the fullback, Allen is more of a 3rd down/short yardage back and Locke, Dixon and Smith should all see reps.

 

:thumb: I'd say at least 4, and all of them wouldn't be the least bit surprising.

And for the record, I see no advantage in the run game for either team. If anything I would give it to UofL because their backs are just as good but I think they will have a better passing game which will help open up the running game imo.

 

With Long's injury you now have a UL receiving corps with only one experienced player, Trent Guy, who did very little in terms of production. Additionally, it is questionable if Guy will even be 100%.

 

So now you have this depeleted UL receiving corps taking on one of the strengths of UK defense in a secondary featuring a decorated CB in Lindley and a pair of experiences safeties, with NO proven Tight End to keep the LB's honest.

 

I don't care if Brian Brohm was back at QB,,,,, UL's passing game should by all accounts have some serious issues.

 

Neither team can honestly think that their passing game will be forcing the opposing defense to drop back in fear.

As for the run game and who is better:

 

I posted stats from last season somewhere not too long ago and statistically speaking UK had the advantage. Stats don't mean a hill of beans in the translation to a gametime situation, but I see no way for a UL fan to justify how their backs are better except from using shear optimism.... and conversely, fr a UK fan to expect their backs to be clearly on a different level is just as bogus.

That has the potential to be an UGLY played game. Lots of turnovers and mistakes, etc.

As for the run game and who is better:

 

I posted stats from last season somewhere not too long ago and statistically speaking UK had the advantage. Stats don't mean a hill of beans in the translation to a gametime situation, but I see no way for a UL fan to justify how their backs are better except from using shear optimism.... and conversely, fr a UK fan to expect their backs to be clearly on a different level is just as bogus.

Here is how I'll explain it.

UofL looked good most of the time they ran the ball last season, but UofL rarely ran the ball and when they did they did under obvious circumstances which hurt running numbers. Last season Anthony Allen was the feature back, by his own admission, he made his mind up about transferring sometime midseason and his play showed it. He noticeably stopped giving effort sometime midseason. (The question arises, Why did Kragthorpe keep playing him?, but that is another issue) The two current Running backs Bolen and Powell, in my viewing of them, proved to be very capable backs. We don't know how well Anderson will make the transition to college ball but I saw enough of him in high school to feel good about his potential.

 

I think the UK running backs are fine. I think Locke is a really good back. I do think however that the transition from a passing attack to a running based offense will present these backs with new challenges. I'm not saying they are NOT capable of filling this role, but we have to see how much they can shoulder without a dependable passing attack. It is a significant change, enough to make me feel as though last seasons running game is not a great measure of what we will see this year.

I'm still having trouble getting over Long, that was a huge, huge loss for UofL.

Here is how I'll explain it.

UofL looked good most of the time they ran the ball last season, but UofL rarely ran the ball and when they did they did under obvious circumstances which hurt running numbers. Last season Anthony Allen was the feature back, by his own admission, he made his mind up about transferring sometime midseason and his play showed it. He noticeably stopped giving effort sometime midseason. (The question arises, Why did Kragthorpe keep playing him?, but that is another issue) The two current Running backs Bolen and Powell, in my viewing of them, proved to be very capable backs. We don't know how well Anderson will make the transition to college ball but I saw enough of him in high school to feel good about his potential.

 

I think the UK running backs are fine. I think Locke is a really good back. I do think however that the transition from a passing attack to a running based offense will present these backs with new challenges. I'm not saying they are NOT capable of filling this role, but we have to see how much they can shoulder without a dependable passing attack. It is a significant change, enough to make me feel as though last seasons running game is not a great measure of what we will see this year.

 

 

No offense, but how can you judge UK differently because they were a passing team and not UL? Based on number of carries it strongly suggests UK was more of a runnign team last year than UL? I understand your logic about UK striving to be a run oriented offense, but lets not forget that UL has been very vocal in how they want to transition to a more balanced offense, and I honestly can't see them chucking the ball around with their depleted receiving corps and a QB who is in essence "green".

For the last time, the RB position is a push...I don't know why that's so hard for you guys to grasp.

 

Could it be that some of us just aren't bright enough to grasp what you know is a fact? It is just an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own.

No offense, but how can you judge UK differently because they were a passing team and not UL? Based on number of carries it strongly suggests UK was more of a runnign team last year than UL? I understand your logic about UK striving to be a run oriented offense, but lets not forget that UL has been very vocal in how they want to transition to a more balanced offense, and I honestly can't see them chucking the ball around with their depleted receiving corps and a QB who is in essence "green".

Here is the difference, UofL has more confidence in their passing game (you might not, but they do). Cantwell will be asked to make plays more so than I see UK asking Hartline. In terms of how much running, UofL will do a lot more than they did last year compared to UK, but with UK I think they will have to depend on it without as much support from the passing attack. That role means that the UK running attack will shoulder most the load, putting there backs in a different situation as before.

and my dad can out drink your dad...:lol: can someone please give me some info on each team's O and D line, because that is where the game will be won or lost, IMO. Both teams have lost last year's QBs to the NFL so common sense tells me that both teams will look to run the football to open up the play action, get man coverage so the QB's aren't having to read defense per se. Which ever team can run block better should control the clock and get the opposing defense tired and pull away late in the game. In other words, it sounds like it could be a ugly game. Now that I have said this it will more than likely be another shoot out with both QB's throwing for 400+.:lol:

Could it be that some of us just aren't bright enough to grasp what you know is a fact? It is just an opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own.

 

Appartently the opinions of a few only matter...

 

As far as who has the best offenisve backfield...MY OPINION IS UK.

Appartently the opinions of a few only matter...

 

You're right. :thumb:

You're right. :thumb:

 

If I ever need any info regarding marching bands(which will be never) then your opinion will really carry a lot of weight.

 

Until then....