I have been on the side saying Brooks has done a fine job this season and I am very impressed with the job he has done as a whole as well.

He did pretty decent with everything except for play-calling and personnel decisions. Other than that, he was alright.

 

 

 

Joker is the OC, those 2 are on him.........................

Sure the wins came against bad teams.....but UK is also a bad team. I don't think many SEC coaches sit up all night and say "Man, how can we beat UK?"

 

At our level? Tennessee, UGA, Auburn are not at UK's level. Maybe they didn't have their best teams this season, but they are actually legit teams that have done something this decade and IMO have alot more talent to work with than UK.

I'll give you SC and MSU, neither of which are anything to brag about, but SC has a better and more experienced QB, and MSU is just better. Had they not have played probably the toughest schedule in the country, they are bowling as well IMO.

 

Hmmm wow I must not know much about football. I really didn't know that what you did in the past, automatically makes you a better football team than teams that don't have your history? Thanks for letting me learn something knew.

 

What happened in past years for teams MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR THE CURRENT SEASON! History does not win you a single thing in games. Yes as programs Georgia, UT have had better programs and will have better programs in the future at the rate each one of the teams are going compared to us. This season the and this season alone, those teams were basically at the same level as us. What those teams were in the past, means absolutely nothing this year when it comes to the team they put on the field, and the team they put on the field this year was at the same level as us. All five of those teams were and really could have gone either way in all 5 of those games, and we went 2 and 3 in those games.

The coach of the year will undoubtedly be the TCU coach IMO. He has done a great job out there.

Hmmm wow I must not know much about football. I really didn't know that what you did in the past, automatically makes you a better football team than teams that don't have your history? Thanks for letting me learn something knew.

 

What happened in past years for teams MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR THE CURRENT SEASON! History does not win you a single thing in games. Yes as programs Georgia, UT have had better programs and will have better programs in the future at the rate each one of the teams are going compared to us. This season the and this season alone, those teams were basically at the same level as us. What those teams were in the past, means absolutely nothing this year when it comes to the team they put on the field, and the team they put on the field this year was at the same level as us. All five of those teams were and really could have gone either way in all 5 of those games, and we went 2 and 3 in those games.

 

How about this? No one outside of the Bluegrass thinks that UK is on the same level this season as Tennessee. No one, call into the Herd or something else and ask. UK has garbage talent overall, I hate to admit it but it's the truth. Talentwise the only team you mentioned that is close to UK was Mississippi State. How many positions on this team are quality starters in the SEC? 4? How many SEC teams would Locke even start for? 3 or 4 at best?

 

They have the talent to win 5 games and they won 7 and THE COACHES kept them in every game except for one. They had a shot to win 9 regular season games, instead of only winning 7. Huge difference IMO. You make it sound like UK losing to MSU or Tennessee was a ground shaking upset. It wasn't. No one cared nationally. UK isn't relevant and shouldn't be, they aren't there yet.

 

I love UK, but give me a break man. I can see why other schools fans hate UK fans. The most unrealistic fan base in the world. :idunno:

^UK has better talent than you are giving them credit for.

 

I think Brooks and staff did a very good job this season.

No. And the disappointment statement was geared towards me futurecoach. And I still stand by my comment. A true coach of the year canidate would have won a couple more games!

Joker is the OC, those 2 are on him.........................

 

Who's over the staff?

 

If Brooks were sitting at 9-3, then I might say he did a heck of a job, but 7-5 isn't coach of the year standards.

^UK has better talent than you are giving them credit for.

 

I think Brooks and staff did a very good job this season.

 

Maybe so, but anyone that thinks this team is a 9 win team is off their rocker IMO. A frosh QB, and 7 wins for UK, I'll take that and anyone else would have too to start the season.

 

UK had a shot to beat MSU and UT, but instead of blaming the losses on the coaches, I think we should be happy that we have coaches that can take this team and actually have a shot to get to 8-10 wins in a season.

 

No. And the disappointment statement was geared towards me futurecoach. And I still stand by my comment. A true coach of the year canidate would have won a couple more games!

 

Once again, it wasn't at anyone in particular. I didn't even remember that you had said anything about it to be honest.

And I by no means think Brooks is the coach of the year. It's either Saban, BK, Chip Kelly or Patterson for me. But, Brooks and Co. did a nice job IMO this season.

How about this? No one outside of the Bluegrass thinks that UK is on the same level this season as Tennessee. No one, call into the Herd or something else and ask. UK has garbage talent overall, I hate to admit it but it's the truth. Talentwise the only team you mentioned that is close to UK was Mississippi State. How many positions on this team are quality starters in the SEC? 4? How many SEC teams would Locke even start for? 3 or 4 at best?

 

They have the talent to win 5 games and they won 7 and THE COACHES kept them in every game except for one. They had a shot to win 9 regular season games, instead of only winning 7. Huge difference IMO. You make it sound like UK losing to MSU or Tennessee was a ground shaking upset. It wasn't. No one cared nationally. UK isn't relevant and shouldn't be, they aren't there yet.

 

I love UK, but give me a break man. I can see why other schools fans hate UK fans. The most unrealistic fan base in the world. :idunno:

 

Dude you give me a break. See your thinking here shows me everything I need to know. I mean you are wrong in thinking that UK couldn't get up to a level where every so often that could really compete for the SEC.

 

I have a question for you. Do you think UC has more talent that UK? Do you think TCU has more talent than UK, or what about Utah, or even Boise? If you say yes, then how could our coaches let teams like that out recruit us. It is not like they have any more to sell about their programs than us. If you say no they don't have more talent, then how is it that teams like that end up being better than us, if they don't have as much talent? I mean teams like UC, TCU and I think even Boise would have done better this year than we have in conference. Those teams probably would have done better than we have in conference the last two years. So hmmm could it possibly be because of better coaching, and certain coaches being just the right fit to get their programs to take the next step.. Could is possibly be because the coaching they have makes it possible for them to be able to play with some of the best teams in the nation? All these teams have been able to do it, but you say I am crazy for thinking UK can too? I mean its either one of those two things, those guys recruit better players than us, which is a problem. Of those guys are just better coaches, which is also a problem. So please don't act like I am crazy for thinking that a possible change after Brooks retires, could lead to UK possibly making that next step. Now would UK be able to go undefeated like those teams have while playing in the SEC. Yeah probably not, but if they could even get to being as good as those teams, they could get to the point where they could on some years only lose one or two games in the conference. Which could lead to a possibility of playing in a SEC title game.

 

So you are barking up the wrong tree here saying that I am being unrealistic. There is no reason at all not to think that UK can do it. Teams across the country have shown that it is very possible to do. If anything I think I am one of the few being realistic in thinking that UK can do better in football here soon, and not just stay at this same 3 wins a year in the SEC level. It just possibly would take a new coach once Brooks retires. Once again look at that last sentence. I said once Brooks retires. I am not wanting to get rid of Brooks, the guy deserves to be here as long as he wants for the job he did here. I keep talking about when he retires.

Who's over the staff?

 

If Brooks were sitting at 9-3, then I might say he did a heck of a job, but 7-5 isn't coach of the year standards.

 

I agree. A win over Tennessee and South Carolina and it might be possible. An upset over either Florida/Bama would almost be necessary as well.

Dude you give me a break. See your thinking here shows me everything I need to know. I mean you are wrong in thinking that UK couldn't get up to a level where every so often that could really compete for the SEC.

 

I have a question for you. Do you think UC has more talent that UK? Do you think TCU has more talent than UK, or what about Utah, or even Boise? If you say yes, then how could our coaches let teams like that out recruit us. It is not like they have any more to sell about their programs than us. If you say no they don't have more talent, then how is it that teams like that end up being better than us, if they don't have as much talent? I mean teams like UC, TCU and I think even Boise would have done better this year than we have in conference. Those teams probably would have done better than we have in conference the last two years. So hmmm could it possibly be because of better coaching, and certain coaches being just the right fit to get their programs to take the next step.. Could is possibly be because the coaching they have makes it possible for them to be able to play with some of the best teams in the nation? All these teams have been able to do it, but you say I am crazy for thinking UK can too? I mean its either one of those two things, those guys recruit better players than us, which is a problem. Of those guys are just better coaches, which is also a problem. So please don't act like I am crazy for thinking that a possible change after Brooks retires, could lead to UK possibly making that next step. Now would UK be able to go undefeated like those teams have while playing in the SEC. Yeah probably not, but if they could even get to being as good as those teams, they could get to the point where they could on some years only lose one or two games in the conference. Which could lead to a possibility of playing in a SEC title game.

 

So you are barking up the wrong tree here saying that I am being unrealistic. There is no reason at all not to think that UK can do it. Teams across the country have shown that it is very possible to do. If anything I think I am one of the few being realistic in thinking that UK can do better in football here soon, and not just stay at this same 3 wins a year in the SEC level. It just possibly would take a new coach once Brooks retires. Once again look at that last sentence. I said once Brooks retires. I am not wanting to get rid of Brooks, the guy deserves to be here as long as he wants for the job he did here. I keep talking about when he retires.

 

None of those teams mentioned are in the SEC. Makes a big difference. The powers of the SEC may rotate, but they do not change. Too tough.

 

UC has more talent than UK. They recruit Ohio, something UK just is never going to do. More talent in greater Cincy than there is all of Kentucky.

 

TCU is not really more talented. They have better starters IMO, but they don't have extreme depth so it's probably about even. But, they have to bring their A game alot less often that UK and I don't see how you cannot see that.

 

Boise has talent, they get alot of the players over looked by Pac-10 schools, and Utah has a great pipeline with Juco's and players on the West coast.

 

But, UK is in the SEC and that is the main factor, to go along with all of the other ones I have stated.

 

Yes, they can build a team that can challenge for the SEC, but it's insane to expect it IMO. Crying about UK only winning 7 games at UK shows why UK will never be legit IMO.

 

You're missing what Brooks and Co. are doing. They are building a team that can do that. This years team was no good, and there is no way around it. You aren't going to win all your close games with only one offensive weapon and basically no QB. Just doesn't work like that. Look at all of the talent OU had this year, and they couldn't get it done with a guy many think has an extremely bright future.

 

As for me being wrong, when UK actually wins the SEC or even the SEC East, I'll eat my crow. Until then if one of us is wrong, history and common sense tell us that it is you.:idunno:

Yes UK won seven games, but seriously lets look at who the 7 wins came against.

 

Miami, Oh- Bad Team

Louisville- Bad Team

Louisiana Monroe- Bad Team

Eastern Kentucky- Bad Team

Vanderbilt- Bad Team

Record against them 5-0

 

Auburn- Above Average team basically same as UK level this year

Georgia- Average team this season, basically same as UK level this year

Mississippi St.- Average team, basically same as UK level this year

South Carolina- Average team, basically same as UK level this year

Tennessee- Average team, basically same as UK level this year

Record against them 2-3

 

Florida- Great team

Alabama- Great team

record against them 0-2

 

So yes 7 wins in a season is good for this program. However there was 5 games this year that we played just bad teams, so thats 5 wins we should have anyways. That means only would have had 2 win two more games to get to that 7 win season. So its not like getting to 7 wins was that hard this year for them. They had 5 other games that they basically this season were at the same level as, and they went 2 and 3 in those games. Then obviously 0 and 2 against the two great teams they played. My point lets not act like we really overachieved this year. There was 5 real bad teams we played this year, and 5 teams at our level. So seeing how this season played out, its not like this team overachieved. This team basically stayed at the same level they have been at the last few years. No better, no worst.

 

Listen I am not going to argue with you about Florida, but I have news for you: outside of the state of Kentucky, not many could name more than ten players on Kentucky's roster. They simply aren't relevant in football, it's extremely impressive for the Cats to have made four straight bowl appearances and win three of them, with a fourth possible. I don't know why you are disillusioned into thinking that Kentucky is a sleeping giant, that is capable of winning 10 games year in year out, but no one-and I mean NO ONE outside of UK fans think that way. Heck, most Kentucky football fans are realistic and don't think they can compete for a league title. The greatest season in 30 years was two years ago, and they won 8 games. Come on, get real, Kentucky isn't a relevant team in the grand scheme of things. That's not a slight on Kentucky, it's simply not a prime spot for talent, so they can't depend on KY kids, and they can't compete with Florida, Ohio State, Miami, Georgia, Alabama, USC, LSU, and Texas for kids, so they have to take 2 and 3 stars. No team is going to win the SEC with that caliber of players, it's just too strong of a league.

None of those teams mentioned are in the SEC. Makes a big difference. The powers of the SEC may rotate, but they do not change. Too tough.

 

UC has more talent than UK. They recruit Ohio, something UK just is never going to do. More talent in greater Cincy than there is all of Kentucky.

 

TCU is not really more talented. They have better starters IMO, but they don't have extreme depth so it's probably about even. But, they have to bring their A game alot less often that UK and I don't see how you cannot see that.

 

Boise has talent, they get alot of the players over looked by Pac-10 schools, and Utah has a great pipeline with Juco's and players on the West coast.

 

But, UK is in the SEC and that is the main factor, to go along with all of the other ones I have stated.

 

Yes, they can build a team that can challenge for the SEC, but it's insane to expect it IMO. Crying about UK only winning 7 games at UK shows why UK will never be legit IMO.

 

You're missing what Brooks and Co. are doing. They are building a team that can do that. This years team was no good, and there is no way around it. You aren't going to win all your close games with only one offensive weapon and basically no QB. Just doesn't work like that. Look at all of the talent OU had this year, and they couldn't get it done with a guy many think has an extremely bright future.

 

As for me being wrong, when UK actually wins the SEC or even the SEC East, I'll eat my crow. Until then if one of us is wrong, history and common sense tell us that it is you.:idunno:

 

You seem to think that I said this team should have competed for the SEC crown this year. Did I ever say that no I didn't. Have I ever said what Brooks has done here is bad? Have I said get rid of him? Did I see that this season was a disappointment? No I did not. I said this year was an average year, it was not a great accomplishment, but it was not horrible either. It was an average year, the same as it has been the last few years. You talk about this team just being bad, but at this current direction we are in. Do you see this team getting much better than what we have now? I know I dont see that, so I see a lot of this same 3 win a year in the SEC continuing. How exactly is that going in the right direction to possibly competiting for the SEC crown. I know "common sense" tells me that just getting 3 SEC wins a year does not mean you are working your way up to possibly competing for the SEC.

 

You keep talking about well they are in the SEC. Well you are right they are in the SEC. Which also could be used as a recruiting advantage over teams like UC, TCU, Boise, etc. Or I guess I should say use to be able to be used as advantage before those teams did what they had to do to take the next step. Yeah UC has greater Cincinnati, but I don't know if you realized this but Lexington is only an hour away from Cincinnati. You talked about Florida and teams like that having their pipeline to choose from. Well from your statement, you really can't get kids if they are over an hour away from you.

 

If you looked at what I said, I even said if UK was at the same place UC, TCU and them were at they might not be able to undefeated like they have since UK is in the SEC. However they could go through the SEC in some years with just 1 or 2 SEC losses, which could land them in the SEC Championship game. I have never said that UK would be able to go undefeated like those teams have. However I do believe UK could get as good as those teams have, and that would mean they could do better than what they currently do in the SEC. TCU if they were in the SEC this year, definitely does better than UK and maybe only 2 losses in the SEC if that. UC if they were in the SEC definitely does better than UK, and once again maybe only 2 losses if that. Same could be said for Boise, they might get 3 SEC losses but still would have done better than UK. Then you have Utah who has put together teams within the last 5 years, who also would have done better in the SEC than UK has.

 

So your telling me I am crazy for thinking that UK couldn't do what those teams did, and be as good as those teams are? UK very well could get to that level that those teams are at. Instead of being undefeated like those teams, UK might have one or two losses since they were in the SEC. However they definitely could get to that level. So common sense tells me you are wrong for thinking that they couldn't. Just like with those programs, it does take the right coach to come in and get that team to the next step. Which I think could happen, if UK looked around after Brooks retires. I really don't see why it is so crazy to think that couldn't happen. If those teams could put together teams like that, then no reason why UK couldn't with the right coach in place like those teams have.