5wide

I seriously doubt it. I wouldn't rule it out completely thought. It would have to be a perfect storm, IMO. That would include what swamprat stated, along with the losses for the other teams being to the right opponents and at the right times. Even then, I'm not sure that would be enough, but at the least it would take that much.

Nobody knows how these guys will turn out in college. But, a consensus 4-star QB from a football state like Texas, and a borderline 4-star guy who won Mr. Football in Indiana is a pretty strong haul for UK at the QB position...and, both were outside of the friendly borders of the bluegrass. Recent recruiting.... Florida 2009 - Jordan Reed, QB (New London, CT) - 4 Star 2007 - Cameron Newton, QB (Atlanta, GA) - 5 Star 2007 - John Brantley, QB (Ocala, FL) - 4 Star Tebow entrenched as starter. LSU 2009 - Russell Shephard, QB (Houston, TX) - 5 Star 2008 - Jordan Jefferson, QB (Destrehan, LA) - 4 Star 2007 - Jarrett Lee, QB (Brenham, TX) - 4 Star Alabama 2009 - AJ McCarron, QB (Mobile, AL) - 4 Star 2008 - Star Jackson, QB (Lake Worth, FL) - 4 Star In addition, they had McElroy as an experienced upper classmen ready to start. Oklahoma 2008 - Landry Jones, QB (Artesia, NM) - 4 Star 2007 - Keith Nichol, QB (Lowell, MI) - 4 Star Bradford entrenched as starter. Texas 2009 - Garrett Gilbert, QB (Austin, TX) - 5 Star Colt McCoy entrenched as starter. At those other schools, they had no chance to play early, and they're likely going to be on the bench behind highly touted guys who are older and more experienced than them. At UK, you're competing with Hartline, Fidler and Matt Lentz (is he still on the roster?). Those guys had an opportunity to get playing time early for an SEC team that has won three straight bowl games. Even if they don't play immediately, there's a good chance, IMO, that one of those two guys will be UK's starting QB when the 2010 season kicks off. Don't underestimate the appeal that has. Additionally, there are so many good high school football players these days, there's no way the recruiting gurus can watch them all enough to get it right all the time. Some are better than expected and some are worse. The Florida's and Texas's and LSU's of the world do generally get their picks. But, there's only so many QB's they can take, and once they get a couple of good ones, it lowers their ability to get more. That leaves some high quality guys on UK's radar. UK just has to keep putting together winning seasons. Keep identifying talent among the lesser known recruits and continue to develop the guys you do get. Playing at UK will continue to grow more attractive if they do those things. The fact that they landed two quality recruits at QB outside of the state shows that the recruiting is getting better and that the potential is there. But, if you just want us to admit that UK is behind the eight ball when it comes to recruiting and competing against the traditional national powers that reside in the SEC, so be it. However, I anxiously await the thread belittling UK fans for using the SEC as an excuse for their current status as a football program.:thumb:

UK has two solid freshman QB's on the roster right now in Ryan Mossakowski and Morgan Newton. Mossakowski is from Texas and he received a 4-star rating from both Scout and Rivals. Newton was Mr. Football in Indiana, I believe, and got a 4-star rating from Scout and a 3-star from Rivals. I think it my be a little early to start shoveling dirt on UK under Rich Brooks because they've had to struggle with Hartline for a couple of seasons. Why don't we wait and see how those two guys progress? Building this football program is a process, and it's not always going to be wine and roses. What I like is that even with Hartline last season, UK finished 7-6 with a bowl win, and they have a chance to do that again this year. In the past, if we had an inept offense and a QB like Hartline, we'd be lucky to win 3 games and we wouldn't even have the hope of a bowl game. That, in itself, is proof that Brooks has significantly upgraded the talent and depth of our roster. On top of that, HT721 is exactly right. UK just has to keep winning football games. We need to keep winning bowl games and keep the momentum going forward. UK doesn't have the tradition to absorb a bad season or two like a speed bump the way traditional powers like Michigan and OSU can...they need to keep it going and keep attracting better recruits. There are guys who will choose a rising program like UK because it offers them an opportunity to play earlier in their career. That's why they need to keep winning.

^You deal for a guy like Edwards when you think he's the missing piece to put you over the top. In NY, he may very well be. If they get the good Edwards, the weakest link on the Jets roster might be their rookie QB. Has a rookie ever won a Super Bowl? I'm almost positive there's never been one that's started from Day One and lead his team to a title. Sanchez has the best chance of that that I've ever seen. The Jets have the perfect roster to help their rookie QB. Good line, good backs, and a strong defense. Now they have a big time playmaker at WR to pair with the underrated Jerricho Cotchery and the talented TE Dustin Keller...and don't forget Leon Washington's versatility. He provides a solid option in the passing game as well. I really, really like this team. They shouldn't lose again until they go to Foxbourough in about 6 weeks or so.

My first thought was, "Where is Crompton on this list?" As I've said before, Tennessee is the only team in the conference that would probably trade QB's with us. :scared: This could be the year we beat them. We're never going to catch them with a worse QB.

They could be the subjects of Dan Brown's next book. :lol:

The Mustard Seeds would like to send a big thank you to the St. Louis Rams and Kyle Boller for helping us pull this one out. I lost about 5 or 6 games like this in my money league last year. I scored the second most points in a 10 team league and finished 3-10. I can empathize.

I agree. New England was top 5 or 6 in rushing last year. They just won't run it when Brady is playing. But, they are capable. I say say it's not that NE can't run it, it's that they won't.

I'm not sure about the offense. They keep playing well. I'm not sold on them yet, but they're making a strong case. But, I definitely expected the defense to take a hit this year with the departure of Ryan and the three guys he took to New York with him. Bart Scott was a big part of the defense. Not to mention, they said goodbye to McAlister and Rolle at the corners. And, on top of that, you're right. Many of the key guys are getting some gray in their beards.

He might play better in New York. Don't forget that this guy amassed over 1500 yards and 15 TD's just two seasons ago. He's a talent. If the Jets can't get it out of him, they and the Giants might be the favorites to reach the Super Bowl.

:thumb: The Trojans will roll. Notre Dame simply isn't good enough to beat them. USC already laid its egg for the season, and that's what it would take for them to lose this game. Joe McKnight might be the Heisman frontrunner after a game against the Irish defense.

The rule says you can't hit him in the head. Ngata hit him in the head.

:lol: Griffey hasn't been Griffey since the late '90's. And, he played at a low level (by his standards) for the majority of this decade. I'm not sure how playing a few more seasons is going to tarnish his legacy. If he enjoys playing, then he should keep playing.

How do we define "playing with"? Because, I don't see UK being able to physically match up with the elite SEC teams. We're getting closer, but those teams have so much speed and athleticism, it just makes for tough matchups somewhere on the field. But, the biggest problem right now, IMO, is depth. We can't absorb key injuries and losses the way many SEC schools can. And, we can't keep our guys as fresh during games because we don't have the quality of depth that others have. I think we're getting there, but we're not quite there yet.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing about the specific call on Brady. But, that's an officiating issue, not a rules issue. I like the rule. It's up to the officials to implement it correctly. As for asking these guys to change the way they play, I have no sympathy. Healthy QB's generate more revenue, so ultimately every player benefits from keeping them in the game. They can use the extra money that the Brady's and Manning's of the world generate to pay the fines they get for illegal hits.

Is there a question about whether that was a called draw? It didn't look like a designed play to me. It looked like Carson saw the opening, knew the situation and made a play to get a fresh set of downs. And, you're right about Carson. He's as important as any player in the league to his team.

The Ravens were upset at the officiating yesterday in their loss to New England... http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nfl/news/story?id=4531578 So, what do you think? Do you like the rules that protect NFL QB's or not? I understand how defensive players get frustrated in the heat of a game. But, these guys have to keep in mind that the NFL is as much about business, perhaps more, as it is about sport. The obvious point is that QB's have to stand in the pocket and take those big shots, often in a defenseless position, to play their position. They need some protection. Just like WR's need some protection. The game has evolved to a point where the guys are so fast, athletic and physical, that the possibility for serious injury is greater, IMO. But, here's the real reason why they get protected, and why they should be protected, IMO. Money. Check the ratings. QB's sell. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are the poster boys for the NFL and they have been for most of this decade. Take them away, and not only do their teams suffer, but the league suffers in every aspect. QB's cost the most money. Arguably, the good ones may be the only guys that are worth the money they get paid. So first, owners want that investment protected. QB's bring in the most viewers and fans. So second, in addition to owners, everyone else who profits from the NFL (ESPN, Fox, CBS, etc.) want the QB's healthy. But, not only should those guys want it, but the very defensive players that are complaining should want it. If you protect these QB's, keep them healthy, the league gets even more competitive, and makes even more money. More money for the league equals more money for the players, and ultimately that gets spread around. A healthy Brady, Manning, Favre, Ryan, Big Ben, etc., generates more revenue for the league and the teams. Personally, I like the rules that protect the QB. I infinitely enjoy watching New England more with Brady than I did with Cassell. I'm not a Colts, nor a Peyton Manning fan, but I like to watch him play. Needless to say, I wouldn't watch the Colts at all if Jim Sorgi were under center. The more good QB's, the better the league is and everyone benefits by keeping them healthy.

Florida State Ohio State That's pretty much it for me. I have a few favorites. With the rest, it generally depends on whether they have players I like or dislike. For example, I don't dislike LSU, but I'm not a big Les Miles fan, so I generally don't want them to win at this point in time.

Personally, I'd prefer Tuberville over Fulmer.

You can look at this game in two ways. One, the Bengals played worse than expected and nearly lost to a bad team. Or, two, the Bengals played bad and still found a way to get a win on the road. Considering that the Bengals offense is still trying to find some consistency, and the team as a whole is still in the process of developing chemistry and an identity, I'll take the latter. If I were a Bengals fan, I'd be a little frustrated that they didn't play better, but ultimately, they won the game. They aren't to the point where you can pencil in wins, and for them to get one on the road in a week that they played poorly is huge, IMO. Carson continues to deliver in the clutch and I think those performances are going to give him and the team confidence. I think you can play looser when you know your QB can make the plays at the end to win games.

Ricky Watters was the first guy that came to my mind. He was an awesome dual-threat back in his prime. A tough inside runner with quick feet and great hands. The 'Niners always seemed to have a guy like that for a while with Craig and then Watters. Just under 15000 yards from scrimmage and 91 TD's.

I think LT will start delivering some production after the bye week. The Steelers were a bad matchup, but I did think he looked healthy in the few carries he had. To be honest, the Chargers offensive line worries me more than Tomlinson. I think he's healthy and he can still run effectively. He just doesn't have the guys up front to help him out.

I checked my lineup about 5 or 5:30 and I was trailing by about 20 or so. I figured I'd be lucky to win with the matchups, but Gates and the 49ers went off. The 'Niners defense is one pick that worked out better than I could have imagined. The one and only reason I picked them was because they played the Rams on the Eagles bye week. And, they delivered 39 points on 3 TD's, a shutout and 5 sacks. Sweet. I'll take it.

I agree with you. I felt like a 5-6 game suspension (about half a season) would have fit the crime.

Let's also not overlook the fact that teams like the Red Sox and Yankees have realized that you can't just buy the best free agents and win championships. These teams have invested a lot of money in scouting and minor league development in recent years. So, in addition to being able to buy big free agents, they are now producing players in their farm system. That turns into a future starter, or some needed help in a mid-season trade. I view this similar to the Xavier and Trinity argument in KY high school football. Those teams have an advantage with the numbers, but that advantage is magnified because they do things the right way. Same with the Sox and Yanks. They're well run organizations with a lot of money and resources at their disposal.