Still not sure what to make of UK game performance

My initial reaction was to be really pissed about how competitive it was, feeling like Mullen is just not getting the job done. Like a lot of others, I saw it as a second game in a row that was too close versus a team we had out-manned.

But as I look at UK's other results, it seems clear our stats are very similar to what you see from their games versus Louisville, UF & SCar. Really, the only time they appear to have been beaten worse was by Bama, a team that has done nearly the same or worse to 6 other teams this year.

So, here I sit, still frustrated and questioning whether Mullen is the right guy right now, but also intellectually recognizing that I may need to take a deep breath and try harder to look at it objectively. I'm just not thinking the UK game is the "barometer of success" (or lack thereof) that I at first thought it was.

Yes, Mullen had 2 weeks to prepare, but then, so did UK. That's a wash, as far as I'm concerned. And the more I consider things like the big momentum shift that occurred when the refs missed the facemask on the Prescott sack, the more I'm inclined to give Mullen a pass on this game. 21-10 and still driving late in the 3rd Q is a whole different ballgame than 21-12 and having to watch Bell let us down yet again with that horrible free-kick, giving them great field position.

Part of me in very concerned we're gonna miss out on the right guy as HC if we keep waiting for Mullen to show us something more. But perhaps a bigger part is feeling like he gets to stay if he at least beats Arky & Ole Miss, adn is competitive versus SCar, aTm, & Bama. I might could even stomach one more not-so-pretty loss to Bama. But a loss to either Arky or Ole Miss, or 2 ugly losses in 3 of the others will probably seal-the-deal for me.

I'm guessing that's probably how a whole bunch of us feel right now. Where am I wrong?

pretty much how I feel too. UK and BG games had absolutely no effect on my opinion. The next 5 are what's going to make up my mind.

UK will give Mizzu all they want in Lexington in 2 weeks. and they will win one sec game (Mizzu, Tenn or Vandy)
No they aren't very good but I think they are very well coached and have a good front four..

Additionally, our losses are to now #11 (a game we should have won), #13 LSU (a game we Bulldog fans know was actually very competitive before the wheels suddenly came off), and #19 Ok State, in a pre-Prescott-gets-first-team-snaps-and-we game-plan-with-him-in-mind game.

Yes, Mullen has made some big mistakes, IMO, but he is also responsible for getting us in a position to be competitive for the most part. What coaches in our entire history, aside from McKeen & Sherrill have done that more than once or twice in their tenure?

Don't get me wrong, I am not satisfied with where we are. I need to feel like we are on the right track, and right now it doesn't feel like it. It feels like we were, then got off the rails too quickly. Mullen needs to show he has us back on the rails again, which means finishing this season strong.

Pretty close to how I feel. The only thing I would add is offensive problems in the 2nd half of games and being stubborn about Bell have me worried. Those 2 things are the difference in losing to Aub and losing to LSU.

Every game we've played this year except for OSU and Troy fit into one box:

Solid 1st half except for letting the opponent score to in the half. Total suck in the 2nd half. Wash, rinse, repeat.

I like what was posted elsewhere here...focus on finishing the 1st half and that gives us a better attitude to play the 2nd half.

We need above average coaching and competitive recruiting to compete because we lack a bunch of the goodies the other SEC schools have. Stans never was a great coach but up until the last few years survived on recruiting. When his recruiting faltered he was dead meat. Mullen had a good run with some surprisingly good talent and leadership he inherited from (gulp) Croom. I`m afraid Mullen`s vanilla recruiting will eventually get him because he is a very average coach. That combo is lethal to a coach`s career at MSU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacklistedbully

Additionally, our losses are to now #11 (a game we should have won), #13 LSU (a game we Bulldog fans know was actually very competitive before the wheels suddenly came off), and #19 Ok State, in a pre-Prescott-gets-first-team-snaps-and-we game-plan-with-him-in-mind game.

Yes, Mullen has made some big mistakes, IMO, but he is also responsible for getting us in a position to be competitive for the most part. What coaches in our entire history, aside from McKeen & Sherrill have done that more than once or twice in their tenure?

Don't get me wrong, I am not satisfied with where we are. I need to feel like we are on the right track, and right now it doesn't feel like it. It feels like we were, then got off the rails too quickly. Mullen needs to show he has us back on the rails again, which means finishing this season strong.

---

This is ONE of my major concerns. We have seen this far to many times! Way to many, woulda, coulda, should moments.

Mullen has produced at an acceptable level objectively. The problem is the "unforced errors" that this team is making, particularly in the 2nd half.

Just in the end of the 1st half and 2nd half against KY:

1. Nickoe - 30 yards of penalties. = unforced error

2. False start by our center - unforced error

3. False start by one of the other linemen = unforced error

4. Missed field goal = unforced error

5. Dropped punt = unforced error

6. Not calling the right protection on the Dak face mask sack = unforced error

The point is that most of this stuff has NOTHING to do with the other team and nothing to do with making schematic adjustments. If we can just clean it up and stop shooting ourselves in the foot, our 2nd have problems will be reduced dramatically.

You could tell on the onside kick where KY was offsides that our team lacks focus and leadership in the 2nd half. If the coaches can improve or fix this part of the problem, we will be much much better.

I know I will be attacked on this, but I. Think Mullen's recruiting has been good the last year or two and is for this year....if we hang on to them. Now don't ask me for a list of recruits, etc.....I am just not into that much detail. Just my feeling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AROB44

I know I will be attacked on this, but I. Think Mullen's recruiting has been good the last year or two and is for this year....if we hang on to them. Now don't ask me for a list of recruits, etc.....I am just not into that much detail. Just my feeling.

---

We certainly aren't going to be ranked high in recruiting, but he has been filling some holes and getting what we need.

Additionally, we are taking less projects on the offensive line. Say what you want, but private school linemen are less of projects because they are smarter and likely already have better technique than some of the "more talented" public school kids that have no idea what to do and lack the IQ and aptitude to learn.

Malone, Rawlings, and Clayborn have higher prospect FLOORS than we have been taking in the past, and thus less risky.

Recruiting rankings and stars are all about ranking players in order of their ceilings as players. However, what they fail to account for most of the time is the floor of the prospect. We can really capitalize on recruiting prospects that are 3 stars, but have a high floor because they already have solid technique, have higher IQs, and play in high school offenses that have allowed them to develop their games for the college level.

By doing this, we may lack the top end 1st round type O-lineman, but we'll have tons of quality depth, and sometimes guys over perform their talent level and reach higher statuses.

This will not be popular, but all I see by looking at UK's results against us and other teams is that either A. We are not very good to nearly lose to that 1 win team...or B. Kentucky is closing the gap against the good teams on their schedule better than we are right now. And both of those are concerning as hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShotgunDawg

We certainly aren't going to be ranked high in recruiting, but he has been filling some holes and getting what we need.

Additionally, we are taking less projects on the offensive line. Say what you want, but private school linemen are less of projects because they are smarter and likely already have better technique than some of the "more talented" public school kids that have no idea what to do and lack the IQ and aptitude to learn.

Malone, Rawlings, and Clayborn have higher prospect FLOORS than we have been taking in the past, and thus less risky.

Recruiting rankings and stars are all about ranking players in order of their ceilings as players. However, what they fail to account for most of the time is the floor of the prospect. We can really capitalize on recruiting prospects that are 3 stars, but have a high floor because they already have solid technique, have higher IQs, and play in high school offenses that have allowed them to develop their games for the college level.

By doing this, we may lack the top end 1st round type O-lineman, but we'll have tons of quality depth, and sometimes guys over perform their talent level and reach higher statuses.

---

This reminds me of the '91 Liberty Bowl loss to Air Force. We were much bigger & stronger, yet their small O-line dominated the trenches. Those little bastards were smart and had great technique.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacklistedbully

This reminds me of the '91 Liberty Bowl loss to Air Force. We were much bigger & stronger, yet their small O-line dominated the trenches. Those little bastards were smart and had great technique.

---

Exactly, there are opportunities in recruiting if you have a system set up to take advantage of them.

For example: Who has a greater chance of performing like a 4 star in college? A high risk 4 star recruit or a low risk/high floor 3 star? Most teams recruit the high risk 4 star (Damien Robinson) instead of the low risk/high floor player (Jamal Clayborn), and therein-lies the opportunity "money ball" style of recruiting that we can be successful with if we think and set up our board that way.

Bump

The problem with the samller guys is, while they can compete with the big boys on any given day, they typically can't do it week-after-week in the SEC. The physical beatings become too much, plus they come up against SEC elite teams that are both technically superior AND huge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacklistedbully

The problem with the samller guys is, while they can compete with the big boys on any given day, they typically can't do it week-after-week in the SEC. The physical beatings become too much, plus they come up against SEC elite teams that are both technically superior AND huge.

---

This is true, but with the zone blocking schemes and spread offenses of today, I would rather have guys that are smart and know what they are doing. Plus, with Clayborn, Rawlings, and Malone, I don't think we are giving up size to do it. We may be just giving up speed or projection.

We were much more talented than KY, its just the little things. Our staff must focus on the basics. I like our chances the rest of the way. We just have to tackle better, stay focused.

If you look at the private school OLine guys we have been getting, they aren't small and after a redshirt year begin to put on weight and get better and are ready by their redshirt sophomore season. If we build depth like that on the OLine, we will be fine. Tunsil IMO is the exception of what Ole Miss got not the rule. Our OLine will be better in the long run then theirs. Just wait and see.