UL Vs. UK - PostGame Analysis

It would have been a much more entertaining game for me if UL had won. As an uninterested party, I would have really enjoyed it. Football weather. Under the lights (I love night games). Dance team right in front of my section. Maybe not that great in the stands. I guess I'm spoiled because my seat at Cardinal Stadium is a chairback (all the seats at Cardinal Stadium are chairbacks) which is a lot more comfortable than the metal bleachers of death at Commonwealth Stadium. Side note: I followed UL to Kansas State last year, and KSU still uses wooden bleachers which are also more comfortable than metal ones. Upkeep is probably harder is the reason people don't use them. One nice thing being in the visitor's section of Commonwealth is that they are on the end zone, and the bathrooms don't have long lines. Actually, I always find it humorous being in that section of Commonwealth. Visitors get tickets in the NW corner of the stadium, because those aren't seen as premium seats. Yet, we get the same angle view as the people who paid a lot of money to get a luxury suite since UK put those in the corners.

Unfortunately, my concern over UL's defense was greatly justified. As I mentioned in my preview, the players and coaches haven't changed much, but something is different. There has to be something in the scheme, because UL should not have dropped off this much in that area. There's little things like the defensive line shot the gaps to get penetration last year. Now, they initiate contact with the offensive line. That style can work if your linebackers are penetrating the line. It doesn't work if you don't blitz on pass plays or your back seven are routinely out of position. That's the most irritating problem with this defense - guys not seeming to know where they are supposed to be. Last week, Middle Tennessee had a 52 yard pass play because no UL defensive back went with the wide receiver who split out wide. MTSU didn't even have a passing play, but switched to one because there was no one within 30 yards of the guy. This week, UK wins the game on a 57 yard pass to a receiver who was 10 yards beyond a prevent defense. I have no idea how the Hell that could happen.

As to the rest of the game, my worst fear came through. I don't think UL's new coach, Steve Kragthorpe, is very good. To put it in perspective, I thought UK coach Rich Brooks made some stunningly bad decisions. When the option is not your base offense, you should never run it on a 4th and one because you're putting your running back too far behind the line of scrimmage. UK scored a touchdown with less than a minute left to take a five point lead. UK kicked a meaningless extra point instead of going for two for a seven point lead. I haven't seen the tape yet, but apparently UK kept switching their kickoff return men which kills consistency. Yet, even with all that, Brooks clearly outcoached Kragthorpe.

The smartest thing that Brooks did was having Andre Woodson take a three step drop and throw quickly. Since UL wasn't blitzing or trying to shoot gaps, it made for a quick play so that that UK's inexperience on the offensive line was negated. UL never adjusted their defense to that. I'm not sure they ever blitzed. For some reason, UL also kept their cornerbacks well off the receivers at the line of scrimmage (about 10 yards). UK receivers simply went downfield 8 yards and caught a pass. This means Woodson only averaged 9 yards per completion (by contrast Brian Brohm had 13) even with that 57 yard touchdown pass. In fact, outside of that pass, I'm not sure Woodson had another completion more than 15 yards. Why would he since UL was going to let him throw 7 and 8 yard passes to wide open receivers? An average quarterback could do that, so why was UL giving that opportunity to an above average one?

I might have been OK with the poor defensive coaching, because Kragthorpe's specialty is offense. Supposedly. Let's see how that went. UK gave up 124 yards to Kent State's running back last week. In the first half. UL made no real effort to establish the run. Even though Anthony Allen had two rushes that went for less than 4 yards in the first half, he only got 9 carries. UL had a 2 to 1 pass ration against a poor run defense. That's insane. Even when passing, they kept calling deep passes. To begin with, that puts your quarterback in danger because he's holding the ball too long waiting for the receiver to get separation. Secondly, it's low percentage. Add to it some really dumb decisions. Going for the touchdown on 4th and goal from the one makes sense. Going for it from the six when you're only down five with over nine minutes left is flat stupid. However, the worst was using two timeouts on UL's last touchdown and the follow up two point try. UL had a two yard run right up the gut for the touchdown and tried a fade pass for the conversion attempt. Not exactly the type plays you need to use a timeout to set up. Timeouts that would have certainly been handy when they got the ball back at the end.

Let's see how well I did on the preview. Obviously had the winner wrong. I was right when it came to my concern about coaching. As expected, both quarterbacks played well. Anthony Allen and Rafael Little actually averaged about the same yards per carry, but UK was smart enough to establish the run. What a concept. You have a good running back. Use him. I wonder if UL would have done different if Brock Bolen and Sergio Spencer had played. At receiver, Harry Douglas was clearly the best receiver on the field. Mario Urrutia was not. He doesn't drop three (at least) passes (including one on the two yard line), it's a different game. Ironically, Keenan Burton wasn't the big play receiver I feared. He did a good job moving the ball, but Steve Johnson was the big play guy (although it's easy to get open when no one actually guards you). Tough to tell on offensive line. UL's was actually fine. They gave up three sacks, but it was usually Brohm holding the ball too long. On most plays, he had all day. Woodson got the ball out so quickly, the UK line wasn't tested.

What does it mean for the future? UK should be in good shape for the rest of the year. LSU and Florida look out of reach. I guarantee that Arkansas will run the ball against UK, so that could be a problem. Georgia and South Carolina are on the road so that could be an issue. However, Mississippi State, Vandy and even Tennessee look beatable. Win those, take care of Florida Atlantic, and pull off one more upset, you've got 8 wins. As for UL, I have no idea. If I had just seen the box score of the game, I wouldn't be bothered so much. UK played well. They got turnovers while UL didn't. Turnovers are game changers. Yet, watching the game, I cannot get over how unorganized UL's team looks this year compared to last year's. The defense was actually better compared to MTSU even with the last blown coverage. Still, I don't think UK is as good as West Virginia, Rutgers or even South Florida. Hell, Cincinnati even looks tough. If UL doesn't fix some of their game management problems, they could be in trouble.