It's not that bad, Archer says

[FatCatDaddy]

DEFENSIVE COACH: LAST-PLACE LABEL MISLEADING
Kentucky defensive coordinator Mike Archer has seen the statistics, and he knows what they say: That he's in charge of the worst defense in Division I-A.

Yet he's not buying it.

Archer went into the season expected to field an improved unit, and he's still not giving up on those expectations.

"I still know we're better," Archer said. "Even though the stats don't show it, I know we're better. As coaches, we've all seen it in practice. It just doesn't show on the field, and that's very frustrating right now."

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/sports/15785086.htm

[Mr. T]

Now THIS is why Archer needs to be gone. He is just plain in denial. Guess what buddy, we all see it too and the defense lets good teams and bad teams alike blow through em like they weren't even there.

Oh and per his quote in the article to "blame him"..... don't worry we are.

[Art Vandelay]

If Brooks cared anything about winning football games, he'd fire Archer now - especially after these ridiculous comments.

[MercerTitans]

I don't see how this can misleading...DEAD LAST IS DEADS LAST, folks. Doesn't get any more cut-and-dried than that.

[VIIBanners]

The organization of the D is my problem. How in the heck can you expect to stop anyone with 10 frickin' men on the field for what seemed like half the game. I swear, my defense in high school didn't have as many miscues and confusion the whole year as the Cats had at LSU alone.

That is a coaching thing IMO.

[WildcatGirl]

It's not that bad??? Who does he think he's kidding? If he thinks last isn't that bad, then perhaps it explains his lack of effort to produce results. As the saying goes, admitting you have a problem is the first step. Hard to fix what you are still denying is broken. I believe these players deserve better leadership than someone who thinks last place isn't that bad.

[catfanintn]

Not like it's bad in ONE area - we're not in the top 100 on 1) rushing defense, 2) passing defense, 3) total yardage, or 4) scoring defense.

If not for the "turnover" anomoly, how much WORSE would this defense be?

Hard to say the last place is "misleading" when Central Michigan just PLOWS down the field on you in the second half. How many yards did C. Mich. pile up on us??? Well over 400 if I recall correctly.

[tauzreborn]

I am not defending Archer, but is it possible that we were sandbagging against LSU in order to prepare for games that we actually have a chance to win.

Brooks knows he has to be prepared to win three more games.

How many freshman on defense got to see action in the LSU game? Is there anyway to find out?

[Mr. T]

catfanintn wrote: Hard to say the last place is "misleading" when Central Michigan just PLOWS down the field on you in the second half. How many yards did C. Mich. pile up on us??? Well over 400 if I recall correctly.

More like well over 500 I believe...

[Mr. T]

tauzreborn wrote: I am not defending Archer, but is it possible that we were sandbagging against LSU in order to prepare for games that we actually have a chance to win.

Brooks knows he has to be prepared to win three more games.

How many freshman on defense got to see action in the LSU game? Is there anyway to find out?


A) No they weren't sandbagging, we just stink that bad. B) If they were sandbagging that game then every coach on the staff should be fired today.

[noone]

The only defense at all to his comments is that bad offense can lead to bad defense, and vice versa.

Kentucky's offense is better than it has been, but it is also very inconsistent.



No one did anyone any favors on Saturday, on either side of the ball.

It's time for changes in Lexington.

[VirginiaBlue]

"He said he's going to use this bye week to try to fix the defensive problems."

Well, all-righty then.:cool:

[Mark Blueblood]

Here's the deal. Nobody is any more disappointed, frustrated, confused, etc. and so on with this defense than I am. If Archer goes, it ain't gonna break my heart.

But....you know and I know that there is NOT, NEVER, EVER gonna be a change made at mid-season. It just isn't done.Clamoring about it, really, aside from perhaps releasing your own pressure valve, will serve no purpose.

I've been looking for things to get better and they haven't. But...I also notice we put ZERO points on the board against LSU. So....let's spread a little of the blame around for that particular showing.

[Catsville]

I've been looking for things to get better and they haven't. But...I also notice we put ZERO points on the board against LSU. So....let's spread a little of the blame around for that particular showing.

Very good point... Fire Brooks.

[VIIBanners]

Mark Blueblood wrote: Here's the deal. Nobody is any more disappointed, frustrated, confused, etc. and so on with this defense than I am. If Archer goes, it ain't gonna break my heart.

But....you know and I know that there is NOT, NEVER, EVER gonna be a change made at mid-season. It just isn't done.Clamoring about it, really, aside from perhaps releasing your own pressure valve, will serve no purpose.

I've been looking for things to get better and they haven't. But...I also notice we put ZERO points on the board against LSU. So....let's spread a little of the blame around for that particular showing.
Why do guys in the NFL get fired mid season and not in college?

[WildcatDan]

He is like this guy - he only THINKS he (the defense) isn't dead yet.

http://www.douglasjohnston.net/weblog/wp-content/blogpix/notdeadyet.jpg
"I'm not dead yet!" "I feel happy! I feel happy!"

Perhaps he is trying to convince himself, the team, or coach Brooks.... who knows?

[Brian McCat]

It's that bad, but there's time to fix it.

[johnkyblue]

WildcatDan wrote: Perhaps he is trying to convince himself, the team, or coach Brooks.... who knows?
Everybody...

I would like to see that statistic in perspective. I would like to see the rankings of the offenses we have played to date. If, not counting their UK games, we have played teams with the highest average rated offense, then the statistic makes complete sense. UL, UF, LSU all move the ball very well.

[poodoo]

Mark Blueblood wrote: Here's the deal. Nobody is any more disappointed, frustrated, confused, etc. and so on with this defense than I am. If Archer goes, it ain't gonna break my heart.

But....you know and I know that there is NOT, NEVER, EVER gonna be a change made at mid-season. It just isn't done.Clamoring about it, really, aside from perhaps releasing your own pressure valve, will serve no purpose.

I've been looking for things to get better and they haven't. But...I also notice we put ZERO points on the board against LSU. So....let's spread a little of the blame around for that particular showing.


Good post, Mark. Too, you are so right that the blame for the LSU showing must be spread. The defense, offense, AND special teams (actually, all but one of the ten men on the field situations involved special teams, which had probably been our most impressive unit) all "stunk it up" the LSU game.

HOWEVER, that is not meant to defend Archer and the defensefor the season as a whole. Ourforcing turnovers has been impressive a lot of games, but that has basically been it. No, we are not the worstdefensive team in the nation, even though we rank deal last in yardage given up (and close to that inmost of the defensive categories),for many other teams have not played opponents such asLouisville, Florida, and LSU. HOWEVER, we also gave up almost six hundred yards against Central Michigan, so it isfairly obvious that a problem exists.

Having said that, I am one who thinks problemsCANbe fixed. While I am asdissatisfied with our defense so far as mostof you are, I refuse to give up on its greatly improving as the seasonprogresses. The season is NOT over. I'm surely hoping that thedefensive players are NOT giving up on Coach Archer and their defense.

Here's hoping that Coach Archer hasmade some changes for that MSU game (and notice that Archer has not been sleeping--some bright ideas can come to one's head when unable to sleep! :D).Let's hope we beat MSU and then play still betterdefense against Georgia, helping us also to win that game. That would mean that we would have FIVE of our necessarySIXwins on November 4th, and if that is the case, frankly, I'll be SMILING and not worrying about exactly where Archer's defense is ranked.:)

Too,obviously that scenariowill not be reality UNLESS the defense really improves. Personally, I'm giving it a chance to do just that. Coach Archer, FIX THE PROBLEM. :)

[Mark Blueblood]

VIIBanners wrote: Mark Blueblood wrote: Here's the deal. Nobody is any more disappointed, frustrated, confused, etc. and so on with this defense than I am. If Archer goes, it ain't gonna break my heart.

But....you know and I know that there is NOT, NEVER, EVER gonna be a change made at mid-season. It just isn't done.Clamoring about it, really, aside from perhaps releasing your own pressure valve, will serve no purpose.

I've been looking for things to get better and they haven't. But...I also notice we put ZERO points on the board against LSU. So....let's spread a little of the blame around for that particular showing.
Why do guys in the NFL get fired mid season and not in college?

I don't know. Just the way it is, I guess.

[hoosierhateruklover]

Ilike the outlookof the future for the defense. With Peters, Minton, Micah, and Co, things will get better.

[SCBlu]

VIIBanners wrote: Mark Blueblood wrote: Here's the deal. Nobody is any more disappointed, frustrated, confused, etc. and so on with this defense than I am. If Archer goes, it ain't gonna break my heart.

But....you know and I know that there is NOT, NEVER, EVER gonna be a change made at mid-season. It just isn't done.Clamoring about it, really, aside from perhaps releasing your own pressure valve, will serve no purpose.

I've been looking for things to get better and they haven't. But...I also notice we put ZERO points on the board against LSU. So....let's spread a little of the blame around for that particular showing.
Why do guys in the NFL get fired mid season and not in college?

Because they are being held accountable and NOT doing their job. If Brooks had any 'nads, he'd fire Archer, take over the defense himself for the rest of the year, and declare "There's a new sheriff in town". If our defense doesn't improve significantly, he should fire himself at the end of the year!

[CatFanInTheBathtub]

Archer seems to think it's not that bad because they look good in practice but not in games. Too bad "practice stats" aren't figured into the bcs. But I guess he could also make a case that it's not as bad as it looks because we have, so far, played some teams that are fairly highly-ranked offensively.

here are some statsI dug up:

opponenttotal yds. we gave upteams national off. rank

ul 631 2

tx. st.210 n/r

miss. 395 108

uf 514 26

cm 558 41

usc 38358

lsu 546 14



throwing out the tx. state game since they're not D-1, we've played just two teams not in top 41 offensively. In those games, we gave up 395 and 383 yds or an avg. of 389. At that rate we would be ranked #98 defensively, right between IU and Fla. atlantic.

still crappy....

so I guess Mike, it really is as bad as it looks. Apparently, we can't even stop the teams which otherwise get stopped regularly.

Incidentally, there is a bit of good news for Cat fans. Our remaining schedule includes teams that are currently ranked #110 (msu), #88 (uga), #83 (vandy), #73 (la. monroe), and (gulp) #13 (ut). This seems to suggest that our remaining schedule is somewhat less "offensive" than what we've faced so far.

[CatFanInTheBathtub]

Another interesting stat:

the 3237 yards we've given up this yearsis more than 1.8 miles !!

by comparison, LSU, the #1 ranked defense, has given up 1482 yards in the same number of games. That's a little more than 0.8 miles.

so, basically we have given up ONE MORE MILE of offensive than the #1

I'm a numbers guy and even that's hard to believe....







national total defense rankings: http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2006&div=4&rpt=IA_teamtotdef&sit e=org

[kevinlw1974]

noone wrote: The only defense at all to his comments is that bad offense can lead to bad defense, and vice versa.

Kentucky's offense is better than it has been, but it is also very inconsistent.



UK's offense is a lot better than last year. But they have to play pretty flawless with how the defense performs. The D has to make some stops sometimes.

[crice561]

I knew going into the LSU game we were going to get killed. In the past few weeks we lost almost all of our defensive tackles. I'm not a brooks or Archer homer by any means, I wanted them gone the day that Brooks was hired, but man we just arent deep enough to have those kind of injuries and be able to play with the big boys like LSU. Not to mention LSU was coming off of a very disappointing loss that really they shouldnt have lost. There are times our defense makes some great plays, but the are so young that they do make mistakes. Be that in alignment or whatever. granted some of the blame should fall on Archer, but firing him mid season would kill any chances of a bowl game and I dont know about you, Its been a long dry spell since the last one and it takes so long for the season to roll around that I want to see the cats ( or listen) as much as I can. I look for the cats to come out against the dogs and have a great outing.Go Cats!!!!!!

[TitleistUKfan7]

I'm really starting to think now that Archer does not know how to fix the problem on the defense. If he did, the problem would have been fixed by now.

Let him go Brooks, let him go...

[SCBlu]

TitleistUKfan7 wrote: I'm really starting to think now that Archer does not know how to fix the problem on the defense. If he did, the problem would have been fixed by now.

Let him go Brooks, let him go...

Fire him.....hire me. Betcha the defense ranking nationwide wouldn't suffer!

[DonnieKat]

Ilike the outlookof the future for the defense. With Peters, Minton, Micah, and Co, things will get better.





Great point Captain Obvious. When you are 119 out of 119, it CANNOT get any worse. So yes, things will get better.

[RedandBlackATTACK]

In order for the Defense to be successful the coaches have to give them the opportunity. I am not sure that has been the case.

You have to make the adjustments as the game dictates. I haven't seen that. You have to mix it up, give the opposing offense different looks. Go the the nickel and dime, bring your safety and the corners and DON'T show it at the line.

"Going back to fundamentals" is an admission that you didn't get it done in Spring, end of story, be it player selection, schemes, conditioning whatever.

Not having enough guys on the field is frustrating as hell. Your half way thru the season, your defensive captain should know just by looking around the huddle, your a man short. Heck, if you have to count heads!! In Archer's defense,at least a couple of the man short defensive penalties occurred on special teams but that obviously does not excuse the remainder.

When I was in the "Cooler" chatting during the game all the bad memories came back. Bradshaw, Ray et al. But those guys just didn't have any players. Anyone remember the The Thin 30?

This team although certainly not loaded does have athletes, certainly more than Ray and Charlie ever had. Which makes it even more frustrating.

Rick

C-Bus

[Mountain Cat]

kevinlw1974 wrote: noone wrote: The only defense at all to his comments is that bad offense can lead to bad defense, and vice versa.

Kentucky's offense is better than it has been, but it is also very inconsistent.



UK's offense is a lot better than last year. But they have to play pretty flawless with how the defense performs. The D has to make some stops sometimes.

Yeah our stellar Offense really put it to LSU to the tune of 227 yards and ZERO points.

BTW, 227 yards would rank #118 if that were our average :thumbdown

We run the yardage up on high school teams, but are impotent against decent competition.

vs. UL - 226, 28pts (thanks to turnovers)

vs. TX St. - 425

vs. Ole Miss - 380

vs. FL - 249, 7pts

vs. C Mich - 373

vs. USC - 351

vs. LSU - 227, ZERO points

Against Quality opposition, we are awful at Offense too.

[Mr. T]

Mountain Cat wrote:
Against Quality opposition, we are awful at Offense too.


I think most people understand that. It's still a lot better than the Defense though that is awful versus ANY competition. Also keep in mind if the defense did better then the offense would most likely be better as well because of better field position and the like.

[Mountain Cat]

Mr. T wrote: Mountain Cat wrote:
Against Quality opposition, we are awful at Offense too.


I think most people understand that. It's still a lot better than the Defense though that is awful versus ANY competition. Also keep in mind if the defense did better then the offense would most likely be better as well because of better field position and the like.

That is true with regards to scoring offense, but not so on the yardage. In fact, a poor defense will give your offense more possible yards per drive since you have worse field position. Think about it. UL loves it when they start from their own 10......knowing that they can rack up 90 yards before they have to give the ball back.

[sardiscat]

"But those guys just didn't have any players. Anyone remember the The Thin 30?"

The "Thin 30" was short on numbers and experience, not players. Ithad in its sophomore class Rick Norton, Rick Kestner, Doug Davis, Sam Ball, and Roger Bird, all of whom played in the NFL, some of them for a long time. Herschel Turner was a senior. Before the sophomores graduated, they were joined by Larry Seiple and Bob Windsor and were headed for the Sugar Bowl until Norton broke his leg and they lost toHouston in the second to last game of the year. The Thin 30went throughBradshaw's attemptat recreating the Bear's Junction City boot camp, which ran off some talented players who didn't want to play at UK badly enough to endure that. Dale Lindsay, who later played in the NFL, was one of those who left. A lot of players played both ways in those days, so, while 30 was not many players, it was not as bad then as it would be now.

[Mountain Cat]

sardiscat wrote: "But those guys just didn't have any players. Anyone remember the The Thin 30?"

The "Thin 30" was short on numbers and experience, not players. Ithad in its sophomore class Rick Norton, Rick Kestner, Doug Davis, Sam Ball, and Roger Bird, all of whom played in the NFL, some of them for a long time. Herschel Turner was a senior. Before the sophomores graduated, they were joined by Larry Seiple and Bob Windsor and were headed for the Sugar Bowl until Norton broke his leg and they lost toHouston in the second to last game of the year. The Thin 30went throughBradshaw's attemptat recreating the Bear's Junction City boot camp, which ran off some talented players who didn't want to play at UK badly enough to endure that. Dale Lindsay, who later played in the NFL, was one of those who left. A lot of players played both ways in those days, so, while 30 was not many players, it was not as bad then as it would be now.



I was just reading about a youth football team that only has 9 players on the entire roster. They have not lost in two years. All nine play both ways, two players short. Often they face teams that roster 50 kids, and still they win. They even played one game where they were down to 7 kids.....and still they won.

It was a pretty cool read.

[Caveman Catfan]

Mountain Cat wrote: vs. UL - 226, 28pts (thanks to turnovers)


28 points. 1 TD was a 100+ yard kickoff return and, therefore, not to be attributed to the offense. Keenan scored from about mid-field on that flair screen (bubble screen?) to the left that has also worked well with Pulley and Abney scored on a very long pass play (read BOMB). Abney also scored on a short pass play that was set-up by another bomb down the ride sideline to Keenan. I am not sure how those scores were the result of turnovers.

Criticism is fair, but there is no need to negatively exaggerate how UK scored in the UL game. UK did not put together nice drives, but did score, or set-up a score, on big plays that had nothing really to do with turnovers.

[Mr. T]

Caveman Catfan wrote: Mountain Cat wrote: vs. UL - 226, 28pts (thanks to turnovers)


28 points. 1 TD was a 100+ yard kickoff return and, therefore, not to be attributed to the offense. Keenan scored from about mid-field on that flair screen (bubble screen?) to the left that has also worked well with Pulley and Abney scored on a very long pass play (read BOMB). Abney also scored on a short pass play that was set-up by another bomb down the ride sideline to Keenan. I am not sure how those scores were the result of turnovers.

Criticism is fair, but there is no need to negatively exaggerate how UK scored in the UL game. UK did not put together nice drives, but did score, or set-up a score, on big plays that had nothing really to do with turnovers.

Does Derek Abney have some eligibility left we don't know about? :shock::ggrin:

[Mr. T]

Mountain Cat wrote: Mr. T wrote: Mountain Cat wrote:
Against Quality opposition, we are awful at Offense too.


I think most people understand that. It's still a lot better than the Defense though that is awful versus ANY competition. Also keep in mind if the defense did better then the offense would most likely be better as well because of better field position and the like.

That is true with regards to scoring offense, but not so on the yardage. In fact, a poor defense will give your offense more possible yards per drive since you have worse field position. Think about it. UL loves it when they start from their own 10......knowing that they can rack up 90 yards before they have to give the ball back.
Ah, but our defense lets the other team drive all the way down the field thereby taking away time that our offense could have the ball. In other words often times our offense doesn't get very many possession because the D gets it jammed down their throats.

[poodoo]

crice561 wrote: I knew going into the LSU game we were going to get killed. In the past few weeks we lost almost all of our defensive tackles. I'm not a brooks or Archer homer by any means, I wanted them gone the day that Brooks was hired, but man we just arent deep enough to have those kind of injuries and be able to play with the big boys like LSU. Not to mention LSU was coming off of a very disappointing loss that really they shouldnt have lost. There are times our defense makes some great plays, but the are so young that they do make mistakes. Be that in alignment or whatever. granted some of the blame should fall on Archer, but firing him mid season would kill any chances of a bowl game and I dont know about you, Its been a long dry spell since the last one and it takes so long for the season to roll around that I want to see the cats ( or listen) as much as I can. I look for the cats to come out against the dogs and have a great outing.Go Cats!!!!!!


You make some excellent points here, crice561. As you say, "some of the blame should fall on Archer, but firing him mid-season would kill any chances of a bowl game." Like you, I want MOST OF ALL for these guys to go to a bowl game, first for the players themselves, but also for me to get to go to another one. It has indeed "been a long dry spell," and we haven't had enough of those appearances, period.

I also like your saying that you "look for the cats to come out against the dogs and have a great outing." How I hope that you are right! Too, Coach Archer has fully taken the blame for the defense's performance.In a yesterday CJ article, he was quoted doing just that, adding that he would never put the blame on his players (for which his players respect him).

Also as a positive,Archer did say there would be changes.Coach Archermust FIX THE PROBLEM, or we will not get that bowl appearance we so desire.I think we all agree on that.

[poodoo]

hoosierhateruklover wrote: Ilike the outlookof the future for the defense. With Peters, Minton, Micah, and Co, things will get better.

I agree, Jordan. Things must get better fast, though. Yesterday I read in the CJ that Peters and Paris might POSSIBLY get to play next Saturday (depending upon how their knees respond to activity). That would be very helpful, as both of them are quite talented defensive linemen.

[Doug Hardin]

The reason coaches are fired midseason in the NFL is that if a team stinks bad enough that they'd want to fire the coach and start over, they're probably better off losing a bunch of games to improve their draft position. It's better to be 3-13 than 6-10 in the NFL.

In college, there's no benefit to being 2-10 over 4-8. You always want to win games to generate some momentum and good mojo heading into the next season, plus you want to show recruits that you're improving and committed to winning. And if you fire a coach who has good recruiting contacts, then you run the risk of losing players who have committed and totally missing out on the ones who are considering signing in February.

[poodoo]

TitleistUKfan7 wrote: I'm really starting to think now that Archer does not know how to fix the problem on the defense. If he did, the problem would have been fixed by now.


The lack of improvement understandably makes us wonder about that. As I said, though, hopefully withCoach Archer'slack of sleep, a bright idea comes to him during the hours lying awake. :DBy the way, I do believeCoach Archerwhen he says that the way his defense is performing is even more upsetting to HIM.

[Mountain Cat]

Caveman Catfan wrote: Mountain Cat wrote: vs. UL - 226, 28pts (thanks to turnovers)


28 points. 1 TD was a 100+ yard kickoff return and, therefore, not to be attributed to the offense. Keenan scored from about mid-field on that flair screen (bubble screen?) to the left that has also worked well with Pulley and Abney scored on a very long pass play (read BOMB). Abney also scored on a short pass play that was set-up by another bomb down the ride sideline to Keenan. I am not sure how those scores were the result of turnovers.

Criticism is fair, but there is no need to negatively exaggerate how UK scored in the UL game. UK did not put together nice drives, but did score, or set-up a score, on big plays that had nothing really to do with turnovers.


You are correct.

7 pts due to 73yrd pass to KB

7pts due to 4yrd pass to Lyons (aka Abney :lol:), which was started by a UL fumble

7pts due to 80yrd pass play to Lyons/Abney :shrug:

7pts due to 100 yard kick-off return via KB

All this was done while amassing a total of eight (8) 1st downs, which is a pitiful offensive effort against very good competition.

[Caveman Catfan]

Mr. T wrote: Caveman Catfan wrote: Mountain Cat wrote: vs. UL - 226, 28pts (thanks to turnovers)


28 points. 1 TD was a 100+ yard kickoff return and, therefore, not to be attributed to the offense. Keenan scored from about mid-field on that flair screen (bubble screen?) to the left that has also worked well with Pulley and Abney scored on a very long pass play (read BOMB). Abney also scored on a short pass play that was set-up by another bomb down the ride sideline to Keenan. I am not sure how those scores were the result of turnovers.

Criticism is fair, but there is no need to negatively exaggerate how UK scored in the UL game. UK did not put together nice drives, but did score, or set-up a score, on big plays that had nothing really to do with turnovers.

Does Derek Abney have some eligibility left we don't know about? :shock::ggrin:

Sorry. Lyons reminds me of Abney. My mistake reminds me of listening to Cawood in the early to mid 80s. During that time, Cawood would have flash backs to old players. I guess I have something in common with Cawood. ;)

[Caveman Catfan]

Mountain Cat wrote: 7pts due to 4yrd pass to Lyons (aka Abney :lol:), which was started by a UL fumble

Actually started by a long pass from Andre to Keenan.

[johnkyblue]

Caveman Catfan wrote: I guess I have something in common with Cawood. ;)
I swear sometimes I thought he was drunk.

[catfanintn]

Doug Hardin wrote: The reason coaches are fired midseason in the NFL is that if a team stinks bad enough that they'd want to fire the coach and start over, they're probably better off losing a bunch of games to improve their draft position. It's better to be 3-13 than 6-10 in the NFL.

In college, there's no benefit to being 2-10 over 4-8. You always want to win games to generate some momentum and good mojo heading into the next season, plus you want to show recruits that you're improving and committed to winning. And if you fire a coach who has good recruiting contacts, then you run the risk of losing players who have committed and totally missing out on the ones who are considering signing in February.


Did not our own Coach Sanders get fired by Tennessee mid-season last year?

Like Archer, I believe it had been brewing for a couple of years.

[MSU Cat]

johnkyblue wrote: Caveman Catfan wrote: I guess I have something in common with Cawood. ;)
I swear sometimes I thought he was drunk.

He was the best that ever was. Cawood could call a game better drunk than most could call on their best sober day in which they got 12 hours sleep the night before. That's not the point of this thread, though. The point is, our defense sucks worse than it has ever sucked in school history. I want to see heads rolling for this.

[Doug Hardin]

catfanintn wrote: Doug Hardin wrote: The reason coaches are fired midseason in the NFL is that if a team stinks bad enough that they'd want to fire the coach and start over, they're probably better off losing a bunch of games to improve their draft position. It's better to be 3-13 than 6-10 in the NFL.

In college, there's no benefit to being 2-10 over 4-8. You always want to win games to generate some momentum and good mojo heading into the next season, plus you want to show recruits that you're improving and committed to winning. And if you fire a coach who has good recruiting contacts, then you run the risk of losing players who have committed and totally missing out on the ones who are considering signing in February.


Did not our own Coach Sanders get fired by Tennessee mid-season last year?

Like Archer, I believe it had been brewing for a couple of years.


You're right. I was just speaking in general terms.

Hudson was also forced to resign before the Tennessee game. It is fairly common to see assistants fired late in the season if the head coach wants to give a position coach a trial run (like Joker at OC) or if they guy they know they want is available (Cutcliffe to replace Sanders last year).

[Mountain Cat]

Caveman Catfan wrote: Mountain Cat wrote: 7pts due to 4yrd pass to Lyons (aka Abney :lol:), which was started by a UL fumble

Actually started by a long pass from Andre to Keenan.

Yes a 42 yarder.

FWIW, He reminds me of Abney and Whalen rolled into one.

[crice561]

Archer could have pulled a Hudson and blamed the players and said they weren't god enough to play college ball, but he did something that Brooks hasn't done very much of, put the blame squarely on his shoulders. Remember that Archer was very highly regaurded coming from one of the best defenses in the NFL.

Again, Im not an Archer homer by any means, but last year our defense was descimated by injuries by the 5th game of the season, most of the injured players didnt get the experience they normally would have gotten had they played the whole year. We also lost probably the best defender we have had in the secondary in quite some time in Bo Smith. Again, we are not deep enough to overcome these type of losses.

One thing to remember is that we are playing a large amount of Freshman on defense. Most of the programs that we are competing against, red shirt their Freshman classes. We dont have that luxury..... Yet.

Dont give up on the Cats just yet, they are going to need our help to get to a bowl game.

[BigblueDrew]

Excuses are like you know what, everyone has one and they all stink. UK is DEAD LAST in defense in D1 ball. That is UNACCEPTABLE 4 years into the Brooks era. Archer needs to go.

[Caveman Catfan]

IMO, this talk about Archer is really meaningless at this point. The thought that our team will improve with Archer fired with five games to go is baseless. Firing Archer now could really have a negative effect on the team. Unless the HC knows that players are laying down, because Archer is the DC, he should not be fired mid-season. And, I still think that Brooks job hangs in the balance, leaning toward being fired. There is a good chance that Archer does not come back, because Brooks will be gone. Brooks needs three games and really needs to have a more respectable showing in the two losses to erase the butt-bruising the Cats experienced at LSU. Right now, I don't see that happening.

[Brian McCat]

catfanintn wrote: Did not our own Coach Sanders get fired by Tennessee mid-season last year?

As I understand it, he was demoted at the end of the year to a position coach post, so he walked.

[ukbob]

Caveman Catfan wrote: IMO, this talk about Archer is really meaningless at this point. The thought that our team will improve with Archer fired with five games to go is baseless. Firing Archer now could really have a negative effect on the team. Unless the HC knows that players are laying down, because Archer is the DC, he should not be fired mid-season. And, I still think that Brooks job hangs in the balance, leaning toward being fired. There is a good chance that Archer does not come back, because Brooks will be gone. Brooks needs three games and really needs to have a more respectable showing in the two losses to erase the butt-bruising the Cats experienced at LSU. Right now, I don't see that happening.
Yep....

We cannot nor should we fire anyone now regardless. This is not pro football. There is still time to make up ground but time is running short.

It is Brook's responsiblity to fire Archer anyway(if necessary), not Barnhart's or anyone else. He works for RB. If we win 6 games Brooks will return. And if we still lack in the defensive area, then Brooks MUST make tough decisions and not try to sneak another year out just hoping things get better on defense.

But quite frankly, it is more likely that if our defense does not improve, we will not win 6 games which makes all this moot because there will be and should be a new staff on board next season.

[The Old School JPS]

Doug Hardin wrote: The reason coaches are fired midseason in the NFL is that if a team stinks bad enough that they'd want to fire the coach and start over, they're probably better off losing a bunch of games to improve their draft position. It's better to be 3-13 than 6-10 in the NFL.

In college, there's no benefit to being 2-10 over 4-8. You always want to win games to generate some momentum and good mojo heading into the next season, plus you want to show recruits that you're improving and committed to winning. And if you fire a coach who has good recruiting contacts, then you run the risk of losing players who have committed and totally missing out on the ones who are considering signing in February.


I disagree. I think these days in college football it makes more sense to fire a coach midseason instead of waiting until the end of the season, and I think there are at least a few examples to demonstrate that, including at Kentucky.

At Kentucky, Bill Curry's firing was announced in 1996 after a lopsided loss to LSU put UK at 1-5. UK's offense was as bad that year as it was under Ron Hudson. After Curry's firing was announced, UK promptly reeled off 3 straight conference wins, beating Georgia, Mississippi State and Vanderbilt - and scoring well in all three of those games, unlike the first six of the season. The players played much better, Tim Couch stayed (maybe due in part to who was named the next coach, granted) and fans were, to say the least, relieved that Curry had been relieved. I would suspect, but can't recall for sure, that season ticket orders and renewals were much better than they would have been had Curry stayed - but I don't know how much an early firing announcement would affect that. But UK also got a leg up in lining up a new coach.

Florida athletics director Jeremy Foley said firing Ron Zook in October 2004 allowed him extra time to research possible successors: "How do I make calls about Urban Meyer when I still have a coach?'' Foley told The New York Times.

Duke coach Ted Roof said it was an advantage when he took over when Carl Franks was fired in 2003: "You had a five-week audition", Roof said. "It was a trial run so they can evaluate what you did and didn't do."

East Carolina athletics director Terry Holland chose to tell former football coach John Thompson in 2004 and former basketball coach Bill Herrion in 2005 that they would be let go when they asked for his thoughts during the season.

Those last three come from a recent article I saw on the UNC football coach situation:

http://www.newsobserver.com/122/story/500218.html

[CatFanInTheBathtub]

BigblueDrew wrote: Excuses are like you know what, everyone has one and they all stink. UK is DEAD LAST in defense in D1 ball. That is UNACCEPTABLE 4 years into the Brooks era. Archer needs to go.

Drew, I agree with very little that you write.

This is an exception.

Though we have faced much more explosive offenses than some of the other teams towards the bottom of the list, what's telling is our performances (defensively) against the teams who have little offense whatsoever, in which case we've still stunk.

[crice561]

I disagree with the comment that even the weak teams have tore us up on defense. Central Michigan is looking like they are going to win the Mac, which is turning into a pretty good conference. Ole Miss moved the ball very well against Bamaand about pulled off the upset at bama. The defense has been bad no doubt, but people seem to think that loosing all of your starting defensive tackles prior to the LSU game doesnt matter. Its just an excuse. Ive come to the conclusion after moving to Alabama and listening to the people around here wanting to run Tommy Tuberville out of town over the Arkansas loss, people wanting Mike Shula gone.

The season isnt over yet, we still have 4 very winnable games on the schedule and the best possibility of a bowl game in a mighty long time and people are wanting to fire the coaches right now. I want to see what all of the nay sayers have to say when we get to the bowl game.

[poodoo]

crice561 wrote:

Dont give up on the Cats just yet, they are going to need our help to get to a bowl game.






AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!


I will even add a PLEASE toyour statement, crice561. PLEASE don't give on the Cats just yet. They are going to need our help to get to a bowl game. GO CATS! BEAT MSU!

[poodoo]

crice561 wrote:

The season isnt over yet, we still have 4 very winnable games on the schedule and the best possibility of a bowl game in a mighty long time and people are wanting to fire the coaches right now. I want to see what all of the nay sayers have to say when we get to the bowl game.


Absolutely. It seems forever since we have been to a bowl game. It CAN happen. The season IS NOT OVER.

I could not be worried less about firing coaches at this moment.Mitch Barnhart will take care of that, if the need is there. My mind, instead, is absorbed with worrying about BEATING MSU and then getting at least two more wins for that bowl appearance these players (and surely us fans) so desire.

In regard to what is going to be saidWHEN (knock on wood! :D) we get to a bowl game, I'm afraid someare going to say that we didn't deserve the bowl game because wedid not beat a quality opponent:((whileidolizing Louisville's current footballprogram, which got there from going to bowl after bowl when beating virtually no one). That's ridiculous,of course, but, yes, I'm afraid some will say that if and when we get to a bowl game.:(Personally, I cannot understand that thinking. A bowl appearance may be virtually meaningless or just a "baby step" in some folks' eyes, but a bowl appearance would still be huge for this football program, in my humble opinion.

Again,GO CATS! BEAT MSU!

[johnkyblue]

MSU Cat wrote: Cawood could call a game better drunk....
I would go forever without knowing the score, or down or distance, or all the things that matter.