This spring ...

[RV]

This is how we stand going into this spring with scholarship players. Of course there will be a few positional moves. We lost some talented players but I can honestly say I have never before seen a deeper, more experienced spring squad in my four decades of following the Cats. There are no future signees listed. Those with asterisks are walkons that have gotten playing time. I welcome your thoughts.

QB:
Lost: Woodson
Returning: Hartline, Fidler
Add: Curtis Pulley, Matt Lentz

RB:
Lost: Little
Returning: Dixon, Smith, Locke
Add: Brandon Jackson

FB:
Lost: None
Returning: Conner*, Grinter, Allen
Add: None

WR:
Lost: Burton, Johnson
Returning: SR Lyons, JR Ford, SO Lanxter
Add: SO Terrence Jones, FR Anthony Mosely

TE:
Lost: Tamme
Returning: JR Drake, JR Bogue, JR Sexton*
Add: None


OL:
Lost: Scott, Leger
Returning: SR G Williams, JR Duncan, SR C Johnson, JR Jeffries, SO Durham, JR Gonzales, SR Beets, SR Winchell, SO Davis*, JR M Williams*
Add: JR James Alexander, FR Stuart Hines, FR Phillip Hibbard, FR Billy Joe Murphy, FR Jake Lanefski

DE:
Lost: Lewis, Day
Returning: JR Jarmon, JR Paris, SO Goode
Add: SR Nii Adjei Oninku, SO Josh Minton, FR Antwane Glenn, FR Charles Mustafaa

DT:
Lost: Craigman
Returning: SR Pryor, SR Jenkins, JR Peters, SO Lumpkin, SO McCord
Add: FR Greg Meisner

LB:
Lost: Woodyard
Returning: SR Kelley, SR J Williams, JR M Johnson, JR Maxwell, JR Mabry, JR Schwindell, SO Dufrene
Add: SO Brandon Thurmond, FR Chris Cessna, FR Ronnie Sneed, FR Antonio Thomas, FR Chris Drayton

CB:
Lost: None
Returning: JR Lindley, JR Warford, JR Adams, SR D Jones, SR Moore, SR Grigsby, SR McAtee*
Add: FR Randall Burden, FR Taiedo Smith

S:
Lost: R Williams
Returning: SR McClinton, JR Cobb, JR Harrison, JR Nevels
Add: FR Greg Wilson

P/K:
Lost: None
Returning: SR Masthay, JR Seiber
Add: FR Tydlacka

[dougwhit]

i dont see why we dont contend for a bcs bowl this year.

[SBCatMan]

This is a solid, solid team. It is both talented and DEEP. But ... I still think we are going to need to find some WRs who can really stretch the field and a QB who can find them with some regularity in order to make the running game go. I know we will have he best OL and RBs we have seen at UK in years, if not decades, but it will still be tough to run on SEC defenses if we cannot open up the field. IMO, that has to be priority #1 in the Spring.

[RCS]

Qb is the big question mark. If Pulley can win the job and run a bit of spread successfully we may have our best season in years. If not we may stuggle mightly.

[Gunsmoke]

This is a solid, solid team. It is both talented and DEEP. But ... I still think we are going to need to find some WRs who can really stretch the field and a QB who can find them with some regularity in order to make the running game go. I know we will have he best OL and RBs we have seen at UK in years, if not decades, but it will still be tough to run on SEC defenses if we cannot open up the field. IMO, that has to be priority #1 in the Spring.
Very well said.

[Gunsmoke]

i dont see why we dont contend for a bcs bowl this year.
I believe we will if SB's questions are answered in the affirmative.

[lighthouse]

I'm excited already! QB & WR is the answer. We should have the best defense we've had in a very long time. With 4 Sr DB's, we need to sign some quick. Hopefully this weekend will help a lot.

[gerntz]

Thanks, RV.

Concerning Conner, I read that he received a scholarship last Fall. If so, I wouldn't consider him a walk-on today.

[I. Melvin]

I thought Conner was under-utilized last year. The way he blocked against Arkansas on the rare (but very successful) option plays augurs well for next year if CP wins the job.

Grinter to TE? Gotta get him on the field (and teach him not to run out of bounds inside the five).

I think Conner and Moncell give us a great 1-2 at FB.

Yes, our defense will be better than it has been, but we had a long way to go. With our standard ridiculous schedule (because we're in the SEC East), the defense has got to improve next year just as much as it did this year. (And we're gonna miss Wesley like I miss nineteen ... )

[RV]

All scholarships are for just one year at a time, renewable of course but still yearly in nature. This especially affects walkons. Of course Conner will stay on scholarship through the spring (unless we need that ride for a greyshirt and I'm not aware of any) - just like last year but I guarantee we will oversign recruits again which puts certain players scholarship status in limbo once again until the fall when it all shakes out. Conner may well end up on scholarship next fall but he has no guarantee of that and will likely start the fall as a walkon once again.

[Los Gatos]

All scholarships are for just one year at a time, renewable of course but still yearly in nature. This especially affects walkons. Of course Conner will stay on scholarship through the spring (unless we need that ride for a greyshirt and I'm not aware of any) - just like last year but I guarantee we will oversign recruits again which puts certain players scholarship status in limbo once again until the fall when it all shakes out. Conner may well end up on scholarship next fall but he has no guarantee of that and will likely start the fall as a walkon once again.

I believe scholarships are not only for a one year period but that they also can't be ended early to award to someone else. IE, I don't think you can give Conner's scholarship to a greyshirt this spring.

[gerntz]

All scholarships are for just one year at a time, renewable of course but still yearly in nature. This especially affects walkons. Of course Conner will stay on scholarship through the spring (unless we need that ride for a greyshirt and I'm not aware of any) - just like last year but I guarantee we will oversign recruits again which puts certain players scholarship status in limbo once again until the fall when it all shakes out. Conner may well end up on scholarship next fall but he has no guarantee of that and will likely start the fall as a walkon once again.

Why would they elect to pull Conner's scholarship over an apparent lesser contributor (I'll use Jordan Nevel as an example) who originally came on scholarship? I mean, so what if he did start on a scholarship but isn't developing as hoped? Would seem odd to me.

[jwade]

Thanks, RV. Here's my take on several issues.

Of the 28 we signed last February, 25 made the MCB roster (source: official bowl guide) although some were unavailable to play. No excessive attrition.
Of the 25 newcomers on the MCB roster, 2 were JUCO's and 23 were freshmen. Rebuilding with 4-year players, no quick fix.
Of the 23 freshmen, we were able to redshirt 18. Building depth through redshirting.
Of the 5 freshmen who played, only 2 were linemen (Durham and McCord). Giving those big guys that extra year to get bigger and stronger.
I count 71 scholarship players at present (may be off by one or two, but should be close) and I count 17 scholarship seniors for 2008. We're still relatively young.In sum, Coach Brooks and staff are building a solid foundation and are doing it the right way. You can't help but be excited about the future. Still, when you look at a 2-deep chart there are a lot of questions to be answered in the spring.

QB: Been discussed to death, no need to rehash the obvious.
TE: Drake can block, but who will step up and become a receiving threat? Fidler? This position concerns me more than WR, as I see Tamme being harder to replace than Burton and Johnson with no heir apparent.
C: At present we have a walk-on, a redshirt freshman, and an underachiever in line to replace Scott. I think someone moves here in the spring. Beets?
DE: At least two of the youngsters have to step up and join Jarmon and Paris in the rotation. Minton? Meisner? Can Oninku, Minton and Meisner fully return to pre-injury form? Can Paris bulk up enough to be effective as an every-down end rather than just a situational rush end?
LB: Who is going to fill the gaping hole left by Woodyard's graduation? Drayton? Schwindel?
S: Who's going to back up Cobb?Should be a fun spring. I can't wait!


Jim

[RV]

C: At present we have a walk-on, a redshirt freshman, and an underachiever in line to replace Scott. I think someone moves here in the spring. Beets?My guess would be Zipp Duncan if Gonzales isn't the man.


LB: Who is going to fill the gaping hole left by Woodyard's graduation? Drayton? Schwindel?Braxton Kelley - not a guess.

Should be a really fun spring. The O-line competition should be fierce unlike many in the past when we barely had enough scholarship players to field a line one-deep.

[The Old School JPS]

Of the 28 we signed last February, 25 made the MCB roster (source: official bowl guide) although some were unavailable to play. No excessive attrition.

Outstanding observation - and a feat new to the past 20 years or so of UK football, I believe. (That's certainly true for the past dozen or so years, I'm certain.) That bodes very well for the future.

Let's talk some more about Maurice Grinter at TE. I really like that idea. I think he could really excel there. His fumble recovery (blocked punt) in the bowl game was a reminder about him having better than average hands, especially for a guy with his build. I think he could be effective in a lot of ways at that position.

[jwade]

Let's talk some more about Maurice Grinter at TE. I really like that idea. I think he could really excel there. His fumble recovery (blocked punt) in the bowl game was a reminder about him having better than average hands, especially for a guy with his build. I think he could be effective in a lot of ways at that position.

I believe that considering Pulley's running ability (assuming he wins the job), a backfield of Dixon/Locke/Smith/Jackson, and the loss of Burton/Johnson/Tamme we will be more run-oriented next season. If so, the tight end will be called upon to be a blocker more often than in the recent past. I think that almost dictates Drake starts; however, I like Grinter as an H-back-type. He's athletic and, I agree, has decent hands for a guy his size. He's probably underutilized at FB, as he carried the ball only 9 times and caught 4 passes in 13 games.

I'd also like to see David Jones move back to the offensive side of the ball where we could use his speed and playmaking ability. But I doubt that will happen.


Jim

[gerntz]

^ I get your point on Drake, but I sometimes wonder if instead of stacking the blocking & telling the world you're going to run if you're not better off spreading the D with a pass-catching threat (assuming the QB can throw) & then running in more open space with fewer blockers. In that case, you'd want a TE that's more of a pass catcher or no TE at all. But what do I know.

[poodoo]

Just thanks to RV and jwade for their observations and efforts. I love reading about my football Cats. :)

[jwade]

^ I get your point on Drake, but I sometimes wonder if instead of stacking the blocking & telling the world you're going to run if you're not better off spreading the D with a pass-catching threat (assuming the QB can throw) & then running in more open space with fewer blockers. In that case, you'd want a TE that's more of a pass catcher or no TE at all. But what do I know.

And I see your point as well. It's just a different philosophy - spread 'em out and open up the running lanes.

From my point of view, though, I'd rather have the TE in close to the tackle most of the time. I don't see that that formation tells the world you're going to run, as a TE from that position can either block at the point of attack or get out into a pass route. When you have the TE split out, however, you eliminate him as a blocker except downfield like a WR.



Jim

[jwade]

Why would they elect to pull Conner's scholarship over an apparent lesser contributor (I'll use Jordan Nevel as an example) who originally came on scholarship? I mean, so what if he did start on a scholarship but isn't developing as hoped? Would seem odd to me.

I think pulling a scholarship from a player you had signed to an LOI would be bad policy because of potential impacts on recruiting.

When you sign a player out of high school, there's an expectation (not legally binding) that it's a 4-year deal - leaving early for the NFL notwithstanding. The player has the expectation that the scholarship will be there for him as long as he remains eligible, and the school has the expectation that the player will not transfer to another school. The expectation arises because that's the norm.

Walk-ons, on the other hand, don't have the expectation of a scholarship so if they should happen to be awarded one, it's gravy. The walk-on needs to be told whether the scholarship is permanent or year-to-year, to be fair.

If you start pulling scholarships from players you signed to an LOI out of high school, you can bet that information will get back to the HS and his coach - and make recruiting more difficult in the future. Take your example of Nevels who played at Ft. Thomas Highlands. If you yank his scholarship you might negatively impact recruiting not only at Highlands but also at Cov Cath, other N. Kentucky schools and, who knows, maybe Cinci schools.

I don't think you, as a school, want that reputation.


Jim

[Levi]

Imagine the options available with a set of Pulley at QB, behind him at fullback would be John Conner, behind Conner at tailback would be Dixon or Locke, Grinter/Drake at TE, Lyons in the slot, and Lanxter split wide.

The defense would have so many things to cover it would be a nightmare. Just what would an opposing DC think would be important to stop given that initial set? About the only thing missing would be blazing speed on the outside but then Moseley might provide that also.

I'm telling you UK is going to be a better team next year than this years. Not as prolific on offense but on balance a better team. I really believe that and I think Brooks does too. I think next year is the year we surprise people nationally. They are going to be thinking about how much we lost and will not know how much we have developing just itching to prove themselves.

Oh and that is why these seniors that graduated this past year meant so much. They were so good that they gave a bunch of young guys a chance to develop and learn without being thrown into the breech. Thats what made them leaders, they performed without getting beat down or quitting year after year. These younger men have had time to strengthen their bodies and train their minds to compete at the highest level of college football---the SEC Eastern conference. Get ready because I have never seen a Kentucky team built on quality depth like the team Coach Brooks has assembled.

[gerntz]

Levi, that's the first thing you've written that's ever given me chills thinking about. Thanks.

I could see that O, while not scoring as much, dominating clock time more & shortening the game for our D. And that's always a good thing. Also, we must have reliable PKing to get the 3 when it may get tough going for this type O in the red zone. It may not have as much comeback capability.

What I think we'll also need to see to help that O happen is an OL that for the last few years has mainly had to pass block, transform into one that mainly needs to knock the DL off the line. That may favor a different set of OLmen than we saw last season. Will be interesting.

[BBM]

This is a nice read!

I guess I worry about the locker room more than I do the field. We know what these guys can do on it! Who steps up in the locker room?

McClinton- Yea, I think so.
Micah/Braxton-I can see both doing it.
Peters/Jarmon-I see Jarmon moreso than Peters.
Williams/Johnson-can the young guys look to these two to lead the OL?
Lyons-Yes
Pulley-I think we will know Brooks' answer coming out of the spring. If he is named the starter then coach thinks he has turned the corner. If its a "dead heat" well, he is not where coach wants him. (I mean no disrespect to Hartline)

[SBCatMan]

Levi,

I agree with alomst everything you say, but I am still very, very concerned about WR. Lanxter may turn out to be an All-SEC performer, or he may not even start for UK. We know almost nothing about him. At least I know almost nothing about him. And, while I really like Dicky Lyons, Jr, he has been more of a complimentary receiver in his areer at UK. I am not sure if he can develop into a first-option go-to kind of guy like Burton or Johnson. And, we probably know even less about our TE prospects. Again, I think Grinter has a world of potential, but has he ever played a single down at TE while at UK?

Again, I think there may be some potential there, but we have not really seen it yet. I hope I am just being a needless worry-wart here, but our WRs make me nervous.

[JDHoss]

I'm telling you UK is going to be a better team next year than this years. Not as prolific on offense but on balance a better team. I really believe that and I think Brooks does too. I think next year is the year we surprise people nationally. They are going to be thinking about how much we lost and will not know how much we have developing just itching to prove themselves.

I don't know about them being better, but I believe the record will be much the same, and possibly better if the QB/WR situation is at least serviceable. Rich Brooks has built this program for the long haul, and I don't see it sliding back too far anytime soon. In fact, after our 3rd straight bowl game next year we'll be set up for a banner 2009 season where I think we could well see a top 15 finish.

[Levi]

Gerntz is right about the offense being a more ball control type of offense. That in turn will rest our defense which is going to be much stronger anyway.
I see an offense that is more apt to be reeling off 5-8 yard runs with a passing game designed more for the short completion (5-12 yards) and some runs after the catch to stretch the field a bit. Less vertical but a bit more grinding on the opponents defense.
A defense could get mighty winded chasing Pulley, Locke, Dixon, Smith, Lyons, around the field only to have Connor, and Allen run it up their gut. I mean Woodson did run a few option plays this past year but can you imagine the option with Pulley riding Connors belly. He could leave it with Connor for 5 yards or pull it out and turn the corner. He might pitch it back to the streaking Locke or pull from Connor and drop back to see Lyons on a square-out, Connor on a hook, and Locke in the flat. I mean we have some real talented players that will have to be accounted for. We don't have one or two guys that have made plays but several. It will be different but with a defense getting strong our offense won't have to be as high scoring as this year.
A strong defense and an efficient grinding offense could make for some explosive second halfs next year and a lot of the teams that finished ahead of us did not have as explosive of a passing game as we did. We're going to be pretty darn good guys. Of course I am relying on these guys working in the off-season this year like they did last year.

[poodoo]

GREAT posts, Levi. Too, some of the thoughts/possibilities for next year's team make me SMILE. :) In fact, reading those posts, I can hardly wait! :)

[gerntz]

"He might pitch it back to the streaking Locke or pull from Connor and drop back to see Lyons on a square-out, Connor on a hook, and Locke in the flat."

Pookie Jones used to execute that play a lot though he often went deep as I recall.

[Gunsmoke]

The probabilities of the future are bright and promising. This staff has shown over and over again that they know how to prepare players to lead on and off the field. They will have whoever is needed wherever prepared. You can bet the ranch on that one.

[Buck_Naked]

Qb is the big question mark. If Pulley can win the job and run a bit of spread successfully we may have our best season in years. If not we may stuggle mightly.

That's my take on it too, except I'm past the "question mark" point to where I'm downright worried about the QB position.

From all I've heard it is Pulley's job to lose, and frankly I'm scared to death that UK will become one-dimensional, as is often the case with a "running QB". And we all know that one-dimensional DOES NOT WORK in the SEC.

[Matt Dillon]

We were one dimensional, the other way, with Andre. He wasn't nearly the threat to run that Pulley will be to pass.

[Buck_Naked]

We were one dimensional, the other way, with Andre. He wasn't nearly the threat to run that Pulley will be to pass.

Mmmm, I don't know if I can go with that. We have a proven running game with the backs that are returning, and we had a proven passing game with Andre....hardly one-dimensional. Now, you could rightfully say Andre was one-dimensional, since he was such a terrible scrambler, but not the offense as a whole.

Pulley has been schooled, for lack of a better term, as a running QB, and that's what worries me.

I guess it comes down to personal preference. I like a pocket QB like Andre who only runs when he has to (and maybe that's why he wasn't very good at it). But be it college or pro, I always feel like I'm watching a High School game when there's a QB that runs as much or more than he throws.

Again, just my $0.02

[RCS]

I think Pulley is a better passer than you are giving him credit. He is not Woodson, but he is not too bad either. I like the spread option personally. I think UF, UWV, Kansas, Mizzou, etc are very fun to watch. You do not want a QB that simply cannot throw the ball, like Randel El at IU was, but if you can mix it up it is a very dynamic offense.

[Matt Dillon]

[QUOTE=Buck_Naked;381815]Mmmm, I don't know if I can go with that. We have a proven running game with the backs that are returning, and we had a proven passing game with Andre....hardly one-dimensional. Now, you could rightfully say Andre was one-dimensional, since he was such a terrible scrambler, but not the offense as a whole.

My mistake. I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about the qb, not the off. as a whole.

[Buck_Naked]

I think Pulley is a better passer than you are giving him credit. He is not Woodson, but he is not too bad either. I like the spread option personally. I think UF, UWV, Kansas, Mizzou, etc are very fun to watch. You do not want a QB that simply cannot throw the ball, like Randel El at IU was, but if you can mix it up it is a very dynamic offense.

Don't misconstrue what I'm saying, I mean, I'll give the kid every opportunity to prove himself. It's just that, from what I saw in his limited action, his passing ability leaves something to be desired. But of course that's something he can learn and work on. I know Andre wasn't the passer in his FR and SO years that he became in his JR and SR years.

I'm not trying to spread negative vibes or anything like that, I'm just saying the QB position is the only one I'm really worried about for next season. I suppose that's because there are so many "unknowns" with the guys we have competing for the job.

And yeah, a Randle El-type is exactly what I don't want to see!

[Hawescat]

It will be interesting to see what happens this spring. Pulley and Hartline may be duo the way LSU used QB this year and UF last year.