Archer making defensive stand

[Radiated]

Archer making defensive stand
Cats need improvement after year to adjust to new alignment

By Chip Cosby
HERALD-LEADER STAFF WRITER

Mike Archer always has been a confident guy.

But running a defense like the one Kentucky put on the field last year can test the self-esteem of even the most self-assured individual.

The Wildcats were one of the nation's worst defensive units in 2005, giving up about 440 yards a game. Three teams racked up more than 500 yards on the Cats.

So while Archer came to UK off a successful stint as linebackers coach with the Pittsburgh Steelers and had been a part of successful defenses at LSU, Miami, and Virginia, he admitted to spending a lot of time looking in the mirror soul-searching last fall.

Link (http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/sports/colleges/university_of_kentucky/14284647.htm)

[bornblue]

It'd be nice to see someone make a defensive stand! Not sure Archer is the one who can do it.

[ares]

If there is not significant improvement to the defensive side we can get used to 2-10 or 3-9.

[gerntz]

I think some folks are ignorant of the impact of players' quality, numbers, & maturity have on results & shortsightedly blame the coach(es) for everything, immediately. Bring in a coach, let them snap their fingers, & the results happen now or out of here.

Why wouldn't anyone think better quality & numbers on D combined with an O that keeps the D off the field wouldn't result in a better product?

It's all Archer's fault?

[Mark Blueblood]

Ya can't coach above your talent. Let's face it - Archer hasn't had the talent. Now he's got some and I still think we're a year away - but we should be improved.

I've got no problem with Archer and think he'll get the job done....now that he has some depth.

[baldcat]

A good gauge as to whether it's Archer himself or lack of talent will be to chart the progress of Michah Jonesfrom the UL game to the UT game.

That's barring any injuries of course.

[justacatsfan]

Baldcat, I think you meant Micah Johnson.



Micah Jones is an OG. ;)

[UedK]

Mark Blueblood wrote: Ya can't coach above your talent. Let's face it - Archer hasn't had the talent. Now he's got some and I still think we're a year away - but we should be improved.

I've got no problem with Archer and think he'll get the job done....now that he has some depth.
I agree 100% with this statement. I have felt this from day one. This year we should take a step up with the years after going even higher.

[baldcat]

Damn it!!

That's twice I've gotten those guys confused. :lol::tongue:shock::blush:

justacatsfan wrote:
Baldcat, I think you meant Micah Johnson.



Micah Jones is an OG. ;)

[bornblue]

gerntz wrote: I think some folks are ignorant of the impact of players' quality, numbers, & maturity have on results & shortsightedly blame the coach(es) for everything, immediately. Bring in a coach, let them snap their fingers, & the results happen now or out of here.

Why wouldn't anyone think better quality & numbers on D combined with an O that keeps the D off the field wouldn't result in a better product?

It's all Archer's fault?


Can't say I haven't been called ignorant before, but I always enjoy it.

[bornblue]

But then on the other hand I get tired of supposedly capable leaders always blaming failure on the troops. Our defense has not improved at all under him, its gotten worse. If he is better than his predecessors the defense should show at least some improvement, even with the same talent. I understand that he has been a member of some successful defensive staffs, but has he ever showed sustained success as the DC at any institution before coming to KY? I am not saying he hasn't, I am just not aware of it, if he has.

I am a fan of over 50 years. I saw Claiborne's wide tackle six give us at least a chance to win. And I've seen other defenses perform a whole lot better than we have under Archer. We have been one of the worst defenses in D-1 the last couple of years.

I'm just saying I am not impressed with what he has shown to date, talent or no talent. Need to show big drop in yards rushing allowed, yards passing allowed, etc this year and see thedefense give us a chance to score enough points to win, or find somebody who can teach what talent they have where to be and when.

[sardiscat]

"but has he ever showed sustained success as the DC at any institution before coming to KY? I am not saying he hasn't, I am just not aware of it, if he has."

He won the SEC when he was head coach at LSU. His problem there was recruiting, not coaching. I believe he was Jimmy Johnson's DC whenJohnson won the NC at Miami.

[CatsSaintsFan]

Mark Blueblood wrote: Ya can't coach above your talent. Let's face it - Archer hasn't had the talent. Now he's got some and I still think we're a year away - but we should be improved.

I've got no problem with Archer and think he'll get the job done....now that he has some depth.


You can't coach above your talent?

There are hundreds of examples evey year in sports that contradicts this term.

[ares]

Spurrier won at Duke for God Sakes. You need talent but coaching does matter. It better paying out lots of cash to these assistants.

[RV]

ares wrote: Spurrier won at Duke for God Sakes. You need talent but coaching does matter. It better paying out lots of cash to these assistants.
With all due respect, when Spurrier won at Duke the ACC conference wasjust abovea mid-major conference in status and talent.

[Art Vandelay]

RV wrote: ares wrote: Spurrier won at Duke for God Sakes. You need talent but coaching does matter. It better paying out lots of cash to these assistants.
With all due respect, when Spurrier won at Duke the ACC conference wasjust abovea mid-major conference in status and talent.
Yeah, well, Clemson won the NCAA Championship as an ACC team in 1981 and that's around the same time frame that Spurrier won the ACC as Duke's head coach. Moreover, I personally witnessed Spurrier's Duke team beat Tennessee at Neyland Stadium, so I wouldn't discount this accomplishment too much.

I agree that talent is paramount, but coaching matters - a lot. If it didn't, the successful coaches wouldn't be so well paid.

[bret1555]

These guys may have been terrible statistically, but I am not so pessimistic about our defense.

1. We were unbeliebably young. . . I think we started something like 7 Freshmen & Sophomores.

2.We were faster than any UK defense that I've seen in a long time.

3. We were in our first year of a switch to the 4-3, which should be the ONLY defense a university in the SEC runs as its base. . . Execution will be improved.

All in all, despite our struggles, I am confident we will be vastly improved. . . I gotta' tell y'all, there were times at Commonwealth last season when it looked like we had the beginnings of a true, SEC caliber defense for the first time in a long time.

[RV]

Buck Naked wrote: RV wrote: ares wrote: Spurrier won at Duke for God Sakes. You need talent but coaching does matter. It better paying out lots of cash to these assistants.
With all due respect, when Spurrier won at Duke the ACC conference wasjust abovea mid-major conference in status and talent.
Yeah, well, Clemson won the NCAA Championship as an ACC team in 1981 and that's around the same time frame that Spurrier won the ACC as Duke's head coach. Moreover, I personally witnessed Spurrier's Duke team beat Tennessee at Neyland Stadium, so I wouldn't discount this accomplishment too much.

I agree that talent is paramount, but coaching matters - a lot. If it didn't, the successful coaches wouldn't be so well paid.




BYU also won a national title but it was because they cruised through a sub-par conference so I think your point about Clemson would tend to support my position, not refute it. As forStevie beating UT along that same time, while that certainly wasn't something to sneeze at, UT, and the SEC around that time didn't even know what a forward pass was, much less how to defend one. Spurrier, when he got to Florida, finally brought the SEC kicking and screaming into the modern era of football.

[sojourner]

I think you can coach above your talent but if it were easy everyone would do it. I am in favor of giving Brooks and his staff time but I also don't realistically see him as someone who will coach above his talent. It takes a special coach to do that.