Can Stoops take UK to a level Brooks couldn't?

[jauk11]

Do you have reading issues?

Who the hell was talking about Petrino

Nice footwork, way to sidestep the issues.

Do you really think Stoops, Gran, or any other really good coach would have come here when Joker took over the program? Remember that was BEFORE the strike and also BEFORE the massive influs of money--------mostly due to the OTHER SEC football teams that did invest in football.

 

[Dallas-Wild]

Nice footwork, way to sidestep the issues.

Do you really think Stoops, Gran, or any other really good coach would have come here when Joker took over the program? Remember that was BEFORE the strike and also BEFORE the massive influs of money--------mostly due to the OTHER SEC football teams that did invest in football.

Again reading skills.

It was a simple question of what if. Sorry it was difficult for you to understand

Enjoy

 

[BBBLazing]

Unfortunately, your comment accurately describes many fans. Without doubt, some of the same people now labeling Brooks as our program's savior were screaming for Brooks' scalp in 2005 when Barnhart was supporting him. Many fans were screaming for Stoops' scalp 2 months ago, but now have reservations in Jacksonville later this month. People aren't accountable, change their opinions weekly with W/L. Fortunately, some are different. That's why I come here and read comments.

I Agree with you, but I am glad that fans that complain come back around when we win and go to the bowl games.

 

[BBBLazing]

Nice footwork, way to sidestep the issues.

Do you really think Stoops, Gran, or any other really good coach would have come here when Joker took over the program? Remember that was BEFORE the strike and also BEFORE the massive influs of money--------mostly due to the OTHER SEC football teams that did invest in football.

Most of the money invested came after Stoops got here. He had a lot to do with the money.

 

[jauk11]

Most of the money invested came after Stoops got here. He had a lot to do with the money.

It also came after a lot of lifetime loyal fans sacrificed season tickets in the family for generations. AND there became an abundance of money, mostly due to FOOTBALL-------though most of that was due to other SEC teams football, ie TV contracts, SEC network, etc.

I agree, Stoops came with a plan and sold it, and one of his best moves was hiring Marrow and targeting Ohio. Now we have grown to the point where we can also target other SEC states. you do realize that during Brooks entire tenure he signed ZERO recruits from SEC states targeted by Home State U, and zero four stars from those states. Thug U offered Cobb after he was firmly committed to UK and I don't think they would have then except to cover themselves in case he did turn out to be good, they knew he wasn't going to flip. They were busy signing four and five stars, and he was a two star at the time.

 

[JC CATS]

Well duh he doesn't have 1% of the resources that Brooks had and was promised. Had Brooks had these resources im a firm believer we would've been a 8-10 win team per year considering what he was able to do with some of the worst resources in all of power 5 football and we would've never had the set back we had and stoops would've never even had an opportunity to coach here.

All it takes is investing money to get a hungry fanbase and program on the uptick and now that we have some of the best facilities in all of football we should be on the uptick for years even though it's 40 years overdue. Had Brooks had these resources though I'm almost certain we'd finish top 20 in recruiting every year and we would've been a much more attractive option for players and instead of going from 8 wins to 2 wins we would've went from 8 wins to 10+ wins a season if you include bowl season. I feel like had we invested the money 9 years ago we would've been in the position that MSU had been in the last few years if not better.

I feel like it's almost impossible for stoops to not surpass the level Brooks took us too considering the difference in resources each coach had is night and day. So since Stoops has literally a thousand times more to work with than Brooks did he should at least surpass what Brooks did by about 2 wins a year. I do feel like if Brooks had these resources though that we would've been a modern day powerhouse already and that he would've done better than stoops did or could've ever dreamed of with these resources seeing what Brooks did with literally nothing to work with. I don't believe stoops would've been able to even come close to matching what Brooks did if he had the same resources. If stoops had to work with what Brooks had to work with I don't think we would've ever seen more than 4 wins in a season with stoops when Brooks was taking us to 8 win seasons with no 4 stars and a roster loaded with 2 stars.

Quite amazing when you think about it. For example compare the recruiting rooms. it used to be a table with metal chairs in a terrible location of the stadium. To a state of the art facility. I'm not saying this to knock stoops at all either it's just a testament to how great of a coach Brooks was. I don't feel like there's a snow balls chance in hell he could've replicated what Brooks did had he had the same resources Brooks had. So yea stoops will surpass what Brooks was able to do it's a guarantee at this point due to the facilities. But Brooks IMO is light years of a better coach because he was able to do it, all while being severely handicapped in comparison to the rest of the SEC and resources to recruit with. But stoops is in the beginning of his head coaching career. So who's to say in 10-15 years that he wouldn't have reached the level of Brooks as far as just pure coaching ability goes.

Are you that Andre guy that was so negative before? The one who continued to be negative after Stoops started winning. Not that there's anything wrong with that

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Right now the SEC, particularly the East is in a changing of the guard mode. UF has won 2 eastern championships in a row, but they aren't really impressive in doing so. UT was suppose to be a juggarnaught in 16 but were lucky to win a couple of games they did and could have easily been a 6 win, or less team. UK lost a couple of early games that looking back on now makes you wonder how it happened. USC burnned a redshirt on their qb and it improved them enough to get to a bowl.

I am not really sure how good the SEC east will be in 17, but I think UT struggles to get to 8 wins, they lose an awful lot of production for both sides of the ball. Everyone else in the East should be better in 17 so UT could have a rough year as they are the only team replacing a qb and both top RBs. East will be pretty wide open, I think UK and UGA would look pertty good headying into the season, UF is UF and seems to have both our numbers, I think UT will struggle and could be 7th in the east in 17, maybe winless in the SEC. Defensively UF has some talent but how much leaves early, they aren't recruiting very well, USC has some talent, could make a statelment, UGA is recruiting like most thought Kirby would, will it translate to the field, Vandy is what Vandy always is, smart guys who play football. UT's recruting is bad for them, Missouri has never recruited great so can they continue to develope talent, UK has stepped up their recruiting to a level it never has experienced before. I think the East champ will be between UK and UGA in 17,

 

[Littlefeller_rivals66952]

It's an opinion on the matter and there's been great discussion for both. I really won't add to or linger on what's been posted except to say I think we need to give Brooks some credit for the Stoops success. He(Brooks) laid the groundwork for all the upgrades. Many times you have to ask-even being told NO-and plant the seed for the future. Brooks by asking(demanding some say) at least planted the seed for MB and boosters-maybe they at least took a serious look where our program compared to the rest of the world and realized what needed to be done. Then with the Joker situation realized changes in coaching and facilities needed to be made. I just don't see MB making any quick changes-especially the financial comment and follow thru-like he has done since CMS. It took someone from a top program to really come in with a plan and the fire/determination to finish the thought and turn it into action with MB and the boosters. Thanks Coach Brooks for that if for nothing else cause IMHO that laid the ground work for us to be where we are today. The giant is starting to wake up people-some teams need to be aware(hello UL)[cheers]

 

[Blue Decade]

Facilities are certainly a factor but signing a class of 2 and low 3 stars right after beating the eventually national champ cannot be totally explained away by chairs, tables, ice tubes and barber shops.

The real issue with Brooks lack of recruiting was he simply didn't have very good recruiters on his staff. Most of them were really good coaches but weak in recruiting. One story I heard was about Petri who I loved as a Dline coach. They sent him to Florida on a recruiting trip and he checked his golf clubs on the plane. These guys just didn't have the desire to put in the long hours and miles that it takes, and like you see our current staff doing.

Rick Petri was known to be a poor recruiter. Petri's background was in Miami, where recruiting was handled by couple people on their staff and done illegally (several probation periods there). But I don't think it's accurate to say Brooks didn't have good recruiters. It's true that Brooks' recruiters weren't as effective as Stoops' recruiters, but that's a high bar. And it's true that Brooks' recruiters didn't recruit Ohio well, but they weren't focused on Ohio. A bunch of future NFL players were signed by Brooks. Many are still playing in the NFL now. I would say that Stoops has redefined football recruiting in Lexington, but Brooks was a significant upgrade at that time in history.

 

[vhcat70]

Another discredited anti-Barnhart perspective. We have a $200 million stadium renovation, a brand new office/practice complex, a date later this month for the Gator Bowl. Our coaches have received raises. Barnhart kept Marrow here when Harbaugh tried to hire him away. Clearly, Barnhart has supported Stoops to the hilt, in so doing supporting Kentucky football. If you still don't believe he supported Brooks, then explain why he didn't fire Brooks in 2005 when our entire fan base was demanding that. You were probably 1 of them.

You fail to distinguish between pre & post Stoops. That he kept Brooks then only demonstrates he knew he couldn't due better than the guy who saved him given the then-state of the facilities. A3k isn't off-base for the pre-Stoops period which he is discussing.

 

[vhcat70]

You keep saying that Mitch Barnhart broke his promise to invest. But didn't the bottom fall out of the economy around that point? Isn't it possible that the funds that were there originally were no longer there?

Anything is possible. Where's the data that says that's the reason? What was he doing 2002-2008?

 

[DCFseattle]

Anything is possible. Where's the data that says that's the reason? What was he doing 2002-2008?

A timeline of events? What do you want?

 

[vhcat70]

A timeline of events? What do you want?

Someone of import in UK Admin saying - at that time - that's what happened. Coincidence doesn't equal causation.

 

[mtn cat1]

This is yet to be determined, however, like his chances!!!!!

 

[DCFseattle]

Someone of import in UK Admin saying - at that time - that's what happened. Coincidence doesn't equal causation.

I didn't say that was what caused it. I asked if it was a possibility, which is perfectly reasonable. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Andre3k]

So many people here missing the point. Stoops is not better because he can get better recruits and show them state of the art facilities and a state of the art recruiting room. Brooks was winning 8 games with metal chairs in a random room under some concrete as a recruiting room. when comparing the 2 coaches I just don't see a snowball's chance in hell that stoops would've been able to replicate that under the same circumstance. Also if Brooks had the same facilities, we would've competed for a national championship the year we beat LSU because we wouldn't have lost all those close games because our roster would've had a million times more depth than it did had they had these facilities. Bottom line is the upgrades were way overdue. Stoops got in here at the right time and has a blueprint for success. The future is bright. But no way in hell is anyone here going to convince me stoops would've won 8 games in a very powerful SEC East with metal chairs as a recruiting room and a roster loaded with 2 stars because that's all we could get due to the resources. And that's why Brooks, at least at this point in time, is a much better coach.

Maybe in 10 years stoops will have surpassed him. But in no way in hell is he a better coach right now just because he has all the resources in the world to work with compared to the nothing brooks had and still won 8 games with does it in any way make him better. If Brooks had these resources back then. We easily would've had some 10+ win seasons in a loaded SEC East. The thing is, he was winning 8 games with nothing to work with and abunch of 2 stars in a dominant SEC. For the guy that said that said maybe the money wasn't there for Mitch to invest..... why not? Had we invested then how much more profitable would've our program been the next 9 years in which we sucked? The answer in exponentially more profitable. Gotta spend money to make money and no better thing to invest in than football especially when the economy is hurting. Football is the number one money maker you'd have to be the truest of dumbies to not invest in that regardless of economy because no matter what you're going to reap the benefits of having a very respectable football program as apposed to winning 2-5 games with 6 being the max in a lucky year every year for 9 years. You gotta make moves in order to get the economy to rise. There is no better option than investing in football especially in a bad economy because it's going to profit a lot more and ultimately help the economy. And he simply broke a promise and didn't do it.

I keep seeing Brooks was a bad recruiter. How was he supposed to recruit? Would love to see any coach bring in top notch talent with those facilities. Not even Urban Meyer is bringing in top notch talent with those resources. Do people truly believe stoops would be recruiting at the same level if he were here then with those same resources Brooks had? Brooks is able to get more out of what he had moreso than stoops at this point. Difference is stoops has a lot more to work with so if one recruit doesn't work out (like Elam for example) he has a long line to choose from to see who will work out. When Brooks was here if a recruit like Elam didn't work out then that would be a total backbreaker because he had no way of building depth with a bunch of metal chairs under some concrete as a recruiting room.

People really need to look at pictures of what Brooks had and stoops had before claiming stoops is a better coach simply because he has talent due to the resources that the higher powers invested in. The difference in facilities is night and day. Our facilities now are literally a million times better than what we had then. Just because stoops has talent because of resources. It just doesn't make him a better coach. Yea the results under stoops will end up being much better than what Brooks did. But look at how much money was spent on all the facility upgrades. That's where the results are coming from. Why would've we spent all that money to begin with if these weren't the results that were going to come with it? Simple math.1+1=2. But does that make stoops a better 'coach'? Absolutelyfreakingnot.

 

[jauk11]

So many people here missing the point. Stoops is not better because he can get better recruits and show them state of the art facilities and a state of the art recruiting room. Brooks was winning 8 games with metal chairs in a random room under some concrete as a recruiting room. when comparing the 2 coaches I just don't see a snowball's chance in hell that stoops would've been able to replicate that under the same circumstance. Also if Brooks had the same facilities, we would've competed for a national championship the year we beat LSU because we wouldn't have lost all those close games because our roster would've had a million times more depth than it did had they had these facilities. Bottom line is the upgrades were way overdue. Stoops got in here at the right time and has a blueprint for success. The future is bright. But no way in hell is anyone here going to convince me stoops would've won 8 games in a very powerful SEC East with metal chairs as a recruiting room and a roster loaded with 2 stars because that's all we could get due to the resources. And that's why Brooks, at least at this point in time, is a much better coach.

Maybe in 10 years stoops will have surpassed him. But in no way in hell is he a better coach right now just because he has all the resources in the world to work with compared to the nothing brooks had and still won 8 games with does it in any way make him better. If Brooks had these resources back then. We easily would've had some 10+ win seasons in a loaded SEC East. The thing is, he was winning 8 games with nothing to work with and abunch of 2 stars in a dominant SEC. For the guy that said that said maybe the money wasn't there for Mitch to invest..... why not? Had we invested then how much more profitable would've our program been the next 9 years in which we sucked? The answer in exponentially more profitable. Gotta spend money to make money and no better thing to invest in than football especially when the economy is hurting. Football is the number one money maker you'd have to be the truest of dumbies to not invest in that regardless of economy because no matter what you're going to reap the benefits of having a very respectable football program as apposed to winning 2-5 games with 6 being the max in a lucky year every year for 9 years. You gotta make moves in order to get the economy to rise. There is no better option than investing in football especially in a bad economy because it's going to profit a lot more and ultimately help the economy. And he simply broke a promise and didn't do it.

I keep seeing Brooks was a bad recruiter. How was he supposed to recruit? Would love to see any coach bring in top notch talent with those facilities. Not even Urban Meyer is bringing in top notch talent with those resources. Do people truly believe stoops would be recruiting at the same level if he were here then with those same resources Brooks had? Brooks is able to get more out of what he had moreso than stoops at this point. Difference is stoops has a lot more to work with so if one recruit doesn't work out (like Elam for example) he has a long line to choose from to see who will work out. When Brooks was here if a recruit like Elam didn't work out then that would be a total backbreaker because he had no way of building depth with a bunch of metal chairs under some concrete as a recruiting room.

People really need to look at pictures of what Brooks had and stoops had before claiming stoops is a better coach simply because he has talent due to the resources that the higher powers invested in. The difference in facilities is night and day. Our facilities now are literally a million times better than what we had then. Just because stoops has talent because of resources. It just doesn't make him a better coach. Yea the results under stoops will end up being much better than what Brooks did. But look at how much money was spent on all the facility upgrades. That's where the results are coming from. Why would've we spent all that money to begin with if these weren't the results that were going to come with it? Simple math.1+1=2. But does that make stoops a better 'coach'? Absolutelyfreakingnot.

I have been making your point about facilities and the dumbness of not investing in your most profitable product for years, to a lot of peoples dismay. Brooks had the advantage of decades of experience as a head coach and also as a DC, coached in the NFL and was the acting HC in a Super Bowl. He did a favor for mitch by coming out of retirement when no one else wanted the job-------and Stoops would not have come to UK under the circumstances Brooks had at that time, and he would not have been able to retain Marrow or bring in Gran, Brooks had to give Joker part of his salary when there were rumors of Bama wanting Joker. And Joker was a very hot item at the time..

Stoops is doing a great job of solving UK's main problem for decades, raw talent and depth, and he is still learning as a head coach, I think he has made a lot of progress, especially in hiring assistants. He isn't there yet but hei will get closet and closer to being as good as Brooks-------great talent makes great coaches.

 

[vhcat70]

I didn't say that was what caused it. I asked if it was a possibility, which is perfectly reasonable. Don't put words in my mouth.

You asked me what I wanted & I told you. Don't put words in my mouth that I put words in yours. That said, your opinion is reasonable conjecture. OTOH, it's not mine. Mine is that it wasn't high on MB's agenda till the Joker colossal failure & the reactions that spawned.

 

[Blue Decade]

So many people here missing the point. Stoops is not better because he can get better recruits and show them state of the art facilities and a state of the art recruiting room. Brooks was winning 8 games with metal chairs in a random room under some concrete as a recruiting room. when comparing the 2 coaches I just don't see a snowball's chance in hell that stoops would've been able to replicate that under the same circumstance. Also if Brooks had the same facilities, we would've competed for a national championship the year we beat LSU because we wouldn't have lost all those close games because our roster would've had a million times more depth than it did had they had these facilities. Bottom line is the upgrades were way overdue. Stoops got in here at the right time and has a blueprint for success. The future is bright. But no way in hell is anyone here going to convince me stoops would've won 8 games in a very powerful SEC East with metal chairs as a recruiting room and a roster loaded with 2 stars because that's all we could get due to the resources. And that's why Brooks, at least at this point in time, is a much better coach.

Maybe in 10 years stoops will have surpassed him. But in no way in hell is he a better coach right now just because he has all the resources in the world to work with compared to the nothing brooks had and still won 8 games with does it in any way make him better. If Brooks had these resources back then. We easily would've had some 10+ win seasons in a loaded SEC East. The thing is, he was winning 8 games with nothing to work with and abunch of 2 stars in a dominant SEC. For the guy that said that said maybe the money wasn't there for Mitch to invest..... why not? Had we invested then how much more profitable would've our program been the next 9 years in which we sucked? The answer in exponentially more profitable. Gotta spend money to make money and no better thing to invest in than football especially when the economy is hurting. Football is the number one money maker you'd have to be the truest of dumbies to not invest in that regardless of economy because no matter what you're going to reap the benefits of having a very respectable football program as apposed to winning 2-5 games with 6 being the max in a lucky year every year for 9 years. You gotta make moves in order to get the economy to rise. There is no better option than investing in football especially in a bad economy because it's going to profit a lot more and ultimately help the economy. And he simply broke a promise and didn't do it.

I keep seeing Brooks was a bad recruiter. How was he supposed to recruit? Would love to see any coach bring in top notch talent with those facilities. Not even Urban Meyer is bringing in top notch talent with those resources. Do people truly believe stoops would be recruiting at the same level if he were here then with those same resources Brooks had? Brooks is able to get more out of what he had moreso than stoops at this point. Difference is stoops has a lot more to work with so if one recruit doesn't work out (like Elam for example) he has a long line to choose from to see who will work out. When Brooks was here if a recruit like Elam didn't work out then that would be a total backbreaker because he had no way of building depth with a bunch of metal chairs under some concrete as a recruiting room.

People really need to look at pictures of what Brooks had and stoops had before claiming stoops is a better coach simply because he has talent due to the resources that the higher powers invested in. The difference in facilities is night and day. Our facilities now are literally a million times better than what we had then. Just because stoops has talent because of resources. It just doesn't make him a better coach. Yea the results under stoops will end up being much better than what Brooks did. But look at how much money was spent on all the facility upgrades. That's where the results are coming from. Why would've we spent all that money to begin with if these weren't the results that were going to come with it? Simple math.1+1=2. But does that make stoops a better 'coach'? Absolutelyfreakingnot.

Brooks had only what he had to work with at the time, no more, no less. Stoops has only what he has to work with now. Facilities get upgraded everywhere. You sound like you believe Kentucky is the only school that has improved its facilities for its current coach. You can compare any football coach at any P5 school to his predecessor and there will always be discrepancies in facilities. That's why your reasoning about Brooks/Stoops makes no sense. Brooks and Stoops both come from defensive coordinator backgrounds. Aside from that, Brooks and Stoops don't have much in common. So it isn't really about facilities. Brooks and Stoops are about 20 years apart in age. Brooks had an NFL background, Stoops doesn't. Brooks had an extensive head coaching background, Stoops doesn't. Brooks ended his head coaching career at Kentucky. Stoops is beginning his head coaching career at Kentucky. Stoops' young age gives him an advantage as a recruiter, but challenges him in other respects as a head coach. Not only is Stoops a better recruiter than Brooks was, but Stoops is arguably the best recruiter Kentucky has ever had as a head football coach. Brooks was better in other aspects of this job, but Brooks was a finished product. Stoops is still learning on the job, and ought to get better as a game manager. But if your only purpose is to keep repeating discredited narratives, then these points probably won't interest you.

 

[Oldtrainer_rivals]

Right now the SEC, particularly the East is in a changing of the guard mode. UF has won 2 eastern championships in a row, but they aren't really impressive in doing so. UT was suppose to be a juggarnaught in 16 but were lucky to win a couple of games they did and could have easily been a 6 win, or less team. UK lost a couple of early games that looking back on now makes you wonder how it happened. USC burnned a redshirt on their qb and it improved them enough to get to a bowl.

I am not really sure how good the SEC east will be in 17, but I think UT struggles to get to 8 wins, they lose an awful lot of production for both sides of the ball. Everyone else in the East should be better in 17 so UT could have a rough year as they are the only team replacing a qb and both top RBs. East will be pretty wide open, I think UK and UGA would look pertty good headying into the season, UF is UF and seems to have both our numbers, I think UT will struggle and could be 7th in the east in 17, maybe winless in the SEC. Defensively UF has some talent but how much leaves early, they aren't recruiting very well, USC has some talent, could make a statelment, UGA is recruiting like most thought Kirby would, will it translate to the field, Vandy is what Vandy always is, smart guys who play football. UT's recruting is bad for them, Missouri has never recruited great so can they continue to develope talent, UK has stepped up their recruiting to a level it never has experienced before. I think the East champ will be between UK and UGA in 17,

That will suit me fine Grump. My two favorite team CATS 1 & Dawgs 1A! Hope you are right about the Vols. Is Florida recruiting well as ever?

 

[jauk11]

Are you that Andre guy that was so negative before? The one who continued to be negative after Stoops started winning. Not that there's anything wrong with that

I was dying to ask the same question, I had many an argument with the old Andrei, and Andre3k appeared at about the same time the other disappeared (when UK started winning), leading someone to label Andre as the reincarnation, which I bought into. But I don't see how it is possible they are the same, I think this poster has some very good posts so far, the other guy was incorrigible to me.

 

[Oldtrainer_rivals]

So many people here missing the point. Stoops is not better because he can get better recruits and show them state of the art facilities and a state of the art recruiting room. Brooks was winning 8 games with metal chairs in a random room under some concrete as a recruiting room. when comparing the 2 coaches I just don't see a snowball's chance in hell that stoops would've been able to replicate that under the same circumstance. Also if Brooks had the same facilities, we would've competed for a national championship the year we beat LSU because we wouldn't have lost all those close games because our roster would've had a million times more depth than it did had they had these facilities. Bottom line is the upgrades were way overdue. Stoops got in here at the right time and has a blueprint for success. The future is bright. But no way in hell is anyone here going to convince me stoops would've won 8 games in a very powerful SEC East with metal chairs as a recruiting room and a roster loaded with 2 stars because that's all we could get due to the resources. And that's why Brooks, at least at this point in time, is a much better coach.

Maybe in 10 years stoops will have surpassed him. But in no way in hell is he a better coach right now just because he has all the resources in the world to work with compared to the nothing brooks had and still won 8 games with does it in any way make him better. If Brooks had these resources back then. We easily would've had some 10+ win seasons in a loaded SEC East. The thing is, he was winning 8 games with nothing to work with and abunch of 2 stars in a dominant SEC. For the guy that said that said maybe the money wasn't there for Mitch to invest..... why not? Had we invested then how much more profitable would've our program been the next 9 years in which we sucked? The answer in exponentially more profitable. Gotta spend money to make money and no better thing to invest in than football especially when the economy is hurting. Football is the number one money maker you'd have to be the truest of dumbies to not invest in that regardless of economy because no matter what you're going to reap the benefits of having a very respectable football program as apposed to winning 2-5 games with 6 being the max in a lucky year every year for 9 years. You gotta make moves in order to get the economy to rise. There is no better option than investing in football especially in a bad economy because it's going to profit a lot more and ultimately help the economy. And he simply broke a promise and didn't do it.

I keep seeing Brooks was a bad recruiter. How was he supposed to recruit? Would love to see any coach bring in top notch talent with those facilities. Not even Urban Meyer is bringing in top notch talent with those resources. Do people truly believe stoops would be recruiting at the same level if he were here then with those same resources Brooks had? Brooks is able to get more out of what he had moreso than stoops at this point. Difference is stoops has a lot more to work with so if one recruit doesn't work out (like Elam for example) he has a long line to choose from to see who will work out. When Brooks was here if a recruit like Elam didn't work out then that would be a total backbreaker because he had no way of building depth with a bunch of metal chairs under some concrete as a recruiting room.

People really need to look at pictures of what Brooks had and stoops had before claiming stoops is a better coach simply because he has talent due to the resources that the higher powers invested in. The difference in facilities is night and day. Our facilities now are literally a million times better than what we had then. Just because stoops has talent because of resources. It just doesn't make him a better coach. Yea the results under stoops will end up being much better than what Brooks did. But look at how much money was spent on all the facility upgrades. That's where the results are coming from. Why would've we spent all that money to begin with if these weren't the results that were going to come with it? Simple math.1+1=2. But does that make stoops a better 'coach'? Absolutelyfreakingnot.

Hey Andre3k, are you the same Andre bla-bla-bla that filibuster those many negative Stoops blogs when CATS lost games? If you were when did you play in State championship game, what school, and where was that game played?

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

Facilities are certainly a factor but signing a class of 2 and low 3 stars right after beating the eventually national champ cannot be totally explained away by chairs, tables, ice tubes and barber shops.

The real issue with Brooks lack of recruiting was he simply didn't have very good recruiters on his staff. Most of them were really good coaches but weak in recruiting. One story I heard was about Petri who I loved as a Dline coach. They sent him to Florida on a recruiting trip and he checked his golf clubs on the plane. These guys just didn't have the desire to put in the long hours and miles that it takes, and like you see our current staff doing.

As Jauk said Joker seemed to be the main person Brooks leaned on for recruiting. I think the staff did their best to find the diamonds in the rough and develop them. IMO ,Brooks didn't have the support for new facilities and the salaries to hire and keep top notch recruitment specialists.
The administration had always been happy to be "good enough" as long as the fans put butts into the seats and milk the cash cow,

 

[Deeeefense]

As Jauk said Joker seemed to be the main person Brooks leaned on for recruiting. I think the staff did their best to find the diamonds in the rough and develop them. IMO ,Brooks didn't have the support for new facilities and the salaries to hire and keep top notch recruitment specialists.
The administration had always been happy to be "good enough" as long as the fans put butts into the seats and milk the cash cow,

I know Joker brought in some decent players but one coach can't be your entire recruiting army, neither can a roster full of diamonds in the rough. My comment was made more on the context of explanation as opposed to criticism as I know Brooks is a beloved figure here that fans want to be protective of.

I certainly agree that times were different prior to the fan revolution of 2012 which has brought all the needed changes that have been missing.

 

[ScrewDuke1]

I think you're missing the point. Every single year. We schedule 3 weak OOC teams and Louisville due to the grueling SEC schedule. So I have no clue what you're talking about when you say he scheduled a certain way so we could win more. The scheduling then is the same way it is now. 3 weak OOC teams and Louisville. So that point you keep making is beyond moot. In fact the schedules he went up against are much more difficult then what we face today due to how much stronger the East division was then. Fact of the matter is. With a top 10 strength of schedule. He was winning 8 games. What do you mean he left the cupboard bare? What choice did he have once Mitch decided to not fulfill his promise and invest? There was no way in hell he was going to be able to sustain success with some of the worst facilities in all of P5 football. He had no chance to pull top recruits because who wants to practice with the worst facilities in all of P5 football when you don't have to? No one wanted to play here. So he didn't leave the cupboard bare. The cupboard was bare the entire time he coached here.

We were never able to create a quality roster at any point in his career. If we had any resources whatsoever to work with. We would've had a lot more depth. And we would've won a lot more games. If we had the resources we have now back when he was here no doubt we win an extra 2-3 games a year due to actually having something to sell recruits on. We would've beaten MSU, Florida and Tennessee in OT had we had these resources back then so we could build depth. But he had none of that. And while not having anything to sell recruits on. An AD that broke a promise to invest in the program. He left because Mitch wasn't giving him a chance to make something of our program. So factor in some of the worst facilities in all of P5 football, an AD refusing to invest. And a roster with no depth at all. The toughest division in all of football, a much tougher schedule then what we face this season. And he was still able to beat the National Champion LSU team. Was able to beat a decent UL team. A decent UGA team, a decent Auburn team. He beat a pretty damn good Clemson team. A pretty good FSU team (not by their standards), a pretty good East Carolina team. I think it's absolutely unbelievable what he was able to achieve here with what he had to work with. Every team in the SEC schedules 3-4 cupcakes a year because of how grueling the SEC is. As far as your scheduling argument goes. It's invalid as it gets. Had we had resources that we could build depth with like we do today. We would've won 10-11 games some season. If Brooks had the resources we had today. We would be a modern day powerhouse.

Bottom line is Mitch broke a promise and set our program back 10 years when it was ready to take the next step. You're definitely selling brooks short considering what he had and what he was able to do with what he had. He did an incredible job here. He basically made miracles happen considering the roster we had due to some of the worst facilities in football. I feel like you're completely missing the point on all of this. Brooks is an HOF caliber coach which is why we won 8 games 2 different season with a roster loaded with 2 stars with a very very difficult schedule. Much more difficult then what we gave today considering how weak the East is. Your argument as far as scheduling goes literally makes no sense. For a very long time now our OOC schedule has looked something like this. UL..... and 3 cupcakes. That's what it is today. And that's what it was then. And you don't choose your conference schedule those games we have no control over. And those weak schedules Brooks was going up against. We're top 10 SOS's. He won 8 games. With a top 10 SOS. With a roster loaded with 2 stars. Truly an amazing coach. We would've beaten UT the year we lost in OT if we had any resources whatsoever to build depth with. And we still should've won with nothing to work with. So he is at no fault in any game we lost because we had no way of building depth.

I'm glad you use paragraphs, but my god man no ones gonna read that lol.

 

[Free_Salato_Blue]

I know Joker brought in some decent players but one coach can't be your entire recruiting army, neither can a roster full of diamonds in the rough. My comment was made more on the context of explanation as opposed to criticism as I know Brooks is a beloved figure here that fans want to be protective of.

I certainly agree that times were different prior to the fan revolution of 2012 which has brought all the needed changes that have been missing.

True, I put more blame into the administration. Not until the fan base had enough and ticket sales plummeted did they decide to seriously invest in the program. The UK fan base had been one the most fervent, loyal and hopeful in the SEC over the years considering the product.

 

[cat888]

This stuff about Brooks not being a good recruiter is laughable. If he had half the money and facilities Stoops has, it would of made a difference. Oh and Vince Marrow too.
FACT..BROOKS Came from West of the Mississippi and you can count the players he brought with him on one hand.

 

[rqa]

I think you're missing the point. Every single year. We schedule 3 weak OOC teams and Louisville due to the grueling SEC schedule. So I have no clue what you're talking about when you say he scheduled a certain way so we could win more. The scheduling then is the same way it is now. 3 weak OOC teams and Louisville. So that point you keep making is beyond moot. In fact the schedules he went up against are much more difficult then what we face today due to how much stronger the East division was then. Fact of the matter is. With a top 10 strength of schedule. He was winning 8 games. What do you mean he left the cupboard bare? What choice did he have once Mitch decided to not fulfill his promise and invest? There was no way in hell he was going to be able to sustain success with some of the worst facilities in all of P5 football. He had no chance to pull top recruits because who wants to practice with the worst facilities in all of P5 football when you don't have to? No one wanted to play here. So he didn't leave the cupboard bare. The cupboard was bare the entire time he coached here.

We were never able to create a quality roster at any point in his career. If we had any resources whatsoever to work with. We would've had a lot more depth. And we would've won a lot more games. If we had the resources we have now back when he was here no doubt we win an extra 2-3 games a year due to actually having something to sell recruits on. We would've beaten MSU, Florida and Tennessee in OT had we had these resources back then so we could build depth. But he had none of that. And while not having anything to sell recruits on. An AD that broke a promise to invest in the program. He left because Mitch wasn't giving him a chance to make something of our program. So factor in some of the worst facilities in all of P5 football, an AD refusing to invest. And a roster with no depth at all. The toughest division in all of football, a much tougher schedule then what we face this season. And he was still able to beat the National Champion LSU team. Was able to beat a decent UL team. A decent UGA team, a decent Auburn team. He beat a pretty damn good Clemson team. A pretty good FSU team (not by their standards), a pretty good East Carolina team. I think it's absolutely unbelievable what he was able to achieve here with what he had to work with. Every team in the SEC schedules 3-4 cupcakes a year because of how grueling the SEC is. As far as your scheduling argument goes. It's invalid as it gets. Had we had resources that we could build depth with like we do today. We would've won 10-11 games some season. If Brooks had the resources we had today. We would be a modern day powerhouse.

Bottom line is Mitch broke a promise and set our program back 10 years when it was ready to take the next step. You're definitely selling brooks short considering what he had and what he was able to do with what he had. He did an incredible job here. He basically made miracles happen considering the roster we had due to some of the worst facilities in football. I feel like you're completely missing the point on all of this. Brooks is an HOF caliber coach which is why we won 8 games 2 different season with a roster loaded with 2 stars with a very very difficult schedule. Much more difficult then what we gave today considering how weak the East is. Your argument as far as scheduling goes literally makes no sense. For a very long time now our OOC schedule has looked something like this. UL..... and 3 cupcakes. That's what it is today. And that's what it was then. And you don't choose your conference schedule those games we have no control over. And those weak schedules Brooks was going up against. We're top 10 SOS's. He won 8 games. With a top 10 SOS. With a roster loaded with 2 stars. Truly an amazing coach. We would've beaten UT the year we lost in OT if we had any resources whatsoever to build depth with. And we still should've won with nothing to work with. So he is at no fault in any game we lost because we had no way of building depth.

 

[jauk11]

I'm glad you use paragraphs, but my god man no ones gonna read that lol.

I did. Worth reading, IMO.

 

[Andre3k]

I have been making your point about facilities and the dumbness of not investing in your most profitable product for years, to a lot of peoples dismay. Brooks had the advantage of decades of experience as a head coach and also as a DC, coached in the NFL and was the acting HC in a Super Bowl. He did a favor for mitch by coming out of retirement when no one else wanted the job-------and Stoops would not have come to UK under the circumstances Brooks had at that time, and he would not have been able to retain Marrow or bring in Gran, Brooks had to give Joker part of his salary when there were rumors of Bama wanting Joker. And Joker was a very hot item at the time..

Stoops is doing a great job of solving UK's main problem for decades, raw talent and depth, and he is still learning as a head coach, I think he has made a lot of progress, especially in hiring assistants. He isn't there yet but hei will get closet and closer to being as good as Brooks-------great talent makes great coaches.

Agree with you that in due time. Stoops will get closer and closer to being on Brooks level as far as being a coach goes. But the people I'm mainly addressing are the ones claiming stoops is already a better HC after being an HC for a total of 4 years. In 10 years there's a definite chance he'all be on or above Brooks level by then. But the people who are saying he's already better than Brooks or that he's close to being better within the next couple years are out of this world clueless IMO. Stoops still had a long ways to go in the coaching department IMO.

One area of his that needs improvement that really really bothers me is clock/time out management. Way too many times will it be towards the end of a game or the end of the half and we'll be on defense and the other team is trying to run the clock out. And in those no brainer situations where you must call a time out in order to get the ball back. It seems he always waits at least 20 seconds to call a timeout when the other team is trying to run the clock out. I've found myself many times either watching TV or at the games screaming to the top of my lungs 'TIMEOUT TIMEOUT TIMEOUT' non stop in the most no brainer time out situations you could be in then 20 seconds later a timeout will be called and at that point it's a wasted timeout might as well keep it fod the next play since you already let the other team waste 20 seconds in a no brainer time out must be called situation. He's made a ton of improvement over his time. But he really needs to learn how to manage time outs and the clock much better that's one area that's severely disappointed me thus far. Besides that though he's been pretty crisp. Fortunately this season it hasn't cost us too much. But it's going to if he doesn't fix it soon.