This is why offensive HC is a must at KY
- Thread starter Jared1985
- Start date
There are numerous examples from time immemorial of offensive and defensive minded HC's who have succeeded and failed. That is an argument that cant be won. Perhaps someone could spend the next five months researching every head coach at the collegiate and professional level, their philosophy, their results, and then give us the numbers so we can see which philosophy more consistently correlates with success.
Also, I feel compelled to point out how the OP stated he believes that we need an offensive minded cosch because it seems to work out more for small schools like TCU, Tech, etc and the first rebuttal involved Nick Saban/LSU/Alabama. What the **** do you not understand about "small schools?"
Also, I feel compelled to point out how the OP stated he believes that we need an offensive minded cosch because it seems to work out more for small schools like TCU, Tech, etc and the first rebuttal involved Nick Saban/LSU/Alabama. What the **** do you not understand about "small schools?"
He also won with Morgan Newton.
Also, pretty confusing to see your previous post say Brooks won with offense, then say jokers offenses failed because they were probably style. Confusing because of course joker was the oc under Brooks.
So what changed? The joker staff was basically the same, just no brooks. But they couldn't accomplish anything
You don't get it... 47.5. Why do you think he hired Kifiin... Saban gets it even if you don't
Saban did fine before kiffen, and he'll do fine after. Let's not act as if kiffen is propping him up. It's pretty obvious it's the other way around.
To honest. Brooks wasn't that great of a coach imo. He did well for 2 seasons when you really think about it. The rest of his era was either mediocre (08 through 09) or terrible (03 through 05)
He benefited a great deal from the state of KY producing a number of SEC level talent players that he managed to land. Once that one run of instate talent was over....Brooks didn't do a ton pre 06-07 or post.
Joker benefited a ton from having a Manning-esque type QB in Woodson who changed plays at the line CONSTANTLY. Its easy to look like a great OC when you QB does most of the playcalling himself.
Randy Sanders did an fantastic job developing Woodson, but again once he was gone....the offense left a TON to be desired. Again if you notice, pre Woodson....not much success......post Woodson......not much success.
Again Pro Style offense don't typically do very well without elite level talent. Woodson had a TON to do with that.
The 06 and 07 years were one of those "right place right time" type things. Everything came together perfectly, and its likely to NEVER be replicated with those type of coaches and schemes (as evident by the end and beginning of the Brooks era, they tried to keep it going...just didnt work because the offensive system in place didn't allow them to best use the talent they had post Woodson).
He benefited a great deal from the state of KY producing a number of SEC level talent players that he managed to land. Once that one run of instate talent was over....Brooks didn't do a ton pre 06-07 or post.
Joker benefited a ton from having a Manning-esque type QB in Woodson who changed plays at the line CONSTANTLY. Its easy to look like a great OC when you QB does most of the playcalling himself.
Randy Sanders did an fantastic job developing Woodson, but again once he was gone....the offense left a TON to be desired. Again if you notice, pre Woodson....not much success......post Woodson......not much success.
Again Pro Style offense don't typically do very well without elite level talent. Woodson had a TON to do with that.
The 06 and 07 years were one of those "right place right time" type things. Everything came together perfectly, and its likely to NEVER be replicated with those type of coaches and schemes (as evident by the end and beginning of the Brooks era, they tried to keep it going...just didnt work because the offensive system in place didn't allow them to best use the talent they had post Woodson).
Im glad you put this together. At least someone tried to understand what I was saying. They are still going back and fourth about Alabama.....lol
Somehow (apparently) all we need to do is replicate what Alabama and LSU do on offense and we'll be fine lol.
Boy alot of revisionist history here.
As far as in state talent, it's better now than ever.
The audibles were actually coming in from the sidelines. Woodson was great, but comparing him to Manning is laughable.
Then you say the offense didn't look good post Woodson. But our offense looked good under Hartline too. It was because Brooks understood the importance of developing offensive linemen. Makes all the difference.
Anytime a poster questions Brooks coaching ability it makes me smh. He won games with a freshman Morgan Newton. Let that sink in
This is typical BB school perspective on FB. First, O or D background in HC is important, but not all important.
At UK, we typically stink at FB, so we sometimes ride the pendulum swings away from our most recent bad coach.....such as--Curry (D) followed by Mumme (O).
Looking for an O guy or a D guy as a primary selection criterion is foolish. You're not hiring a coordinator anyway....you're hiring a HC. As such, you're looking for the best candidate to make you a winner....regardless of O & D expertise. You're looking for someone who can attract and assemble a staff with competent coordinators & position coaches and lead them toward victory. You're looking for a coach who can recruit (or hire someone who can recruit). You're looking for a HC who can take good recruits and train, retain, develop and build them into all-conference level players.
If you're hell bent to get an O-expertise coach as your HC, you might prematurely pick an "offensive genius" who isn't ready to sit in the big chair. And at the same time you might pass up a great future HC only because he happens to have expertise in D. Not a great HC search strategy IMO.
At UK, we typically stink at FB, so we sometimes ride the pendulum swings away from our most recent bad coach.....such as--Curry (D) followed by Mumme (O).
Looking for an O guy or a D guy as a primary selection criterion is foolish. You're not hiring a coordinator anyway....you're hiring a HC. As such, you're looking for the best candidate to make you a winner....regardless of O & D expertise. You're looking for someone who can attract and assemble a staff with competent coordinators & position coaches and lead them toward victory. You're looking for a coach who can recruit (or hire someone who can recruit). You're looking for a HC who can take good recruits and train, retain, develop and build them into all-conference level players.
If you're hell bent to get an O-expertise coach as your HC, you might prematurely pick an "offensive genius" who isn't ready to sit in the big chair. And at the same time you might pass up a great future HC only because he happens to have expertise in D. Not a great HC search strategy IMO.
I don't think its revisionist at all. The fact is I don't think Brooks was that good of a coach. We ere great for 2 seasons of his era, absolute **** before and mediocre at best afterward.
That being said, I would take him in a heart beat over Stoops.
Also please don't think Im trying to compare Woodson to Manning lol im not. Im just saying he was that same type of filed general that changes calls at the line ALOT.
And also calls did NOT come in from the sideline as much as you think.
I've got almost every season of UK football on DVD recorded from 2001-through current. Calls didn't start coming from the sideline until 2012, when Joker knew he was in trouble and had to make some adjustments on offense and tried to switch to more of a no huddle shotgun offense (which I think would have worked if Smith hadn't of gotten hurt.) sucks cause I think Smith was shaping up to be a very good QB for us.
He showed flashes in that Ole Miss win (either 11 or 12 cant remember) where I remember thinking "wow we have finally found our next era defining QB"
Come to think of it we have had TERRIBLE luck at QB post Woodson in general.
Curtis Pulley got kicked off the team (Hartline got thrown to the wolves early for this)
Will Fidler hurt his throwing shoulder and never recovered (and he was supposed to be the heir apparent to Woodson)
Nick Lentz hurt his throwing hand and got moved to saftey
Ryan Mossakowski hurt his throwing shoulder and never recovered
Morgan Newton was never as good as advertised
Maxwell Smith hurt his throwing shoulder and never recovered.....
Towles......now Barker.
Jesus......lol
Last edited:
How about we not even put guys on the field for Defense, don't hire a defensive coordinator, or any other defensive position coaches?! We could save a ton of money, be exciting as hell on offense because we would be able to afford the best coach in the world! Of course we would fire him four years later because he wasn't winning...[eyeroll]
There are some seriously stupid people on this board.
There are some seriously stupid people on this board.
If we have to rely on out scheming to be successful, we might as well give up now... Trying to find that "brilliant mind" and get him at UK, at the moment we are changing coaches; is a needle in a haystack.
Looking at the depth of youth with potential on defense, if UK hires a new coach, I could see the value of hiring a defensive mind.
I have read every single one of @Blueaz 's comments in this thread, and I still have no idea what he's arguing for. You want a defensive coach with good assistants? Why are you name checking Mumme and Curry? If we have to rely on scheming we'll never win? But we'll also never find that brilliant mind coach? What?
I agree with OP. Offense allows you to innovate more, to know where you're going when the defense doesn't, and to out scheme the other side. Championship level shut out defenses generally only come with elite talent, and UK will NEVER EVER reel in enough elite talent to make an Alabama style defense. Spare me the "losers mentality" or the "there's no reason we can't pull in every 5 star ever" bullcrap. We are not a storied program and we cannot do things the way storied programs do them. If we do, we'll end up with mediocre to bad product most of the time. We need a deep defense that focuses on turnovers and blitzing to the give the offense more shots. We may end up undersized, but we can counteract that with speed and depth. We'll just never get enough guys big and fast enough at the same time to make a traditional defense work. There's more than enough 4.4/40 190 pound WRs to build a dynamic offense.. there are not enough 4.4/40 235 pound linebackers to build a traditional defense.
I agree with OP. Offense allows you to innovate more, to know where you're going when the defense doesn't, and to out scheme the other side. Championship level shut out defenses generally only come with elite talent, and UK will NEVER EVER reel in enough elite talent to make an Alabama style defense. Spare me the "losers mentality" or the "there's no reason we can't pull in every 5 star ever" bullcrap. We are not a storied program and we cannot do things the way storied programs do them. If we do, we'll end up with mediocre to bad product most of the time. We need a deep defense that focuses on turnovers and blitzing to the give the offense more shots. We may end up undersized, but we can counteract that with speed and depth. We'll just never get enough guys big and fast enough at the same time to make a traditional defense work. There's more than enough 4.4/40 190 pound WRs to build a dynamic offense.. there are not enough 4.4/40 235 pound linebackers to build a traditional defense.
I am not arguing anything, except that a defensive minded HC can win in power5 conferences. You say scheming won't win (mummie), I agree...but Curry was an offensive minded HC; that didn't work out either.
Some seem to think that just by having the offensive HC...problem solved.
I never said we can't find that guy...but to limit a search for ONLY offensive minded HC's would be silly. IMO
your post is spot on...
Gotcha. Of course, though, a defensive minded HC can win in a Power 5. But here at UK, we'd be waiting 10-15 years of steady growth before we could really be that team. Too much can happen in that span. But you're right, if we get a def minded head coach, we better have a top tier OC with him, AND make sure the HC doesn't meddle. Keep your hands off Gran, Stoops. I'd kill for Cincinnati's offense of the late 2013, scoring too fast and defense be damned.
As far as Mumme... man, minus the violations, his teams were fun to watch and went to a few bowl games. I think we'd take it at this point. Honestly, I'm at a point where I just want a team that's fun to watch.
I think we can all agree that no one misses Curry.
OP is correct. UK fans have endured enough suffering watching fools try and out muscle the rest of the league. We absolutely need a creative thinker who can overcome the talent disparity. Stoops doesn't appear to be that guy. C.M. Dropped the ball on the Curry hire, but I think he realized the obstacle after that and went for Mumme. Right move, just wrong guy.
We will win consistently only with a nontraditional offense. The Mumme offense was quick enough that our strength , a decent number of skill players made up go out deficiencey, lack of Bama type linemen. Had Hal had the wisdom to hire a strong DC and him do his thing , our fortunes could have been much different.
I think Mumme's last 2-9 season was a sign of things to come. Even if the violations never happened, Mumme was trending downward. With no Couch or Leach his offenses were just not the same. I just think Mumme was staring at many losing seasons had he stayed. Hell, look at how awful his record has been post UK.
After Couch he was left without a qb that had the arm for his system and a freshman an in Lorenzen the next season . He had the players to have another very good team by the time JL matured as was evident by the good team G Morris had . Oh well, that was a long time ago
Still again, I think we need not only a system offensive head coach but also one who calls his own plays. It's one the the reasons I was against the Stoops hire from the get go.
Even if he managed to field a great offense, he's going to lose his offensive playcaller ever year or two to bigger and better jobs. One of the many problems we have to deal with here at UK.