UK Basketball: My Plea for Patrick
Between 1962 and 1973 the UK men's basketball team had seven teams that boasted two 18 points per game scorers -- '62 Cotton Nash & Larry Pursiful, '64 Nash & Ted Deeken, '66 Pat Riley & Louie Dampier, '69 Dan Issel & Mike Casey, '70 Issel & Mike Pratt, '72 Jim Andrews & Tom Parker, '73 Andrews & Kevin Grevey -- Since that time no UK team has had two players on the same team average at least 18 points per game.
That could change, this year. With both Jodie Meeks (22.9 points per game) and Patrick Patterson (18.2 points per game) above the 18 point per game thresh-hold, a thirty-five year first could very well be attained (also, since 1986 only Kenny Walker and Jamal Mashburn have averaged over 20 points per game).
I think that's great and all, but I'd like to see those averages switched; in other words I would like to see Patterson averaging around 23 per game, and Meeks at 18 or so. And here's why:
Shooting Percentages and Shot Distribution
On the year Jodie Meeks has taken 146 shots. The next highest number of shots taken is 91, by Patterson. That's an average of six more shots per game for Meeks ... that's way too many, especially when one considers that Meeks is shooting 44% on the year, and Patterson is knockin' it down at a white-hot 72.5% rate.
Take into consideration UK's three losses:
- vs. VMI -- Meeks took 27 (3 of 11 threes) shots, to Patterson's four. Meeks shot 48%, Patterson shot 75%.
- vs. North Carolina -- Meeks took 20 shots (3 of 9 threes), to Patterson's 11. Meeks shot 25%, Patterson shot 73%.
- vs. Miami -- Meeks took 17 shots (2 of 12 threes), to Patterson's 13. Meeks shot 24%, Patterson shot 62%.
That's 54 shots for Meeks and 28 for Patterson. Unbelievably out of whack, and at the same time, one would think an incredibly effective teaching tool.
After the Miami game, coach Billy Gillispie had this to say about UK's shot selection, and the high number of shots taken by Jodie Meeks:
"He missed a bunch of shots. When you play lethargically and are not carrying out assignments then that reveals itself in offense. It is a lot harder to hit guarded shots. We were playing against a zone most of the night and we should have been able to get the ball where we wanted to. People don't make guarded shots. We were foolish to take those kind of shots. Our whole deal is to get the ball inside. When you play outside-in, then it is going to be a long night and that is exactly what we did."
Coach Gillispie could have legitimately spoken those same words after every game this year.
Kentucky's bread is buttered by the sweet moves and soft touch of Patrick Patterson. The coach knows it, but I'm not seeing evidence that the team is buying into fact.
I do see evidence that Jodie Meeks sees nothing wrong with the current shot distribution; after the Miami game, Meeks had this to say:
"I'm not really sure what was going on ... I couldn't seem to hit anything. The shots I was taking were pretty good shots, just none of them would fall today. I guess you have games like that."
His words seem to directly contradict those of his coach.
I don't mean to be too hard on Meeks. I realize there are other, more complicated issues involved in UK's inability to feed the post consistently. Meeks, though, is jacking up a lot of shots (early in the shot clock) without giving the offense a chance to work, especially in the first half of games:
- Versus Miami in the first half, Patterson did not take a shot until the 8:30 mark, with the score standing at 33-22, Miami. In that same time eight three-point shots were taken, and Meeks took nine shots himself.
- Versus Mississippi Valley in the first half, Patterson did not take a shot until the 9:00 minute mark. There were a total of 14 shots taken before Patterson attempted his first. Meeks took only three of those shots, which is an even more offensive stat -- You're telling me that the two best offensive weapons UK has took a grand total of three shots the first 11 minutes of the game? Why?
If I'm Gillispie, I write on the chalkboard:
27 of 36
should read 45 of 60
Coach Gillispie should then embellish his admonition with, "Patterson needs to take more shots. The guy is shooting 75% over the last three games, but he's only taken 36 shots. He should have taken 60 shots. Get him the freaking ball!"
If that doesn't prove an effective sales technique, then G should fully utilize his primary motivational ploy -- pine time. If it's good enough for Joe Crawford, then it's good enough for these guys.
This team should be 'coached up' enough to realize that the outside game is set up by pounding the post. Surely, Gillispie has emphasized this point with his troops. But has he said this to them, "Is there a better way to create a sag in the perimeter defense than to feed a player averaging 72.5% from the field? Talk about creating open looks ... this is the prototype." If he hasn't, someone needs to check his credentials (I kid).
Sometimes it takes a bit of adversity to gain the full attention of a team, especially a young team. I think, though, that 6-3 qualifies as a little bit of adversity ... so hopefully Gillispie has the team in full attentiveness mode. Their hearts should be open and their minds receptive.
The players must me made to realize that in order for Kentucky to achieve what they have the TALENT to achieve, they first must admit to themselves that everything runs through Patrick. If the numbers begin to reflect that mindset, then UK will have a successful, perhaps wildly successful season. If not, more of the same will be the most likely outcome, and no one will be pleased with that.
NEGATIVITY DISCLAIMER-- I don't want the readers to think I'm 'down' on this team. I am not. I see a lot of good things happening, I have seen improvement (which I will write about leading up to the IU game). But we're nine games into this thing, and I haven't seen the area relevant to my post improve one iota. And that needs to change, post haste.
Thanks for reading, and Go 'Cats!
0 recs |
97 comments
|
Comments
I Prefer More Balanced Scoring
Only the 1966 team (of those listed) had good success in postseason play.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 9, 2008 7:15 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
That's another post :), and another reason Gillispie needs another reliable scorer ...
… (preferably an outside threat) to go along with Patterson and Meeks.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 9, 2008 7:49 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think we have it, but...
…will the team, (coach) every realize what they have..?
If the offense would run threw Patterson, he could catch the slashers (Meeks, Miller, Liggins) when he gets double downed, or he is very good at going over the top to find the other post players.
As good as Patterson is, at times, he does not work hard enough to get open in the paint. (maybe it’s because the players have ignored him in the past)
If teams play zone and put a chaser on Meeks, (like we’ve seen), then Miller HAS to knock down some shots. I also think that if coach started Liggins at point, he could put Porter back to his natural position. This would allow Meeks to take breathers throughout the game and help Porter build his confidence and knock down some outside shots as well. Liggins can penetrate and go strong to the hole, drawing an extra defender to free up the low post player, (preferably Patterson). Meeks should be doing more of that as well.
And one more thing, this is the non-pickingest (is that a word?) team I have ever seen. We need to set solid, hard picks at the top of the lane for our guards.
the tools are there, we just need a good carpenter that knows how to use the tools he has.
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on Dec 9, 2008 9:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pursiful
I graduated with Larry Pursiful’s daughter. I was in his home a few times and i was TOTALLY unaware of what a great wildcat he was. He is such a nice nice gentleman who didnt flaunt his Wildcat ties or sucess. My, my ,to live those days over again to sit and bug him to death asking questions and learning from him.
" I believe in pipedreams"
by Magnoliacat on Dec 9, 2008 8:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Barely Played As Soph, Then Took Off As Jr And Sr
http://www.bigbluehistory.net/bb/statistics/Players/Pursiful_Larry.html He was a tremendous outside shooter, not quite Louie Dampier but pretty close to it.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 9, 2008 11:26 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Drafted..
Also didnt know he was drafted…cool stuff….thanks forty.
" I believe in pipedreams"
by Magnoliacat on Dec 9, 2008 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Welcome back, Ken!
I was actually looking for your "voice" after the Miami game, but sadly you were not here. : ( Great write-up here, though.
I have just a couple of thoughts……: )
I totally agree that all of our offensive efforts absolutely MUST run through Patrick. Even if he doesn’t end up shooting the ball, at least we should be passing it into him and then he can kick it back out if he doesn’t have a good shot. I do believe that this is the coaching staff’s master game-plan and like Ken pointed out, now they MUST get the boys to execute the plan to perfection.
There were a few plays in the last two games when we did actually attempt to get the ball inside to Patrick that I personally found incredibly frustrating. Must we try to pass or in some cases lazily lob the pass into Patrick from the half court line and hope and pray he is able to fight off three defenders to go and get it? For the love! We pick up our dribble, stand at the half court line totally looking at Patrick and my goodness is it ever obvious (can you say telegraphing?) where we are trying to go with the ball. It’s also extremely obvious that we aren’t going to be shooting the ball from that far out so, "hello, defense, don’t bother guarding the person who has picked up their dribble and feel free to stand in front of Patrick". Really? Must we do this? I realize there is some proper spacing involved and that there are certain angles we need to try and create in order to open up the passing lanes, but honestly, to me, the plays where we are trying to get the ball inside from basically half court will never work and we have to stop being so blatantly obvious in the desire to get it inside to Patrick. Surely, it can’t be that hard to get a good passing angle?
I think the fact that we have been unsuccessful to this point at getting the ball inside to Patrick is making him incredibly frustrated and quite possibly making his mental recovery from injury that much harder. I would think that once we are able to get him the ball, Patrick will feel productive and fiercely dominating once again and his confidence will go through the roof and hopefully he will be back to his old potentially-All-American self.
by BigSkyCat on Dec 9, 2008 11:53 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks, it's good to be back.
I think that everything you wrote is on target.
One of the primary reasons the team is having a hard time getting the ball to Patrick is the lack of ball-reversal, which Gillispie has touched on in his comments. Another problem is more mental than anything, and that’s giving up too early in the shot clock. There has been a real lack of patience, relevant to feeding the post. This is what’s so frustrating.
But I am hopeful that G will convince his team that patience is a powerful offensive weapon, much better than a game filled with missed shots.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 9, 2008 4:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Easy my wildcat brethren
Billy G is an adjuster. We started horrible last year and finished strong. At the first of the year I said this team has sweet 16 potential and I think that will ring true by the end. I disagree with most of the posts here. I think Patterson is tremendous, but I don’t think he’s good enough for us to predicate our entire offense around him into just coming down the court and trying to force it inside. We are obviously the best when we run. When you have Liggins running the break, good things happen and we should press more. When we come down and pass the ball around the perimeter waiting for ppatt to get open, we become stagnant. Coming up with a ppatt quota for touches I think would be even more damaging. I say run, run, run and run some more.
I just haven’t seen us get many breaks this year. I thought the reffing against Miami was horrible. Meeks took good shots he just couldn’t get them to fall. It seemed like every loose ball fell into a Hurricane’s lap. Not to mention what Miller hasn’t done this year, but I’m not going to pick on him much since he’s a frosh.
by daniel81 on Dec 9, 2008 12:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
He's A Coach
Insurance companies have a need for adjusters. Basketball teams need COACHES.
One of his weaknesses (so far) is his LACK OF adjustments to game circumstances.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 9, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comparing last years slow start to this teams inability to get the ball to Patterson is to compare apples to oranges
Last year there were all the problems associated with having a new coach, coupled with many serious injuries.
This year there are no such problems. Demanding that the team use their best player more often is all I am asking, and going by his words, it’s the same thing that Gillispie wants.
I don’t think anyone has said that a Patterson ‘touch quota’ is in order, but the shot distribution, at this point, is out of whack, and needs to be adjusted in order for UK to be successful at a high level.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 9, 2008 4:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What?
I would say he’s twice the adjuster Tubby was. Last year he had nobody due to injuries and Tubby’s lack of recruiting. This year he is feeling out a young team and seeing what works. College basketball isn’t the same anymore. There are too many solid players in the nation and a team only needs a couple of scorers to beat anybody. VMI and Gardner Webb defeats are going to become the norm across college basketball. I wasn’t happy with the first half of Miami but I think he’s done a great job adjusting after the first few minutes. The real problem is Patterson and Meeks have to step up every game. No excuses. Demand the ball Pat, Billy G can’t do it for you.
by daniel81 on Dec 9, 2008 3:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Results Paint A Different View
Lack of recruiting is baloney. Last year’s team had good talent. Injuries, sure. But plenty of talent.
Tubby signed Top 20 or better classes in 8 of 9 seasons (all but 2005) at UK and was on track for 9 out of 10 with Patterson and Lucas all set to sign in March 2007.
Gillispie has yet to produce in postseason play, whether conference tourney or NCAA / NIT results. He has Sub .500 W-L records in both.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 9, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UK and was on track for 9 out of 10 with Patterson and Lucas all set to sign in March 2007
Wow, talk about a LOADED baked potato. Lets just say Im not as sure as you are.
Is the recruiting service rankings the end all be all of college level talent? I personally think the recruiting services are a very insufficient way of looking at college level talent… because they evaluate HIGH SCHOOL players. In the aggregate it can be seen to be a moderately decent way of predicting college performance over time… but a sample set of three, as in the size of a recruiting class, it is not adequate or reliable.
So who evaluates college talent? How about NBA scouts. I prefer to look at the number of NBA players on the team. And last year we may only have had a single player on the entire roster. If and when Patrick Patterson goes, then you can thank Coach Gillispie for recruiting him.
#NBA players we had on past UK teams
In 95 we had 5 (Delk, McCarty, Pope, Walker, Padgett)
In 96 we had 7 (Delk, Walker, McCarty, Anderson, Mercer, Pope, Mohammed)
In 97 we had 5 (Mercer, Anderson, Padgett, Mohammed, Magloire)
In 98 we had 3 (Mohammed, Padgett, Magloire)
In 03 we had 3 (Bogans, Hayes, Azubuike)
by HoboKat on Dec 9, 2008 8:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree with your take on recruiting services, but Forty is right about Patterson and Lucas.
They were both set to attend UK until Tubby left, well, as ‘set’ as a 17-18 year old can be.
I did an analysis of recruit rankings several months ago and found that the services are very accurate in their ratings of elite players — Top 20 guys — almost all of those types of players had terrific college careers, or went to the NBA.
After the Top 20-30 it’s a crapshoot. Some of the guys rated lower had great college careers, i.e. Chris Lofton, Morrison from Gonzaga, Juan Dixon of Maryland.
Your list of UK NBA players is incomplete if you include players who played a short time in the Association — Fitch, Daniels, Sheppard, among others, played for varying periods of time in the NBA. You also failed to list Prince.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 9, 2008 9:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Guilty
of cherry picking stats to illustrate my point… But I stand behind my thesis. If people continually say “we have plenty of talent” on this team as they often do, or as they did last year, I say prove it. Show me the players who will make NBA rosters on last year’s team or this year’s.
The recruiting services I agree can be a decent predictor of future performance, but with such a small sample size (as in a single recruiting class, or a small number of recruitis) you will have wild variations.
One glaring example is that our #1 recruiting class in 04 had no where near the talent UF signed in the very same 04 class. Not that Crawford, Morris, Rondo and Bradley were not very good college players in their own right. But they WERE absolutely a disappointment relative to their lofty recruiting service ranking.
by HoboKat on Dec 9, 2008 9:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Don't Agree
The UK class was clearly #1 but Gator class was Top 5-10 rated (not far off). 2 of the 4 UK recruits are in the NBA and another (Crawford) will be soon.
NBA players on last year’s team – Patterson, Crawford (soon), Legion (someday), Meeks, Jasper (maybe).
This year – Patterson, Meeks, Liggins, Miller (maybe). The 2008 recruits are OK but not great by UK standards.
UK signed AT LEAST 1 NBA player (recruit) in 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004. The 2006 and 2007 classes are likely to join that list.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 9, 2008 10:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I most definitely agree with your final sentence.
As far as current UK players who may have an NBA career in front of them: Of course Patterson, Meeks maybe. It’s too soon to tell about Liggins, or Miller.
UK does have two players coming in next year who may have the opportunity to play professionally in Orton and Hood.
I think UK has talent on this team, but not Final Four talent. That point was illustrated by the N. Carolina game.
Although, I will say this; I watched some of the Villanova (#12) and Texas (#6) game earlier tonight and neither one of those teams impressed me as being vastly superior to UK, especially once G gets the point guard situation hammered out, and the youngsters gain some more experience.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 9, 2008 11:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
and I might also add ...
… you’re probably going to think that I’m a nut, but another current UK player who could possibly play in the NBA is Kevin Galloway.
A player with his length (6’7), ball-handling and passing skills could find a spot on a roster, but he will have to at some point develop a reliable jumper. Or maybe not, Rajon Rondo has done a very nice job with the C’s, and he still can’t shoot from the perimeter.
Galloway has a great NBA body, he’s athletic, a good passer, he has long arms etc, etc, but he has to get on the court for G, in order to display his wares. So whatever it is that he’s having trouble with which has limited his PT … let’s just hope he conquers the mountain Gillispie is asking him to climb.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 10, 2008 12:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rondo
Rondo is a special case and his jumper while not good has improved.
His ability to penetrate and dish is lights out and far and away better than Galloway and his defense is pretty good.
im not making a case against Galloway just pointing out that Rondo doesnt fit the normal mold.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Dec 10, 2008 9:21 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, there are other considerations.
I can’t really comment on Galloway’s ability to penetrate because he hasn’t played enough.
As an aside, I thought Rondo would make a pretty good pro, but not as good as he is turning out to be.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 10, 2008 4:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
FF Talent
Just have to win 4 straight games like George Mason did.
I think UK has the talent to do that.
I don’t think they will but they could.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 6:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, yeah, they could, but the possibility is highly unlikely, in my opinion.
There are so many factors that go into making a deep run into the tourney — Mainly matchups and strong guard play.
We’ll see.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 10, 2008 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's Always Highly Unlikely The First Time
Pitino in 1987 (FF) was a surprise.
Huggins in 1992 (FF) even bigger.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 5:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Absolutely CERTAIN Of That
I talked with both of their parents (first hand). Lucas and Patterson were headed to UK.
The 1998 team had 4 NBA players – those 3 plus Mike Bradley.
The 2003 team had 5 NBA players – those 3 plus Daniels and Fitch.
The prior coach signed Prince, Bogans, Fitch, Daniels, Hayes, Azubuike, Morris, Crawford, and Rondo – all of whom either were NBA draft picks and/or made it as free agents. He signed 2 recruits at Tulsa and 1 at Georgia who were NBA draft picks.
The current UK coach signed only 1 recruit (DeAndre Jordan) who ever made the NBA. He did not sign Acie Law.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 9, 2008 9:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
“I talked with both of their parents (first hand). Lucas and Patterson were headed to UK.”
Unless your name is Billy Donovan, or you are extremely close to the situation… I take that sentence with a giant grain of salt.
“The 1998 team had 4 NBA players – those 3 plus Mike Bradley.
The 2003 team had 5 NBA players – those 3 plus Daniels and Fitch.”
If you want to, you can include ALL players who have ever stepped on an NBA court including Sheppard and Turner on those mid 90’s teams if you want to include Daniels and Fitch (who Im pretty sure never actually did). I was considering players who were drafted or at least had measurable NBA careers.
“He signed 2 recruits at Tulsa and 1 at Georgia who were NBA draft picks. The current UK coach signed only 1 recruit (DeAndre Jordan) who ever made the NBA. He did not sign Acie Law.”
So you are basically saying Tubby recruited three NBA players in total before he became UK’s head coach (can you name them?) while Gillispie recruited one? So what? Tubby’s pre-UK resume WAS probably a little better than Coach Gillispie’s… who cares? I still think we hired the best guy available at the time… by a mile.
The point of this post is to say that I absolutely DO NOT think we currently have the talented players to get us to where you want us to be… But Coach G is correcting that with Patterson, Liggins, Orton, Ferguson, Hood, and Miller in the span of 1 year. Give the guy some time before you compare his numbers to Tubby’s (who recruited to our standards early in his tenure)
by HoboKat on Dec 9, 2008 9:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've Explained This More Than Once But Here Goes (Again)
I talked to John Lucas at O’Hare Airport in the fall of 2007. He knows my stepdaughter from her WNBA career and played against her Dad. He said Lucas was UK bound to play for Tubby.
I talked to the Pattersons prior to the UK / South Carolina game in Columbia SC last winter. We have a mutual friend in WV. Their sons played against each other in summer league play. They said Patterson was UK bound to play for Tubby.
Daniels played an entire season in the NBA. Fitch played parts of 2 different seasons in the NBA.
Yes, I can name them. Shea Seals and Michael Ruffin at Tulsa. (He also coached Gary Clark there – he was drafted by the NBA) And Jumaine Jones at Georgia. (He coached Shandon Anderson there – he had a multi-year NBA career)
Gillispie was HARDLY the best possible hire. He may have been the best available among those interested.
Gillispie has 6+ years of results. 1 recruit and 1 other player to NBA. 124-74 record.
Tubby has 7+ years besides UK. 3 recruits and 2 other players to NBA. 152-76 record.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 9, 2008 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Forty
First:
I am hardly a Tubby hater. I thought he was a very good coach and I was unhappy when he left. I’m not sure why you insist on turning this into a Tubby/Gillispie argument… but its become a straw man.
If when I say: “We actually have not had ‘plenty’ of talent”
You say: “The prior coach had a better pre-UK recruiting resume”
Then your response just becomes a distraction, and deflects from the original argument. I know this is a little bit of an over-generalization, I just get the impression I get from your comments is that you are more interested in talking about Tubby then you are about the talent gap.
Second:
“Gillispie was HARDLY the best possible hire. He may have been the best available among those interested.”
Your comment is a distinction with out a difference. If someone is not interested, how are they a “possible” hire. Red Auerbach would have been a “possible” hire if he wasn’t dead.
Third:
I concede your point on Daniels being that I also remember him being picked up for a year with the Kings.
Fourth:
You can make all the projections you want about Meeks, Legion (who didnt even contribute last year), Jasper (who was hurt all year), and Crawford. But the fact is, not one has played in the NBA, and I would be glad if you would show me where there is NBA interest for any one of them outside of Crawford.
My opinion is that the NBA players (players with more than a 14 day contract) on last years roster will probably be closer to 1 than it will be to 2+. I would be happy to be wrong, since I would love to see more cats in the league, but I personally just dont see it.
Finally:
Keep in mind that, while I might disagree with you, I hope I am being respectful. You sound like you have a lot of knowledge to share, and I definitely value that.
by HoboKat on Dec 10, 2008 1:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Hobokat
Excellent, excellent post.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 10, 2008 2:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just Debating Back-N-Forth
UK had plenty of talent in 2006 or 2007 to do better than 22-13 or 22-12.
UK had talent to exceed 18-13 in 2008 but injuries kept them from doing it (more than lack of talent). The OOC record (5-7) was less affected by injuries, just poor results.
Best possible hires were Donovan, Calipari, et al (even Crean) in 2007. None were available or interested (maybe). I don’t think Gillispie was the best possible hire at UK. He was/is a risk more so than other choices.
I’m just guessing on Meeks, Legion, or Jasper. Each has NBA potential. Crawford leads NBDL in scoring and will get an NBA call-up, sooner or later.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 6:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Donovan ...
… definitely. I don’t agree about Calipari. I don’t think he is right for the school. Crean, I am unconvinced. He’s a good coach, but I am not convinced. If he does really well at Indiana, I think we will know for sure, because the Indiana and Kentucky jobs really aren’t all that different. For the moment, I would disagree that he would have been a better hire, and I am quite certain we could have had him. He could prove me wrong, though.
I agree with you that Meeks has NBA potential, and possibly Jasper. I don’t agree about Legion — Legion is neither athletic enough nor a good enough shooter to make it in the NBA. Crawford will play in the NBA some day, and will be there for some years, in my opinion.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Dec 10, 2008 6:53 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If I Were Hiring UK Coach (LOL)
I’d want someone with FF or multiple S16 credentials in NCAA play. Someone with multiple conference titles and/or conference tourney titles (at BCS schools, if possible).
Those candidates would be the best “possible” hires. Rick Barnes is another example.
I think Legion will surprise you at Illinois.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 6:57 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
pt
i think coach g needs to use playing time as an even bigger motivator than he is now. I think he should experiment with meeks, patterson, slone, porter, and stevenson as the starting lineup for one of our easy games AFTER the indiana game. Though it shouldn’t be permanent, i think that patterson will get the ball more for the mere fact that with that lineup, nobody other than meeks is a legitimate scoring threat. Hell they’ll be so scared of taking shots, they’ll HAVE to pass it to Patterson, I think this would help the regular starters realize what their job is and help them contribute alot more to the team
by hummer11092 on Dec 9, 2008 9:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Ken
Meant to tell you… good post. Patterson needs to get the rock early and often. Once the opposition respects the inside game, it will open up outside shots. From what I’ve read and observations I’ve made, I think its obvious that Coach G has made this a point of emphasis with this team. For whatever reason, they just aren’t getting it done.
I recount a play, I think it was during the Miami game in the first half, and Patterson had not even had a touch for something like eight minutes. It was after a time out… Meeks came down and fired up a three early in the shot clock. The camera panned back on defense and Gillispie was pulling Liggins off the bench and giving him instruction before he entered the game. The next dead ball, Meeks is out and Liggins is in. The very first time Liggins touched the ball, he found Patterson on the block with a bounce pass. It was a thing of beauty.
What would be your guess as to what Gillispie instructed Liggins as he entered? Im guessing it was probably the same thing he instructed the team at the time out, and the same thing he told Meeks as he was leaving?
by HoboKat on Dec 9, 2008 10:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Not only that...
Patterson might be the best passer on the team. He is an extremely heady kid that makes good decisions with the ball, whether its to make a move or dump it.
Sometimes he gets a little frustrated if he isn’t seeing the touches he should be, and he might fire up a bad shot . What would his FG% be if those bad shots were limited because his teammates are getting him the ball?
by HoboKat on Dec 9, 2008 10:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Re: HoboKat
Thanks, I wish I could have written something a bit more positive, but Patterson not getting enough shots has been eating at me since the season began.
As far as what G told Liggins as he entered the game — Your guess is as good as mine, but it probably went something like this — “Get the ball to Patterson. He’s the big guy in the middle. He’s number 54, and he’s the secret to your success” — Or something along those lines.
You’re right about Patterson’s passing ability. He is currently second on the team in assists. That’s just another reason to get him the ball. He has very good court vision, and when he’s double-teamed he makes very good passes to the open man.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 9, 2008 11:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Big men passing
I love me a good big who passes well out of the post when he is doubled. It makes the game so easy if you use him right.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Dec 10, 2008 9:28 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
We won't have inside play
Until our outside shooting picks up. You can pound it in to Patterson all day but he will be continually double-teamed until we start making shots. As for the argument over final four talent. Look, I know we are insane in Kentucky, but take a step back. We have no senior leadership. Our biggest contributing junior didn’t play last year(Meeks). Liggins and Miller have talent but are just babies. Patterson is also coming off injury. You can’t realistically expect us to be a final four team this year. If Smith had this team or last years’, we wouldn’t even be talking NIT. As for FortyYear talking about talent on last year’s team, please. Bradley and Crawford had turned into scrubs before Billy G got a hold of them. Our most talented players all missed significant time. As for wanting Lucas to come, whew, I’m glad he didn’t. I’ve never been a fan, apparently Florida wasn’t either.
by daniel81 on Dec 10, 2008 10:36 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Bradley and Crawford were not 'scrubs' before G got a hold of them.
Crawford averaged 14 ppg, and Bradley 13.4 ppg their junior years — Hardly ‘scrub’ stats.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 10, 2008 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Career 1400 Point (Crawford) Or 1300 Point (Bradley) Scorers
Each had good UK careers and got better each year.
Like Jeff Sheppard, who had his best year in 1998 under a new coach. Or Derrick Miller, same thing.
Or Scott Padgett, ditto. Or Reggie Hanson, likewise.
Sometimes players do better with a new coach.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Joke
“If Smith had this team or last years’, we wouldn’t even be talking NIT. As for FortyYear talking about talent on last year’s team, please. Bradley and Crawford had turned into scrubs before Billy G got a hold of them”.
That whole comment is a joke.
Get him Forty.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Dec 10, 2008 11:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Hard To Predict How Any Other Coach Would Do With 2008 Team
Would the same injuries have occurred? Or were those related to Gillispie’s practices? Who knows?
Pitino led a similarly talented team to 22 W in 1991 season. Tubby led similarly talented teams to 22 W in 2006 and 2007.
Tubby Smith led a much weaker (less talented) Minnesota team to 20 W and NIT berth in 2008. The only teams he EVER failed to reach 20 W were his first 2 Tulsa teams. He hasn’t missed postseason play since 1992.
I happen to believe UK would have won 4 or 5 more games with last year’s team had Tubby coached it. And just 1 L this year if he coached it.
Crawford started on the 2006 and 2007 teams. Bradley started on the 2007 team. Neither was a scrub.
There are some folks who just hate Tubby no matter what. Daniel81 may be one of them. I’m not.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think anyone hates Tubby the man...
…It’s the direction of the UK basketball program that people hated… And the resent decline started with Tubby in control, period, end of story!
Spin it anyway you want with numbers, stats, trends, past history; it doesn’t matter. UK basketball (as we know it) was heading down, quick, fast and in a hurry…
Now, the whole thing about Tubby being ran off is bull-crap.. Mitch would have never fired him, but may have demanded some changes… You or I will never know what exactly took place in the end .
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on Dec 10, 2008 1:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I Absolutely Do Know
No one ran anyone off. Tubby took a different job. A better job for him. Better AD. Better in every respect.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I know Forty...
…I have learned the hard way, you know everything…
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on Dec 10, 2008 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not So
But Tubby has stated that. UK has stated that. That’s enough evidence for me.
Tubby made a job change. Most people do that several times in their careers.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 1:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Forty ...
… did you read his comment? That’s exactly what he said. He said:
Now, the whole thing about Tubby being ran off is bull-crap.
Get it? He is perfectly well aware Smith wasn’t “run off.”
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Dec 10, 2008 3:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That Was Part Of The Comment
The other part (no one will ever know) is the part that I debate.
Both sides have publicly said that No One Ran Anyone Off ergo we do know.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 3:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's not ...
… what he said. He said that …
Mitch would have never fired him, but may have demanded some changes… You or I will never know what exactly took place in the end .
… and he is right. Smith has not been forthcoming to anyone I know exactly what went on between he and Barnhart.
The two sentences were in the same paragraph, but they had different subjects. One clearly rejected the idea that Smith was run off, and the other stated that we most likely wouldn’t know exactly what went on between Barnhart and Smith. I think he is right about both, and there is no reason why we should know — it’s between Smith and Barnhart.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Dec 10, 2008 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nothing Went On
Tubby left before they ever talked. He chose to leave. I suspected he was leaving in October 2006 but didn’t know for sure. The 2007 season had nothing to do with it.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 7:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Article
I came across this article reflecting on last year’s season and I think that it deserves another look. There are so many people feeling down right now that I thought this might provide a little encouragement of sorts. This season is so FAR from over. Take a look:
Note: Joe and Ramel were in NO way “scrubs” prior to Billy G, but see their comments about BCG in this article. Very inspiring.
by kentuckygirl0724 on Dec 10, 2008 1:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Always ...
… a good read.
But I hope nobody is down on the team. It’s pretty clear that they are making progress. I’m disappointed they didn’t take advantage of an opportunity, but I’m over that now.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Dec 10, 2008 3:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for the link
Far too many UK fans need to read that and comprehend what it says.
I heard from Crawford’s own words that Coach was the best thing that ever happened in his basketball career. He was pushed to be his best and IMO he is and will reap honest rewards for remaining at UK and accepting Coach’s way of coaching.
by kykat51 on Dec 10, 2008 4:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Regardles Of That Distinction
Evidence shows me that Tubby or Pitino would have coached the 2008 team to a better record than 18-13.
UK had 2 subpar years. No SEC titles. NR teams. Only 22 W. Only 1 W in NCAA tourney. (Both years) UK beat few ranked teams in 2006 and none in 2007. More than a few Uk teams had those results OR WORSE in prior years.
1960. 1961. 1963. 1965. 1967. 1974. 1979. 1985. 1987. 1989. All worse than 2006 or 2007.
UK was 131-40 from 2003 through 2007. That’s 76.6% W-L record. UK averages 76.0% all-time. I don’t see a downward trend. I see 2 subpar years. I’ve seen them before (see above).
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 1:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
What evidence?
Please. You just said above that …
Hard To Predict How Any Other Coach Would Do With 2008 Team
…and indeed it is. To do that, you would have to duplicate the circumstances of Gillispie’s arrival as well as the personnel.
You just made above what I thought was a perfectly valid point, then you come back here and refute your own argument with what I consider to be nonsense.
This is going nowhere. Let’s leave this sort of coaching “coulda, woulda, shoulda” alone. It is just provocative and not very valuable.
Finally, give the Tubby Smith haters a break. If they want to dislike Smith, let them, even if their reasons may be flawed. You certainly aren’t going to change anyone’s mind by making self-contradictory arguments. Nobody’s perfect.
To the Smith detractors: Give it a rest. This thread is going the wrong direction, and I want it to stop.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Dec 10, 2008 3:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Evidence Is That Both Other Coaches Did It Before
The 2006 and 2007 teams had similar talent level as the 2008 team. Ditto the 1991 team ~2008 talent. The 1991, 2006, and 2007 teams won 22 games. The 2008 team won 18. It’s certainly open to discussion whether any of those teams had similar talent levels. It looks to me that they did.
But no one can predict or know the actual results. The 2002 team was lucky to W more than it L but it won 22 games. That season could EASILY have tipped the way of the 1989 season in mid year.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
We're talking about the same guy who
Didn’t let Rondo start and when Crawford and Bradley played under Tubby, they weren’t half the players they were under Billy G, especially Crawford. Tubby inherited a BMW and turned it into a hoopty. I don’t think the 06 and 07 teams were similar to last year’s. Even if they were, is making the round of 32 what you consider a success at UK? You are dealing in maybe’s and what ifs. What if the injuries hadn’t of happened. What if Ppatt would have still came to UK if Tubby was there. The truth is, those injuries did happen to Billy G and he made good with what he had. The truth is patterson didn’t commit to UK while Tubby was the coach. The truth is Tubby was at the helm for the longest final four drought in UK history. Those are facts, not speculation.
As for Mr. Detroit basketball, the same guy who told me the celtics wouldn’t win the title last year, come on man, your basketball knowledge has been noted.
by daniel81 on Dec 10, 2008 2:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Alright
Have someone check the stats.
Bradley and Crawford IMO did benefit under Coach G but he didnt have as much impact in one year as you think. Yes there stats were up a bit but they were also seniors and they certainly werent twice as good as the year before. You seem to have no perspective and simply an agenda. Also Tubby is a good coach and at this point I think he is certainly a better bench coach than Coach G. Im not as ardent a supporter of Tubby as Forty here but to say that he would have done worse than Coach G’s record with the same squad last season is rediculous. Also dont come with insults about basketball knowledge. You have demonstrated nothing of worth around here and have nothing to back this up with and I never claimed to be master of the game of basketball.
I dont recall telling you the Celtics wouldnt win the championship last season but I might have, especially if it was early in the season. They were a complete unknown last year and experienced coaches and analysts would tell you the same thing. In the NBA you really cant get an idea of a teams worth and ability to win a championships until deep in the playoffs. All of the things that I might have told you would happen, such as the celtics rediculously thin bench and role players not having much of an impact or the big three having to play too many minutes and becoming worn down or injured didnt actually happen. The additions of James Posey and the late signing of PJ Brown along with the great play from Rondo (second year point guard in the NBA) and Perkins gave great contributions they would not have won a championship without. I also dont think anyone at this time last season could have forseen what a great defensive club the Celtics would turn out to be so there you go. Dont come with the insults, it just demonstrates your ignorance.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Dec 10, 2008 2:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
2006
Rondo started. Crawford started. Bradley was back-up. Rondo left for the NBA after that season.
Then 2007. Both Crawford and Bradley started. Check their stats. Both had pretty good numbers that year. Check the Jon Scott website for actual specifics.
Others have confirmed above that Patterson and Lucas were UK bound in March 2007. That’s well known.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not going to argue with internet gangsters
But you were the one who dropped the first insult. And my mom always told me don’t dish out what you can’t take. Plus it’s Christmas time, so hohoho(no offense to your relatives :)
Back to the subject. Do people not realize how damning this is to the program? Have we not noticed how uncomfortable our team has been at Rupp over the past five years? It’s like they’re playing in front of a crowd of vipers, waiting to strike at the first mistake. I yell at the TV during every mistake too, but when the game is over I can put it into perspective. Billy G’s kids play with a lot more heart than Tubby’s teams, for the most part, ever showed. I don’t see how anyone could look at the heart last year’s team showed at the end of the season and argue that. Plus they are so much more interesting to watch. I don’t hate Tubby, I bet he would be a fine neighbor and he’s a decent basketball coach, but UK deserves more than that.
Bottom line is this team is very young and growing. By the end of the year they will be a sweet 16 type of club. If not, I will be right here with you saying Billy G needs to get it together. That aside, we have only lost one game to an inferior opponent, VMI. Losing at home to Miami isn’t an upset considering Rupp is about as intimidating these days as Rasheed Wallace’s perimeter game.
by daniel81 on Dec 10, 2008 3:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Last 5 Years At Rupp Arena
UK was 14-1 at Rupp Arena in 2005 season.
11-5 in 2006 season.
14-3 in 2007 season.
14-4 in 2008 season.
4-2 (so far) in 2009 season.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 3:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I Think (Not Sure) UK Has Won About 90% In Rupp Arena Since 1976
2006 was clearly subpar. 2007 and 2008 not much better. 2009 worse but still early. 5 straight W on the schedule so UK should be 9-2 (in Rupp games) by end of December.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 4:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Correct. UK has held steady at the 90% mark since Rupp opened.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 10, 2008 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Stats don't lie
But wouldn’t you agree that Rupp has lost some of its scare factor?
by daniel81 on Dec 10, 2008 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
18-6 Under Gillispie
That (75% in Rupp Arena) won’t be enough.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I agree to a point
I’ve been in Rupp recently when the crowd made a difference. The most recent example would be UT last year. The crowd was electric.
But, with that said, the UK brand has lost some of it’s steam. I don’t think there is any doubt about that, but ‘steam’ can always be reclaimed.
I think we are witnessing the reemergence of UK as a player on the national scene. Gillispie’s recruiting has UK on the fast-track back to where they belong.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 10, 2008 10:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UK Lost Steam In The Early 1960's
Rupps Runts arrived in the nick of time.
And UK lost steam in the late 1980’s. Pitino arrived to save the day.
UK has been a Top 5 program since the 1960’s but isn’t now.
It’s up to Gillispie.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 11, 2008 6:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rupp
I take in several games at Rupp every season and just recently graduated. The loudest game I ever experienced in Rupp was the 03 UF game when they came in ranked #2 and we ran them out of the gym. Rupp still gets up for the big games but the layout of the arena and the almost utter lack of students in the lower arena make it hard to get the blue hairs up out of their seats to cheer on the team against Longwood.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Dec 11, 2008 10:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Blue Hairs
Not to mention that when I have had the opportunity to be in the lower arena, I have encountered some (NOT saying all) “blue hairs” that not only wont get up out of their seats and cheer, but give dirty looks to those of us that do. Unfortunate to say the least.
by kentuckygirl0724 on Dec 11, 2008 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I was there for that game. It's the loudest I have ever heard Rupp.
But folks who were at the ‘90 LSU game (O’Neal, Roberts, and Jackson) say that that game was the loudest they ahve ever heard Rupp — A 100-95 UK victory, in a game they had no business even being in.
davw — UFA came in ranked #1 for the first time in their history … it lasted about 5 hours.
by Ken Howlett on Dec 11, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
right game wrong ranking
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Dec 12, 2008 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Florida was still ranked #1...
…at the time UK played them… I believe they were coming off a loss and were expected to drop anyway, but UK just kick the crap out of them, on their way down…
Steelers fan 1st! UK is my 2nd love.
by vinceuk1 on Dec 12, 2008 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Actually they had just been ranked #1
The game was 2/4/03 which was a Tuesday. The AP rankings, I thought, had come out earlier in the day, but it may have been the day before. Anyway, it was the first game the Gators played as a #1 team … and the last game as #1 for quite some time :)
by Ken Howlett on Dec 12, 2008 5:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's ...
… how I remember it as well. They had just been elevated to #1, and they came in to Rupp Arena and the Suffocats emasculated them. They left singing three octaves higher than they came in.
:-)
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Dec 13, 2008 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
first game
like ken said above, the UK game was the first game they had as the #1 team, but I believe they also lost they’re next game as well.
GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!
by UKWildCatFanatic on Dec 12, 2008 5:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Emasculated
Like Tru said.
The Kentucky game left them battered and down-trodden.
Of course its difficult, its a shortcut... if it was easy it'd just be "the way."
by chirop1 on Dec 13, 2008 11:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Correction
I said your comment was rediculous. I didnt say anything about you or your abundance or lack of knowledge. If you read closer I was adressing your statement not yourself.
DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!
by davw83 on Dec 10, 2008 3:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
To: All
Enough with the Tubby Smith debate. This thread has nothing to do with him. Drop it, please.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Dec 10, 2008 3:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I thought we were talking about UK’s offense. At the end of the year when Meeks is leading the conference in scoring and ppatt is putting up a double double every night, I think some people on here will owe Mr. Billy G an apology. It’s frustrating to watch Pat not get the ball but I think, as well documented on this blog months before the first game, outside shooting is still the culprit.
by daniel81 on Dec 10, 2008 5:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I Don't Care How Much They Average
UK better have way more than 18 W (and they will).
But what UK really must do better than last year is postseason play. 0-1 in SECT. 0-1 in NCAA.
In his career, Gillispie is Below .500 (W-L Record) in conference tourney games and NCAA or NIT games. That simply won’t fly at UK. His UK predecessor was 20-5 in SECT and 23-9 in NCAA games. EVEN THAT didn’t fly very well.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed.
But let’s see what happens first. I would rather the Cats win and not worry about who we like best. The program means much more than any coach.
by daniel81 on Dec 10, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I hate the comparisons
That Forty does this early into Coach G’s time at UK.
As I said on another post re Jon Hood and the call-in show…the caller was comparing Hood to Sparks and Chapman…and Coach told the caller that Hood will be Hood at UK.
Coach G will be his own person Who wants to be compared? I sure don’t for my achievements in high school and college and my life overall.
by kykat51 on Dec 10, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Postseason Play
7 year career, Below .500 W-L Record.
It is an area where he simply must improve.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I Like W Best
I liked 27 W and 26 W averages (recent coaches) more than 23 W or 22 W averages (not so recent coaches).
I don’t like 18 W coaches.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 7:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
UK Never Had 40 W Coach
38 W by Calipari of Memphis last year is the all-time record.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 10, 2008 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
????
I think she meant, “Fine Forty.” Geez.
by kentuckygirl0724 on Dec 11, 2008 12:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh
I read 40 to mean 40 W.
Roy Williams may get there this season.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 11, 2008 1:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL Forty...
Sometimes you truly give me a chuckle. Have you ever been in an argument with your better half? When women don’t want to carry on an argument…last word is “Fine”…as in you may be right BUT I am also. Love ya 40!
by kykat51 on Dec 11, 2008 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
No
I learned right away that she would always remain undefeated at that.
I don’t even debate her. I SAY “Fine…” to her.
by FortyYearCatFan on Dec 11, 2008 5:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have deleted several off topic posts.
I want this thread back on topic. If you want to talk about something else, start a fan post.
A Sea of Blue -- Kentucky Sports for the Discerning Fan
by Truzenzuzex on Dec 10, 2008 5:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
can't win 40 if you don't play 40
GO BIG BLUE!! GO BIG BLUE!!
by UKWildCatFanatic on Dec 11, 2008 12:11 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

by 













