In another FanPost (1998 Strength = 2009 Weakness) I commented on UK's inability to pose any threat of attacking off dribble. Yesterday's USC loss is further confirmation and you don't have to take my word for it. Here's a quote from Gillispie:
Coach is not entirely correct, it's not that Cats "wouldn't" take advantage, it's because they "couldn't". The glaring lack of anyone to attack off the dribble with any efficacy is evident to every opponent and makes defending Cats much simpler. And that significant liability has more encompassing ramifications, including contribution to turnovers and extending even to UK's defensive performance. Much has been made about the negative consequences of UK's interior players over rotation to block shots, i.e. freeing opponents for offensive rebounds. I would suggest that practicing against players who don't have the ability to effectively attack off the dribble gives a false sense of security, allowing interior players to leave other responsibilities without penalty.
"Not carrying out instruction," the UK coach said. "We're supposed to drive the basketball because that's what they allow you to do."
South Carolina's aggressive, over-playing defense invites drives.
"That opens up drives from the wing," Gillispie said. "They dared us to do that and we would not take advantage of what they were giving us.
There is another quote in the same LHL/Tipton piece that causes me some concern and I would appreciate thoughts. From Patrick Patterson on Coach's "soft" description:
"Intense practice tomorrow," he said. "Hard practice. Very physical practice. Probably a rather long practice. Just try to kill us."(emphasis mine) That is the first indication of that all is not well between coach and team, and perhaps more important, an inducement for Patterson to depart early for NBA.