GAMEDAY OPEN THREAD // FIVE REASONS: vs. Kentucky
by cocknfire on Oct 4, 2007 7:20 PM EDT
in South Carolina Gamecocks News
Email
PrintThis is your Gameday Open Thread, folks. So hold forth below. In real time, even. As always, five reasons to hope for the best and fear the worst.
1. Chris Smelley. No, he's not the second coming of Peyton Manning. I'd be surprised if he's the second coming of Steve Taneyhill. But he's also not apparently as (cough, cough) inconsistent as Blake Mitchell. The last thing South Carolina needs to do tonight is give Kentucky a short field, something that is less likely with Smelley under center than with Blake.
2. Cory Boyd and Mike Davis. Kentucky's defense is allowing 203.2 rushing yards per game, something that will need to change if they hope to stop Boyd and Davis. Of course, if they allow another 200 yards, that'll be just fine with the Gamecocks. And Spurrier, who might want to try to give Kentucky as little time to score as possible. Look for the team to try to grind out some yardage before putting things in the air.
Hopefully, he can celebrate again tonight.
3. The passing defense. Yes, the running defense has been atrocious. Terrible. Awful. Pick a word. But (perhaps because of that) the secondary is allowing just 106.4 yards a pass. And more encouraging, with the likelihood of teams running because of the slack ground defense, is the fact that the Gamecocks are holding opponents to 4.0 yards an attempt. Tonight, though, will be their toughest test.
4. First quarter and red zone. Playing a high-scoring offense like Kentucky, there's one rule on offense: Score early and often. Check and, when the Gamecocks get in the red zone, check. South Carolina has outscored its opponents 52-24 in the first quarter, and has converted 90 percent of its red zone opportunities into scores. But the Gamecocks will have to make it into the red zone more often.
5. The streaks. Spurrier is 14-0 against Kentucky. Again: He has never lost to the Wildcats. South Carolina, meantime, has won seven straight against Kentucky. How much do either of those streaks mean? Probably not a lot, given that this version of UK might be the best since Bear Bryant walked the sidelines. But they're something.
1. Andre Woodson. Good pass defense or not, the Gamecocks are going to have a hard time containing a quarterback who would be the front-runner for the Heisman if he played at the other USC, Florida, Texas or any other schools that people pay attention to just 'cuz. Even as things are, he has to be on your Top 5 list. He's just that good. Last year? He just completed 63 percent of his passes for 3,515 yards and 31 TDs against 7 INTs. This year? 67.1 percent of his passes, 1,309 yards in five games, 16 scores and one pick. Oh, and the pick? Yeah, that ended a streak during which Woodson established the NCAA record for most consecutive pass attempts without and interception.
Could have been Reasons 1-3, but that would be cheating.
2. Keenan Burton. And did I mention that Kentucky has a pretty good receiver in Keenan Burton? That is, if you consider 84.4 yards a game and five scores in as many contests a "pretty good" receiver. The second option, Dicky Lyons, isn't too bad himself, with 51.4 yards a game and 3 TDs. In fact, five Wildcats have caught more than 10 passes this year. Tonight might answer the question of how good they are -- and how good the Gamecocks secondary is.
3. Rafael Little. And did I mention that Kentucky has a pretty good running back in Rafael Little? That is, if you consider 547 yards and three TDs in five games a "pretty good" running back. Little rounds out one of the most explosive offenses, if not the most explosive offense, the Gamecocks will face all year. In all, they pile up 492.2 yards and 46.6 points a game. Yeah, most of that came against inferior competition. But if you think that means this team isn't as scary as it looks, you're wrong.
4. The scoring defense. As mentioned above, the Wildcats will allow you to move the ball. Scoring, though, is another matter, with Kentucky allowing just 22.0 points a game. Again, look at the level of competition, but don't knock 'em until they've played a team capable of moving the ball.
5. The streaks. The Gamecocks are 4-7 against ranked teams under Spurrier, went 1-5 last year and lost four of those games (Tennessee, Arkansas, Auburn and Georgia) at the WB. (This year's record against ranked teams is 1-1, with both games on the road.) So much for homefield advantage...
RESULT: This is probably the most frightening game so far for the Gamecocks. But they have the WB, and for all of Kentucky's improvement, South Carolina appears to be better this year as well. So give them the slightest of edges. South Carolina 34, Kentucky 31
P.S. -- Be sure to visit A Sea of Blue, SB Nation's Kentucky blog, if you get a chance.
10 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Congrats
Nice win. I had faith in y'all all along. Really UK has just been incredibly fortunate to beat an overrated opponent at the right time (Louisville), so that they were lurking in the second ten when all the good teams got upset. They remind me of the 2005 Vanderbilt team that started 4-0, having also won at Arkansas, except that no one was touting us for the Top 10.
Still trying to figure out how to contact you....
Don't worry, Philip ...
We won't be so generous in Nashville. :-)
Well....
You all have a decent team and will probably be favored by a TD or so when we meet (hard to predict lines so far ahead of time), but don't you agree that the timing of the Louisville win was awfully fortunate? If you switch UL's Syracuse and Kentucky games, people would just look at the UK-UL game as Kentucky beating a pretty bad opponent.
Your team hurt itself with turnovers tonight, but had benefited from 1.4 per game before tonight. Although some defenses can generate more turnovers than others, more often TOs are just an indication of short-term variance. You can't argue Kentucky gave away the game without arguing that Kentucky's opponents gave away previous games.
UK looks to me like a middle-of-the-pack SEC team, and given the way that people were writing off Rich Brooks 14 months ago that's pretty impressive. But I just hate to see the polls be so subject to timing, as well as preseason expectations (not in UK's case but in others) and other factors unrelated to the quality of a team.
What that sounds like ...
is wishful thinking.
Turnovers are a bit like free throw shooting. When you are on a roll, they don't seem to happen. When you run into difficulty, they do.
What happened to us tonight was South Carolina forced us to work harder on offense than we have all year, and took away the deep ball. That was good strategy, but it shouldn't have forced as many grotesque miscues as happened tonight. Four fumbles could be considered a statistical variance, but not all four of them directly affecting points scored -- two prevented at least ten and arguably fourteen points, and the other two scored fourteen points for the other team. That was misfortune in spades.
UK looks like a middle of the pack team, because quite frankly. that's all we really aspire to be, and realistically, that is the best outcome we can expect. With that said, we do have the potential this year to be more than that because of our powerful offense and that gives us hope. However, as South Carolina demonstrated, that certainly isn't a guarantee, especially on the road in the SEC. But one thing I am fairly sure of -- we aren't going to be the doormat in the league this year.
Polls are just polls, snapshots in time, really. As you say, timing, other teams losing, etc. are big factors that really say less about the actual strength of the team than how well they have taken care of business. I don't know why people get all exercised when a team is over or under rated according to their perception of what "right" should be -- who cares? It usually washes out in the end (unless, of course, you are Auburn).
Frankly, I think both South Carolina and Kentucky are overrated based on tonight's performance. Take away any two of the four fumbles, and it's anybody's game. Statistically, the game was almost dead even -- but the only statistic that matters, in the end, is the score. Neither team dominated, but one team won, and it wasn't Kentucky.
Now hold on a minute...
First of all, I disagree with the idea that both teams are overrated. I agree that South Carolina dozed off a bit in the third quarter on offense, but the defense did a pretty good job. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to jump them very far on my next BlogPoll ballot or anything.)
Overall, I saw it as a good football game by two pretty good teams. Kentucky might be a tad high in the polls, but South Carolina played well, I thought. Not perfectly, but well.
And Philip is right about one thing: You can't claim Kentucky has quality games that it won against Louisville, Arkansas, etc. when it had a positive turnover differential and then turn around and try to shrug off a loss when it comes because of turnovers. That is trying to have it both ways.
Arguably the most important turnover, in terms of momentum, was the sack-turned-fumble at the beginning of the game. If that's luck for the Gamecocks, it's luck that they created with the sack.
And while we're on fumbles, why don't we talk about the one from Saunders at the beginning of the game. Was that luck on Kentucky's part, or good defense? I'd say the latter.
Give credit to both teams for a good game.
Well ...
I wasn't shrugging off the loss, my entire point was this: It's one thing to have a positive turnover ratio. It's entirely another to directly surrender touchdowns on two turnovers and directly prevent at least one touchdown on another. It's very common for teams to have turnovers that lead to scores within a play or two, or even one that leads directly to a touchdown. It's pretty rare to have almost every turnover cost you so dearly.
That was my point, and evidently I made it poorly. I admit to being a little put off by his original comment. You can't really compare the positive turnover ratio to the debacle last night, and that's what I felt he was doing. It isn't having it both ways -- you can't just say "a turnover that leads directly to a defensive touchdown is identical in every respect to a turnover that gives the other team an opportunity to score" -- that's sophistry. They are simply not comparable. The same is true of a turnover in the red zone. Simply not comparable to, say, the fumbled punt by Little.
I thought both teams played well for most of the game. South Carolina's defense was, in my opinion, the only top ten worthy effort I saw last night. Emmanuel Cook was particularly excellent, as was Eric Norwood.
But you must be fair about this -- USC's offense was not top ten caliber, and neither was Kentucky's defense. USC's defense were indomitable against the deep ball, and was in Woodson's face all night long. That was special against our offense. Even if their alter-ego's were top ten, (and I believe at least USC's defense was) it still didn't average out for either team, in my judgment.
Yeah, Kentucky's d did OK for a while in the third quarter but let's face it -- USC should have been able to run the ball much better against our defense. Maybe it's because the Gamecock's backs were dinged up, I don't know. And we haven't whipped an o-line like that all year, not even the weak teams we played, against the pass. We had a season high in sacks against USC, and I would have bet you $100 that wouldn't happen, especially against a quarterback with quick feet like Smelley.
But South Carolina's line showed up in the fourth and pushed us around, as I figured they would all game. Our offense simply killed itself with turnovers, and I don't think Woodson could quite comprehend the fact that any team could take the deep ball away from us. But he'd better get used to that, because I guarantee that LSU will, and perhaps Florida as well. Woodson (and Joker Phillips) are going to have to learn to take what the defense gives us. If we had done that all night, I don't think the outcome would have been any different because of the turnovers, but I do believe we would have added at least one more touchdown.
As far as the fumbles and turnovers go, that one to begin the game was a good defensive play, just like Norwood's first recovery for a TD. I have no truck with that one, it was earned, not given, just like the touchback was. The second fumble was the gift of a TD, the third that caused us to settle for a FG another gift of 4 points. The interception was a combination of a great defensive play and a very poor play call. The other fumble (punt return) was the classic sort of turnover that we have largely been the beneficiary of this season. We've scored a couple of TDs off turnovers, but only one against serious competition.
In my opinion, South Carolina gets credit for a good overall game. Kentucky, really not so much. There were a few things to like, but overall, it's not reasonable to say we played a good game with all the turnovers. If you could take two of the five away and we still wound up losing, I would be fine with it. It's a lot tougher when you have so many gigantic errors, 2 of which were unforced, to be satisfied with the outcome. Our Defense was OK, but it hardly distinguished itself against a USC offense that certainly should be better than they showed last night.
But in case I was unclear, none of Kentucky's failures reflect badly on USC's victory -- the Gamecocks did what they came to do, and earned their win fairly and with a solid, opportunistic effort and impressive defense. The fact that the Wildcats helped them out a lot is incidental, and to a large extent, relevant only to Kentucky fans.
Also, I've even seen some very nice praise of the Gamecock fans' behavior, and I can only say that I hope we behave as politely should the tables ever be turned (sometime before I die, preferably). South Carolina was nothing but respectful of Kentucky, which is something that certainly can't be said of all the SEC schools' fans.
On that note...
Let me say that Kentucky still has reason to think there are more good things ahead this year. You should beat Mississippi State and Vanderbilt, probably Tennessee (if they keep going at this rate) and might even have a shot at Georgia.
Win a bowl game, and you could have 9 or 10 wins. And be honest, if I'd told you two years ago you'd win 17 or 18 games by the end of this season, you'd have been thrilled. Personally, I'm rooting for this to happen -- we've both been in the SEC cellar for far too long, and I'd like to see us give it to Florida, Tennessee and Georgia in spades for a couple of years.
My one quibble is ... 2006 Florida and 1992 Alabama showed you don't have to have a great offense in the SEC if your defense can shut people down. I'm not by any means comparing our defense to those two teams, just saying that I don't think you have to have a Top 10 offense to be a Top 10 team if your defense can make up the difference.
Last night, it looked like they could.
How to contact me...
UK might have been a tad overrated, but I was impressed with the way they played tonight. Except for Woodson.
Congratulations ...
Gamecocks. Fairly contested and nobly won.
I must say, we were abnormally generous sharing the football with your defense. Maybe Woodson just wanted to see if he could spot you guys 20 points and still win the game. But I'm quite sure Brooks didn't approve of his largess.
Jeez.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
