Transfers **are** for coaches.

Kirby kind of gives the game away here.

On the issues of facing a staff that has such familiarity with the program…

“I don’t know that there are real issues, to be honest with you. I don’t put a huge premium on them having been part of our organization. I look at it as, they’re coaching their team and we’re coaching our team. There’s not a lot of trade secrets in football. You have to be able to block, you have to be able to tackle, you have to be able to communicate on the field.  We have a different offense than we had last year and a lot of the connection to our program was through the offensive side of the ball with Coach Pittman.  I’m not looking at it as those guys that were here last year being an issue for us there. They’re doing the best job they can to prepare their team and we’re doing the best job we can to prepare ours.  It usually boils down to what the players do on the grass, not what we do as coaches.”

If that’s the case for coaches who were involved in schemes and game planning, just think how much weaker the argument is for players who transfer.  There aren’t any dark secrets.  There’s just the element of control.

And while I’m on the subject, this is some weird bullshit.

Graf is also reporting that Kentucky has a “gentleman’s agreement” with Auburn that Gatewood will not play on Sept. 26 as a way to show thanks for Auburn’s cooperation with the waiver request. That part was not confirmed but it would be a very interesting turn of events…

That’s one way to put it.


Filed under Transfers Are For Coaches.

2 responses to “Transfers **are** for coaches.

  1. Down Island Way

    Well Senatore, I do bulleve ahh “gentlemuns duel” is in odah ….arm wrasslin’ would have been a good substitute….


  2. 123fakest

    Eff Auburn. What are you thinking, Kentucky?