How 2024 five-stars fared in Week 1..
- By Adam Gorney
- The Tiger Walk
- 0 Replies
A look at the 2024 five-stars in Week 1 across college football:
n.rivals.com
Rivals.com: Rivals Football & Basketball Recruiting - How the 2024 five-stars fared in Week 1
Former five-star Jeremiah Smith caught six passes for 92 yards and two touchdowns in Ohio State's win over Akron.
FOOTBALL RECRUITING 2026 ATH has Mizzou in Top 10
- The Tiger Walk
- 0 Replies
Login to view embedded media
n.rivals.com
Login to view embedded media
Four-star RB Cardae Mack down to 10
One of the premier running backs in the state of Texas in the 2026 cycle is narrowing down his recruitment
Login to view embedded media
Guess who is #1 in Total Team Defense
- By mglassma
- The Tiger Walk
- 18 Replies
Mizzou that's who! Sure we played a cupcake. Doesn't matter. Number 1 is number 1. Both in total yards and yards per play. The goal was always to build up the defense in games 1-4 with the hopes that it would gel and become a formidable unit. So far we are off to a great start!
www.ncaa.com
Let's keep it rolling against Buffalo. MIZ.
NCAA College Football FBS current team Stats | NCAA.com
Discover the current NCAA FBS Football leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.
www.ncaa.com
Let's keep it rolling against Buffalo. MIZ.
FOOTBALL RECRUITING ***2026 LB KEENAN HARRIS TALKS MIZZOU INTEREST***
- The Tiger Walk
- 1 Replies
PowerMizzou: Missouri Tigers Football & Basketball Recruiting - VIDEO: 2026 LB Keenan Harris talks Mizzou interest
Harris details his status with Missouri and their staff as well as other programs involved in his recruitment.
Video interview with Keenan Harris from my St. Louis trip
NEW STORY TEN THOUGHTS FOR MONDAY MORNING PRESENTED BY WILL GARRETT
- By GabeD
- The Tiger Walk
- 38 Replies
We are proud to welcome Will Garrett, Agency Sales Manager of Missouri Farm Bureau Insurance as our partner and sponsor. When you’re looking for in-depth analysis of everything happening at Mizzou, Monday Morning Thoughts is the place to go. When you’re looking for an in-depth review of your insurance policies, Will Garrett is who you need. Born and raised a Tiger fan, Will is proud of his hometown and takes pride in protecting his community, and the people in it. The time to prepare for tomorrow is today. Find Will in his office just south of Faurot Field! Click here to get in touch with Will and start the process.
For the first time in eight months Ten Thoughts has a game to talk about! No more takes and speculation (well, still some of that) but we’re talking about actual things we saw on a football field! Let’s go.
1) There were plenty of positives and we’re going to talk about those, but the one common question mark coming out of the game was about the deep passing game…or lack thereof. I’ve already said I understand why it was a topic because Mizzou clearly wasn’t good in that regard, but I’m not overly concerned about it. Still, it’s worth looking at. Let’s break down some of the numbers.
Brady Cook was 0/4 on passes that traveled more than 20 yards past the line of scrimmage in the air. At least three of them certainly could have hit, but didn’t. In the intermediate range, Cook was 3/6 for 54 yards, giving him an overall 3/10 for 54 yards on passes ten yards or longer.
Obviously not what you’re looking for. It didn’t matter in this game. I wanted to put these numbers in context.
Last season as a whole, Cook was 27/58 (46.55%) for 1010 yards (17.4 ypa), 9 TD and 2 INT.
But I wanted to go a bit further and compare Thursday night to the first couple of games of last year. Ideally, you wouldn’t have had the early season hiccups, but the truth is, you haven’t played a game for eight months, there are some nerves and some rust for most players. It’s not like you just pick back up where you were at the end of last year. So here are those numbers:
Week 1: 1/1 for 30 yards
Week 2: 1/3 for 44 yards
Total: 2/4 for 74 yards
Realistically, you’re talking about two throws from Thursday night that would have put him not only where he was last year, but ahead. If he hits on two of the four, there is no complaining about the deep passing game. He didn’t, I get it, but you’re talking about the thinnest of margins here. Last year Mizzou succeeded on a little less than half of the deep shots it tried. There will be weeks it works. This wasn’t one of them. If we get through the Boston College game and they’re still missing it starts to be a trend and a concern. But let’s wait at least that long.
2) To me one of the more encouraging things about Thursday offensively was the quarterback play after Cook exited. Drew Pyne came in and went 10/11 for 82 yards. He averaged more yards per attempt than Cook (7.5 to 7.4) but his adjusted depth of target was also significantly shorter (3.9 to 10.5). Pyne looked better for one simple reason: He didn’t try any of the deep passes that Cook missed on. On passes within ten yards of the line of scrimmage, Cook was 17/21 for 174 yards and a touchdown. Pyne was 9/10 for 67 yards. They played the same game, Pyne just didn’t have the opportunity to miss the big plays Cook did.
But that’s a good sign for Missouri. Basically, the backup played very similarly to the starter. He’s not as much of a threat with his legs, but he came in and other than red zone efficiency Missouri wasn’t much different on offense than it was with Cook. I won’t go so far as to say we know there wouldn’t be a drop-off if something happened to Cook. I think there probably would be. But I can tell you what I’ve heard since Pyne hit campus is that Missouri feels like Pyne could keep the train on the tracks and headed in the right direction if it did happen. Backup quarterbacks are rarely going to come in and make the offense significantly better. If that happens, the coaches were playing the wrong guy. The goal is to have a guy who can minimize the regression. Again, he’ll have to prove it against someone other than Murray State, but I think Mizzou has that in Pyne.
3) We’ve talked a lot about the depth of the playmakers on this team. Man it showed up on Thursday. Obviously Missouri won’t play as many guys in any other game this season as it did against Murray State. So that’s a part of it. But a lot of those guys weren’t just playing at the end of a decided game. There were players getting touches who will continue to get touches this year because Mizzou has a lot of options.
The Tigers had five running backs get carries. I can see four of them continuing to do so. Nate Noel and Marcus Carroll are going to be the top two guys and get the bulk of the work, especially when games are in doubt. But Jamal Roberts has earned time on the field and will get some. And Kewan Lacy showed in the fourth quarter that he probably deserves to get some too (I wouldn't rule out the idea he's the third back by midseason).
In 2023, Mizzou had only three running backs and eight players total with a carry (I’m not counting one Luke Bauer carry for negative yardage). Three players accounted for 465 of the team’s 478 rushing attempts. Thursday night, eight player had a carry and five had at least four. Mizzou had only four players with more than three rushing attempts during the entire 2023 season. You’re not trying to replace Cody Schrader individually, you’re trying to do it in the aggregate (you know, like Brad Pitt and Jason Giambi).
That same concept applied to the receivers. Last season, Missouri had ten players catch a pass. It had seven players catch more than five. On Thursday night, 11 players caught a pass, eight caught at least two and six caught at least three. None had more than five. Last year, Mizzou running backs had 28 total catches. Against Murray State they had six. Tight ends had 23 total catches last season. They had three in the opener and that’s with Brett Norfleet playing less than half a game. Luther Burden may not get to his 1200 yards of a season ago because Missouri has more guys (Josh Manning, a better Marquis Johnson, Mekhi Miller who deserves more chances and even Daniel Blood, who led the team in catches against Murray State) than it did a season ago.
TL;DR version: Missouri might not have many individual standout skill position guys beyond Burden who are going to compete for all-conference and all-American type honors. But it has a whole bunch of really good players and I’m not sure how you account for all of them as a defense.
4) Speaking of defense, let’s talk about that. Missouri’s was exceptional. It allowed 85 yards. Total. It was the first time in Drinkwitz’s career that Missouri has given up fewer than 100 yards. It is the fewest yards Mizzou has surrendered in a game since Sept 17, 2011 when Western Illinois piled up a whopping 44 total yards and one (!!!) first down in a 69-0 loss. Missouri had three plays of 54 yards or more offensively in the game, which means there were three individual plays on which Mizzou gained more yards than WIU had in 46 offensive plays. The Leathernecks punter did punt 13 times for 473 yards though, so that’s something.
It was also Missouri’s first shutout since 2019 when it beat SEMO 50-0. Mizzou’s defense has now gone two consecutive games without allowing a touchdown. The last time that happened was September 26 and October 3 1981 when the Tigers beat Louisville 34-3 and No. 9 Mississippi State 14-3. If the Tigers can keep Buffalo out of the end zone next week, I think it will mark the first time they’ve gone three straight without allowing a TD since at least 1967. Missouri shut out SMU, gave up six points to Northwestern and three to Arizona. I’m not sure how Northwestern got the six points; it could have been via a TD or two field goals. (In 1968, Mizzou gave up 12 points to Kentucky, 0 to Illinois and 3 to Army in successive weeks; I can’t find a box score for the Kentucky game. I’m guessing those points didn’t come on four field goals, but if so, that would be the last three-game run without allowing a TD). Regardless, Mizzou has a shot at something a Tiger defense hasn’t done in a minimum of 56 years next week.
5) The final phase of the game is special teams. A lot of us wondered how Mizzou would be in the kicking game. For a week at least it was just fine. Blake Craig made all six extra points and three field goals. None was longer than 39 yards and none had an ounce of pressure so I’m not ready to tell you Harrison Mevis has been seamlessly replaced yet, but all Craig can do is make the ones he’s asked to make. He did that. There will come a time he faces a kick Missouri absolutely has to have and we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it, but for the opener, he did everything you could ask him to.
For the first time in eight months Ten Thoughts has a game to talk about! No more takes and speculation (well, still some of that) but we’re talking about actual things we saw on a football field! Let’s go.
1) There were plenty of positives and we’re going to talk about those, but the one common question mark coming out of the game was about the deep passing game…or lack thereof. I’ve already said I understand why it was a topic because Mizzou clearly wasn’t good in that regard, but I’m not overly concerned about it. Still, it’s worth looking at. Let’s break down some of the numbers.
Brady Cook was 0/4 on passes that traveled more than 20 yards past the line of scrimmage in the air. At least three of them certainly could have hit, but didn’t. In the intermediate range, Cook was 3/6 for 54 yards, giving him an overall 3/10 for 54 yards on passes ten yards or longer.
Obviously not what you’re looking for. It didn’t matter in this game. I wanted to put these numbers in context.
Last season as a whole, Cook was 27/58 (46.55%) for 1010 yards (17.4 ypa), 9 TD and 2 INT.
But I wanted to go a bit further and compare Thursday night to the first couple of games of last year. Ideally, you wouldn’t have had the early season hiccups, but the truth is, you haven’t played a game for eight months, there are some nerves and some rust for most players. It’s not like you just pick back up where you were at the end of last year. So here are those numbers:
Week 1: 1/1 for 30 yards
Week 2: 1/3 for 44 yards
Total: 2/4 for 74 yards
Realistically, you’re talking about two throws from Thursday night that would have put him not only where he was last year, but ahead. If he hits on two of the four, there is no complaining about the deep passing game. He didn’t, I get it, but you’re talking about the thinnest of margins here. Last year Mizzou succeeded on a little less than half of the deep shots it tried. There will be weeks it works. This wasn’t one of them. If we get through the Boston College game and they’re still missing it starts to be a trend and a concern. But let’s wait at least that long.
2) To me one of the more encouraging things about Thursday offensively was the quarterback play after Cook exited. Drew Pyne came in and went 10/11 for 82 yards. He averaged more yards per attempt than Cook (7.5 to 7.4) but his adjusted depth of target was also significantly shorter (3.9 to 10.5). Pyne looked better for one simple reason: He didn’t try any of the deep passes that Cook missed on. On passes within ten yards of the line of scrimmage, Cook was 17/21 for 174 yards and a touchdown. Pyne was 9/10 for 67 yards. They played the same game, Pyne just didn’t have the opportunity to miss the big plays Cook did.
But that’s a good sign for Missouri. Basically, the backup played very similarly to the starter. He’s not as much of a threat with his legs, but he came in and other than red zone efficiency Missouri wasn’t much different on offense than it was with Cook. I won’t go so far as to say we know there wouldn’t be a drop-off if something happened to Cook. I think there probably would be. But I can tell you what I’ve heard since Pyne hit campus is that Missouri feels like Pyne could keep the train on the tracks and headed in the right direction if it did happen. Backup quarterbacks are rarely going to come in and make the offense significantly better. If that happens, the coaches were playing the wrong guy. The goal is to have a guy who can minimize the regression. Again, he’ll have to prove it against someone other than Murray State, but I think Mizzou has that in Pyne.
3) We’ve talked a lot about the depth of the playmakers on this team. Man it showed up on Thursday. Obviously Missouri won’t play as many guys in any other game this season as it did against Murray State. So that’s a part of it. But a lot of those guys weren’t just playing at the end of a decided game. There were players getting touches who will continue to get touches this year because Mizzou has a lot of options.
The Tigers had five running backs get carries. I can see four of them continuing to do so. Nate Noel and Marcus Carroll are going to be the top two guys and get the bulk of the work, especially when games are in doubt. But Jamal Roberts has earned time on the field and will get some. And Kewan Lacy showed in the fourth quarter that he probably deserves to get some too (I wouldn't rule out the idea he's the third back by midseason).
In 2023, Mizzou had only three running backs and eight players total with a carry (I’m not counting one Luke Bauer carry for negative yardage). Three players accounted for 465 of the team’s 478 rushing attempts. Thursday night, eight player had a carry and five had at least four. Mizzou had only four players with more than three rushing attempts during the entire 2023 season. You’re not trying to replace Cody Schrader individually, you’re trying to do it in the aggregate (you know, like Brad Pitt and Jason Giambi).
That same concept applied to the receivers. Last season, Missouri had ten players catch a pass. It had seven players catch more than five. On Thursday night, 11 players caught a pass, eight caught at least two and six caught at least three. None had more than five. Last year, Mizzou running backs had 28 total catches. Against Murray State they had six. Tight ends had 23 total catches last season. They had three in the opener and that’s with Brett Norfleet playing less than half a game. Luther Burden may not get to his 1200 yards of a season ago because Missouri has more guys (Josh Manning, a better Marquis Johnson, Mekhi Miller who deserves more chances and even Daniel Blood, who led the team in catches against Murray State) than it did a season ago.
TL;DR version: Missouri might not have many individual standout skill position guys beyond Burden who are going to compete for all-conference and all-American type honors. But it has a whole bunch of really good players and I’m not sure how you account for all of them as a defense.
4) Speaking of defense, let’s talk about that. Missouri’s was exceptional. It allowed 85 yards. Total. It was the first time in Drinkwitz’s career that Missouri has given up fewer than 100 yards. It is the fewest yards Mizzou has surrendered in a game since Sept 17, 2011 when Western Illinois piled up a whopping 44 total yards and one (!!!) first down in a 69-0 loss. Missouri had three plays of 54 yards or more offensively in the game, which means there were three individual plays on which Mizzou gained more yards than WIU had in 46 offensive plays. The Leathernecks punter did punt 13 times for 473 yards though, so that’s something.
It was also Missouri’s first shutout since 2019 when it beat SEMO 50-0. Mizzou’s defense has now gone two consecutive games without allowing a touchdown. The last time that happened was September 26 and October 3 1981 when the Tigers beat Louisville 34-3 and No. 9 Mississippi State 14-3. If the Tigers can keep Buffalo out of the end zone next week, I think it will mark the first time they’ve gone three straight without allowing a TD since at least 1967. Missouri shut out SMU, gave up six points to Northwestern and three to Arizona. I’m not sure how Northwestern got the six points; it could have been via a TD or two field goals. (In 1968, Mizzou gave up 12 points to Kentucky, 0 to Illinois and 3 to Army in successive weeks; I can’t find a box score for the Kentucky game. I’m guessing those points didn’t come on four field goals, but if so, that would be the last three-game run without allowing a TD). Regardless, Mizzou has a shot at something a Tiger defense hasn’t done in a minimum of 56 years next week.
5) The final phase of the game is special teams. A lot of us wondered how Mizzou would be in the kicking game. For a week at least it was just fine. Blake Craig made all six extra points and three field goals. None was longer than 39 yards and none had an ounce of pressure so I’m not ready to tell you Harrison Mevis has been seamlessly replaced yet, but all Craig can do is make the ones he’s asked to make. He did that. There will come a time he faces a kick Missouri absolutely has to have and we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it, but for the opener, he did everything you could ask him to.
BASKETBALL Size changes on Mizzou's official roster
- By drewking0222
- The Tiger Walk
- 18 Replies
2024-25 Men's Basketball Roster - University of Missouri Athletics
The official 2024-25 Men's Basketball Roster for the University of Missouri Tigers
mutigers.com
I think this just got posted yesterday or today, a bunch of updates to players' height and weights:
-Ant Robinson is at 6-3, 180 (up an inch and five pounds)
-Marques Warrick is at 6-3, 190 (up an inch and five pounds)
-Marcus Allen is at 6-7, 220 (up 10 pounds)
-T.O. Barrett is at 6-4, 200 (down an inch and up 20 pounds)
-Trent Burns is at 7-5, 235 (up two inches and 15 pounds)
-Trent Pierce is at 6-10, 220 (up 10 pounds)
-Tony Perkins is at 6-4, 200, (down 5 pounds)
-Danny Stephens is at 6-7, 230 (up 20 pounds)
-JV Brown is at 6-5, 200 (up five pounds, he and Stephens have also officially been redshirted after not playing last year)
-Peyton Marshall is at 7-0, 300 (no change there, but GOODNESS that's huge)
-Aidan Shaw is at 6-9, 210 (up an inch and five pounds)
-Mark Mitchell is at 6-9, 230 (down two pounds)
-Caleb Grill is at 6-3, 205 (down 10 pounds)
-Josh Gray is at 7-0, 260 (down 5 pounds)
-Tamar Bates and Jacob Crews are the only two players with no change to their height and weight
