In one thread last week a person submitted about @GabeD having to separate his professionalism from his fandom. It gave me a thought that despite my passion for Missouri football, including the quality of play and style of uniform, I wanted to take a shot at being less a fan and more of a disinterested observer of the team. I will not get emotional, I will say nothing divisive or insulting, but will be critical and question anything within Missouri football.
Let's start off with the good ...
* Missouri 34 Abilene Christian 17
* Luther Burden 78 yard touchdown on his first touch as a punt returner
* Dominic Lovett is definitely a receiving threat
* Brady Cook can deliver a deep ball
* Missouri receivers got open in the middle of the field (10-15 yards from the line of scrimmage) and the QB delivered
* A 20+ yard completion on a wheel route to a running back
The bad ...
* No pass rush
* Bad tackling technique
* Bubble screens and passes to the sideline at the line of scrimmage DO NOT PRODUCE yardage
* Will the offense ever define an identity?
* Six offensive holding penalties on the offense? Bannister held a DB on the edge even though Elijah Young was sprinting past him on the way into the end zone. I believe that was the drive that resulted in the 39 yard missed FG by Harrison Mevis.
The ugly ...
* O-line play, specifically the lack of a push on interior runs
* Interior D-line play that resulted in too many yards up the gut, inside of the defensive ends
* Getting the QB killed that resulted in a fumble and touchdown by the ACU defense
* After the ACU last TD, Missouri called timeout to discuss a possible on-side kick. When the Tigers took the field, it was with only ten players. It is the fourth quarter of the third game of the season in what could be the critical play of the game and Missouri decides to play with less than a full return team?
I truly believe that a coach cannot criticize his team in the immediate aftermath of a win, let the players enjoy their success. But, if the coach is anywhere satisfied with this win, he is not much of a coach. I have been a constant supporter of Drink since his hire and his recruiting success only intensified my support. In reality, at this point in time, Drink is light years away from being a good or even adequate SEC head coach in game planning and game management. Just refer to the aforementioned on-side kick snafu that actually did no damage; how many teams in the SEC would do that?
Game management at the end of the second quarter and the beginning of the the third was mishandled at best. No attempt to push the ball downfield before halftime and at the start of the third, let's call it a stale start with little imagination. If Missouri is going to be a good team they need to exploit those possessions.
I never felt that Drink was coaching this game to build a lead against a supposed overmatched opponent. The play calling was mundane and ineffective and rarely changed throughout the first quarter. The offense improved later in the first half, a fact that can be attributed to the increase of downfield passing. But the only touchdowns scored in the first half were explosive plays. Where was the control and dominance of the running game and push from the O-line? A good, well coached team would have had those two explosive plays and probably two other touchdowns by long, efficient drives down the field, instead Missouri punted five times and missed two field goals. That is a good amount of muted offensive production against an FCS team.
Once again, Missouri has no real identity on offense or defense, very similar to their ever changing choice of helmet design ... I am waiting for the inevitable change in team colors to accommodate new uniform combinations.
Let's start off with the good ...
* Missouri 34 Abilene Christian 17
* Luther Burden 78 yard touchdown on his first touch as a punt returner
* Dominic Lovett is definitely a receiving threat
* Brady Cook can deliver a deep ball
* Missouri receivers got open in the middle of the field (10-15 yards from the line of scrimmage) and the QB delivered
* A 20+ yard completion on a wheel route to a running back
The bad ...
* No pass rush
* Bad tackling technique
* Bubble screens and passes to the sideline at the line of scrimmage DO NOT PRODUCE yardage
* Will the offense ever define an identity?
* Six offensive holding penalties on the offense? Bannister held a DB on the edge even though Elijah Young was sprinting past him on the way into the end zone. I believe that was the drive that resulted in the 39 yard missed FG by Harrison Mevis.
The ugly ...
* O-line play, specifically the lack of a push on interior runs
* Interior D-line play that resulted in too many yards up the gut, inside of the defensive ends
* Getting the QB killed that resulted in a fumble and touchdown by the ACU defense
* After the ACU last TD, Missouri called timeout to discuss a possible on-side kick. When the Tigers took the field, it was with only ten players. It is the fourth quarter of the third game of the season in what could be the critical play of the game and Missouri decides to play with less than a full return team?
I truly believe that a coach cannot criticize his team in the immediate aftermath of a win, let the players enjoy their success. But, if the coach is anywhere satisfied with this win, he is not much of a coach. I have been a constant supporter of Drink since his hire and his recruiting success only intensified my support. In reality, at this point in time, Drink is light years away from being a good or even adequate SEC head coach in game planning and game management. Just refer to the aforementioned on-side kick snafu that actually did no damage; how many teams in the SEC would do that?
Game management at the end of the second quarter and the beginning of the the third was mishandled at best. No attempt to push the ball downfield before halftime and at the start of the third, let's call it a stale start with little imagination. If Missouri is going to be a good team they need to exploit those possessions.
I never felt that Drink was coaching this game to build a lead against a supposed overmatched opponent. The play calling was mundane and ineffective and rarely changed throughout the first quarter. The offense improved later in the first half, a fact that can be attributed to the increase of downfield passing. But the only touchdowns scored in the first half were explosive plays. Where was the control and dominance of the running game and push from the O-line? A good, well coached team would have had those two explosive plays and probably two other touchdowns by long, efficient drives down the field, instead Missouri punted five times and missed two field goals. That is a good amount of muted offensive production against an FCS team.
Once again, Missouri has no real identity on offense or defense, very similar to their ever changing choice of helmet design ... I am waiting for the inevitable change in team colors to accommodate new uniform combinations.
Last edited:
