1. The gimmies are over for the Tigers. There were two games on the schedule that I simply saw no way Missouri would lose. They've played them both. Every other game on the schedule, the Tigers almost certainly have to bring at least an average effort to win. There are a lot of winnable games, but none in which Mizzou can just roll its helmet out on the field and win because they have so much more talent than the team they're playing. That was the case in the first two weeks. It will not be the case again.
2. That said, anything less than eight wins is now a disappointment. Purdue is playing terribly. Memphis lost to Navy (and there's no shame in losing to Navy, but if they lose to Navy, they should lose at Missouri). Dan Mullen didn't wave his magic wand and suddenly turn a terrible Florida team into a good one. Arkansas and Tennessee are not good at all. Missouri has Vandy and Kentucky at home and is better than both. I picked Missouri 8-4 in the preseason. That is now my minimum expectation (they could get to 8-4 by going 6-1 in the games I listed above). If I had to redo my prediction today, I'd pick the Tigers 9-3. And while I won't predict it yet, 10-2 is looking less bat---- crazy than it did two weeks ago. I still don't think they get to 10, but I can see 9-3 without straining my eyes too terribly hard.
3. I'm not yet sold Missouri is the second best team in the SEC East...but I think it's a distinct possibility. South Carolina got railroaded last weekend by UGA, but there are two explanations there. First, UGA is really good and when they play well, they'll blow pretty much everybody out in this division. Second, sometimes days like that happen. Just because you play poorly one week doesn't mean you can't come back and play really well the next week. UGA beat South Carolina. Let's say for the sake of argument Missouri beats Georgia (I don't think that will happen). That doesn't mean Missouri is beating South Carolina necessarily. No matter how many reasons we are given not to do it, everybody tries to use the transitive property in college sports. It's dumb.
4. The biggest concern at this point is the running game. I'll write more about this later in the week, but against Tennessee-Martin and Wyoming, the Tigers are averaging 4.1 yards per carry. The top three in that category are all quarterbacks (Micah Wilson 17.0, Drew Lock 9.3, Taylor Powell 4.0). If you take those three out, the Tigers are averaging 3.54 yards per carry. That flat out isn't good enough. That number isn't good enough against SEC competition...much less against the competition the Tigers have played.
The reason? Missouri is getting no push. I didn't pay that much attention in the opener, but against Wyoming, there largely just wasn't anywhere for the backs to go. They were getting the ball and immediately running into a wall. We talked in the offseason about the offensive line and some people were just stunned that Missouri didn't have more guys getting all-SEC attention and didn't understand why some weren't falling all over themselves with praise for the line. Josh Heupel's system made the line look better than it was. I'm not saying they aren't good. I think they're good. I don't think they're great. They don't have one guy that makes you say "He's a star." I think Tre'Vour Wallace-Simms has the best chance to be that guy. I think the other four are very solid. But with more tradition splits and pace and a more traditional running game, I think we're seeing that Heupel's system did the line some favors. That doesn't mean it's time to panic, that doesn't mean the line is terrible. But I'd keep an eye on it. Because right now, Missouri isn't running the ball very well and I don't think most of the fault lies with Damarea Crockett, Larry Rountree III and Tyler Badie.
5. Some of the worry about the run game goes away when you get the quarterback play Missouri is getting. Drew Lock is playing the best football of his career. I thought the second and third quarter against Wyoming were as good as I've seen Lock look. I'm not sure what he could have done better. He had one throw that was somewhat close to being intercepted early in the game. Other than that, he was virtually perfect. He was making every throw. For Missouri to take that next step, Lock has to go from really good to a superstar. He has to be the reason Missouri is winning games. Right now, he's playing that way. He needs to keep it up as the competition gets (a lot) better.
6. One more on Lock, Barry Odom made an interesting comment on Saturday night. I asked if he liked seeing the shoulder lowering and the trash talk out of his QB (for the record, I loved that play. It reminded me of Chase Daniel). He said he was happy Drew finally gets to be himself. I wrote after SEC Media Days when Lock became the star of the show that a few people told me what we saw there was the real Drew Lock. He was finally being the guy he's always been. Odom said the last few years, Lock probably hasn't been able to be himself. I wasn't sure what that meant. I think there are two possibilities. The first is that Lock simply wasn't playing well enough to be brash and talk a lot. And that's possible. The second--and I don't know if this is what Odom meant or not, but it crossed my mind--is that under Josh Heupel, he had such a narrow focus on what a QB should be--cut your hair, don't eat pizza, don't say anything controversial, don't let your parents do interviews (none of these are exaggerations, all were absolutely things that Heupel's QBs are instructed to do)--that Lock simply couldn't show his personality without angering his coach. I don't bring this up as a shot at Heupel. I think Missouri fans (as well as the players) have taken some unfair shots at Heupel. He took a garbage offense, made it pretty good, and parlayed that into a better job. He did what he was brought here to do. The shade throwing the last few months has been over the top. But I wonder if under Derek Dooley, Lock is finding himself freed up to be himself. And just maybe that's translating into the way he's playing.
2. That said, anything less than eight wins is now a disappointment. Purdue is playing terribly. Memphis lost to Navy (and there's no shame in losing to Navy, but if they lose to Navy, they should lose at Missouri). Dan Mullen didn't wave his magic wand and suddenly turn a terrible Florida team into a good one. Arkansas and Tennessee are not good at all. Missouri has Vandy and Kentucky at home and is better than both. I picked Missouri 8-4 in the preseason. That is now my minimum expectation (they could get to 8-4 by going 6-1 in the games I listed above). If I had to redo my prediction today, I'd pick the Tigers 9-3. And while I won't predict it yet, 10-2 is looking less bat---- crazy than it did two weeks ago. I still don't think they get to 10, but I can see 9-3 without straining my eyes too terribly hard.
3. I'm not yet sold Missouri is the second best team in the SEC East...but I think it's a distinct possibility. South Carolina got railroaded last weekend by UGA, but there are two explanations there. First, UGA is really good and when they play well, they'll blow pretty much everybody out in this division. Second, sometimes days like that happen. Just because you play poorly one week doesn't mean you can't come back and play really well the next week. UGA beat South Carolina. Let's say for the sake of argument Missouri beats Georgia (I don't think that will happen). That doesn't mean Missouri is beating South Carolina necessarily. No matter how many reasons we are given not to do it, everybody tries to use the transitive property in college sports. It's dumb.
4. The biggest concern at this point is the running game. I'll write more about this later in the week, but against Tennessee-Martin and Wyoming, the Tigers are averaging 4.1 yards per carry. The top three in that category are all quarterbacks (Micah Wilson 17.0, Drew Lock 9.3, Taylor Powell 4.0). If you take those three out, the Tigers are averaging 3.54 yards per carry. That flat out isn't good enough. That number isn't good enough against SEC competition...much less against the competition the Tigers have played.
The reason? Missouri is getting no push. I didn't pay that much attention in the opener, but against Wyoming, there largely just wasn't anywhere for the backs to go. They were getting the ball and immediately running into a wall. We talked in the offseason about the offensive line and some people were just stunned that Missouri didn't have more guys getting all-SEC attention and didn't understand why some weren't falling all over themselves with praise for the line. Josh Heupel's system made the line look better than it was. I'm not saying they aren't good. I think they're good. I don't think they're great. They don't have one guy that makes you say "He's a star." I think Tre'Vour Wallace-Simms has the best chance to be that guy. I think the other four are very solid. But with more tradition splits and pace and a more traditional running game, I think we're seeing that Heupel's system did the line some favors. That doesn't mean it's time to panic, that doesn't mean the line is terrible. But I'd keep an eye on it. Because right now, Missouri isn't running the ball very well and I don't think most of the fault lies with Damarea Crockett, Larry Rountree III and Tyler Badie.
5. Some of the worry about the run game goes away when you get the quarterback play Missouri is getting. Drew Lock is playing the best football of his career. I thought the second and third quarter against Wyoming were as good as I've seen Lock look. I'm not sure what he could have done better. He had one throw that was somewhat close to being intercepted early in the game. Other than that, he was virtually perfect. He was making every throw. For Missouri to take that next step, Lock has to go from really good to a superstar. He has to be the reason Missouri is winning games. Right now, he's playing that way. He needs to keep it up as the competition gets (a lot) better.
6. One more on Lock, Barry Odom made an interesting comment on Saturday night. I asked if he liked seeing the shoulder lowering and the trash talk out of his QB (for the record, I loved that play. It reminded me of Chase Daniel). He said he was happy Drew finally gets to be himself. I wrote after SEC Media Days when Lock became the star of the show that a few people told me what we saw there was the real Drew Lock. He was finally being the guy he's always been. Odom said the last few years, Lock probably hasn't been able to be himself. I wasn't sure what that meant. I think there are two possibilities. The first is that Lock simply wasn't playing well enough to be brash and talk a lot. And that's possible. The second--and I don't know if this is what Odom meant or not, but it crossed my mind--is that under Josh Heupel, he had such a narrow focus on what a QB should be--cut your hair, don't eat pizza, don't say anything controversial, don't let your parents do interviews (none of these are exaggerations, all were absolutely things that Heupel's QBs are instructed to do)--that Lock simply couldn't show his personality without angering his coach. I don't bring this up as a shot at Heupel. I think Missouri fans (as well as the players) have taken some unfair shots at Heupel. He took a garbage offense, made it pretty good, and parlayed that into a better job. He did what he was brought here to do. The shade throwing the last few months has been over the top. But I wonder if under Derek Dooley, Lock is finding himself freed up to be himself. And just maybe that's translating into the way he's playing.
