The ten thoughts from Saturday's 24-17 loss are here. We'll go more big picture this morning.
1) I think I've been a bit more negative than many have and than most of you guys expected coming off of Saturday. The first few thoughts here will be dedicated to explaining why. I think there is a limit to how many times you can come close without success before things start to trend the other way. There's nothing evidence based or scientific about this. I haven't gone back and researched teams who have lost three straight one-score games and how they did afterward or anything. I just don't know how many times you can say "We're close" before the fight starts to seem futile and you have guys start to doubt. I think Eli Drinkwitz deserves a lot of credit for the fact that that hasn't happened yet. That's coaching. If I'm going to blame him for the bad stuff I have to give him credit for the good stuff and his team clearly is still fighting and hasn't mailed it in. But there has to be a payoff for that belief. And I think it has to happen soon. Because if it doesn't, it's human nature that there will start to be some cracks.
2) Part of the reason I've been critical is that I think we've reached a time where it's fair to be critical. I said before the season that what I expected to see to show me progress was a winning regular season record. That wasn't a hard and fast rule. There's a way that 6-6 could show progress. Anything below that, to me--and I think to most people before the season started--was going to be some cause for concern. There's really no way to spin 5-7 as anything but a step in the wrong direction. And while I know that a step back doesn't doom anyone--to steal Eli Drinkwitz's phrase, progress isn't linear, and I think I've been very clear that I'm not burying anyone and not saying it's time for Missouri to start considering a drastic decision--it is at least cause for concern. That's really where I've been coming from. It's not doom and gloom. It's not saying there's no way this is going to work. It's hesitation. I haven't seen anything that tells me it definitively won't work, but I also haven't seen anything that tells me it definitively will.
Back to the original point, let's set 6-6 as the mark that most people believed was the bare minimum that would make them feel good about this season. I now think that's the ceiling for this team. Tennessee is legitimately good. The Vols have one of the top offenses in the country and I just can't see Missouri being able to keep up with them in Knoxville. So there's the fifth loss. That leaves five games. To reach my bar before the season, Mizzou has to win every one. To reach the newly adjusted bar, Mizzou has to win four of the five. Vanderbilt and New Mexico State have to be wins. Period. I don't care if they're by one or one hundred, they have to be wins. That leaves you needing at least two out of Kentucky, South Carolina and Arkansas. They're all winnable. But do you trust this team to go win any of them? That's up to each individual to answer. I think Mizzou will be underdogs in all three. If I had to predict a final record as of today, I think I'd predict 4-8, but could be talked into 5-7. I think 6-6 is certainly possible, but it will take this team showing me something it hasn't shown me yet this year. If that happens, there's progress and you can sell me on a reason to be more optimistic entering the offseason than I am right now. But at 5-7 or worse, there are a million questions and the hot seat talk is going to be coming from all angles whether you think it's fair or not.
3) My biggest concern is the fact that the problem on this team is the side of the ball Drinkwitz was hired to run. The offense has been very bad. Missouri has scored 151 points this season, an average of 25.2 per game. Eighty-six of those points (57%) have come against Louisiana Tech and Abilene Christian. The Bulldogs are 1-3 against FBS competition and are giving up 42.25 points per game. Abilene Christian is an FCS team that I throw out of the equation.
Missouri's competition is Power Five teams. That's who you judge them against. Against Power Five competition, the Tigers are averaging 16.25 points per game. They are averaging 4.7 yards per play and 299.5 total yards per game. They've turned the ball over eight times and have a minus-3 turnover margin. For comparison, I looked at the same numbers against Power Five competition in the 2015 season, which was the worst offense I can ever remember seeing. In 2015, the Tigers averaged 10.3 points per game against Power Five teams (I included BYU as a Power Five team, but did not include UCONN as one). They averaged 270.3 yards per game and 4.24 yards per play. So this isn't the worst offense we've seen in the last eight years. But it's closer than you'd like.
Again, I come back to the fact that offense is the reason Drinkwitz is the coach here. Barry Odom was hired for his defensive prowess. When you hire a coach who is primarily responsible for one side of the ball (and make no mistake, Odom didn't have much to do with the offense and Drink doesn't have much to do with the defense day to day), there are two things that need to happen: First, they need to hire someone who does a good job running the other side of the ball and second, the side of the ball they're good at has to live up to the billing. Odom's defense wasn't good enough when he was here and that was the side of the ball he was supposed to be good at. He initially hired a guy very capable of taking care of the offense, but when that guy left, the replacement wasn't good enough. The combination of not being good enough on "his" side of the ball and hiring the wrong guy to run the other side got him fired. For Drinkwitz, it's taken three years, but he has the right guy on the opposite side of the ball. Now he needs to get his own side up to snuff. Ultimately, his success will come down to two things: Taking his side of the ball from well below average to at least average or better and either keeping Baker here or hiring the right replacement if he leaves. Both of those things have to happen.
4) I can hear you saying already, "but the only real problem on offense is the quarterback." I don't think that's entirely true. I think Missouri has more problems than just quarterback. But quarterback has been a problem. Coming into this season, I looked at Brady Cook as a guy that probably wasn't going to go win you a lot of SEC games on his own. But you could win SEC games with him if he wasn't losing them. Well, he's losing them. Here are Cook's numbers in Missouri's four losses: 71/113 (62.8%), 719 yards (179.8 per game), 6.36 yards per attempt, 1 touchdown, 5 interceptions. The first three numbers aren't great, but you could live with them. You could win games with them. But the last two numbers are absolutely killing Missouri. One touchdown pass and five picks in four games. That's not good enough. Not even close.
My barometer for Cook was 2020 Connor Bazelak. That was the first year he was a starter. He played all of his games against Power Five competition. Here were Bazelak's numbers that season: 218/324 (67.3%), 2366 yards (262.9 yards per game--I gave him nine games because he played just a little against Alabama and less than the full game against Tennessee), 7.3 yards per attempt, 7 touchdowns, 6 interceptions. The difference is 5% completion rate, 83 yards per game, and a 1.16:1 touchdown to interception ratio vs a 0.2:1 ratio for Cook this year. If Cook was playing at a 2020 Bazelak level, I think Missouri would be 4-2 right now. Maybe 5-1, but to be conservative, I'll say 4-2. If Missouri was 4-2, I don't think anyone would be complaining or asking for a QB change.
For giggles, here are the previous three Missouri quarterback's passing numbers against Power Five teams in their first season as a starter:
2015 Drew Lock (8 starts, 9 games): 117/243 (48.1%), 1154 yards (144.25 per game), 4.75 yards per attempt, 3 touchdowns, 7 INT
2013 Maty Mauk (4 starts, 8 games): 66/130 (50.7%), 1053 yards (approximately 210.6 per game), 8.1 yards per attempt, 11 touchdowns, 2 INT
2011 James Franklin (11 games, 11 starts): 204/326 (62.6%), 2497 yards (227 per game), 7.66 yards per attempt, 18 touchdowns, 10 interceptions
So if we're ranking debut seasons, I'd go Franklin, Mauk, Bazelak, Cook, Lock.
5) That all leads us to this: Should Missouri make a quarterback change? I come down as a firm maybe. Personally, I probably would. But I say that while admitting I have absolutely none of the information required to be qualified to make that decision. The decision is less about Cook than it is about Sam Horn. Eli Drinkwitz has to decide if he's ready to handle it. If he isn't, or even if they think he might not be, you ride it out with Cook, hope he improves a bit, hope the rest of the team around him is good enough and take what you get this year. The argument for making a move to Horn now is basically see what you have, offer some hope, build for next year. My guess is that Drinkwitz isn't ready to build for next year yet. Above, I laid out the path to 6-6. As long as that path exists, I think Cook will remain the starter and I understand why. He hasn't been good, but he hasn't been as awful as some want to think either. If they lose to Vanderbilt, the path to 6-6 is almost certainly gone. I'd definitely make the move then. If they beat Vandy and lose to South Carolina, I'd make the move then. Because while the path to 6-6 would still technically exist, it would require wins over Kentucky and Arkansas and I have a hard time seeing that. In addition, at that point, you'd have four games left in the season. Horn could play them all and not use a year of eligibility.
1) I think I've been a bit more negative than many have and than most of you guys expected coming off of Saturday. The first few thoughts here will be dedicated to explaining why. I think there is a limit to how many times you can come close without success before things start to trend the other way. There's nothing evidence based or scientific about this. I haven't gone back and researched teams who have lost three straight one-score games and how they did afterward or anything. I just don't know how many times you can say "We're close" before the fight starts to seem futile and you have guys start to doubt. I think Eli Drinkwitz deserves a lot of credit for the fact that that hasn't happened yet. That's coaching. If I'm going to blame him for the bad stuff I have to give him credit for the good stuff and his team clearly is still fighting and hasn't mailed it in. But there has to be a payoff for that belief. And I think it has to happen soon. Because if it doesn't, it's human nature that there will start to be some cracks.
2) Part of the reason I've been critical is that I think we've reached a time where it's fair to be critical. I said before the season that what I expected to see to show me progress was a winning regular season record. That wasn't a hard and fast rule. There's a way that 6-6 could show progress. Anything below that, to me--and I think to most people before the season started--was going to be some cause for concern. There's really no way to spin 5-7 as anything but a step in the wrong direction. And while I know that a step back doesn't doom anyone--to steal Eli Drinkwitz's phrase, progress isn't linear, and I think I've been very clear that I'm not burying anyone and not saying it's time for Missouri to start considering a drastic decision--it is at least cause for concern. That's really where I've been coming from. It's not doom and gloom. It's not saying there's no way this is going to work. It's hesitation. I haven't seen anything that tells me it definitively won't work, but I also haven't seen anything that tells me it definitively will.
Back to the original point, let's set 6-6 as the mark that most people believed was the bare minimum that would make them feel good about this season. I now think that's the ceiling for this team. Tennessee is legitimately good. The Vols have one of the top offenses in the country and I just can't see Missouri being able to keep up with them in Knoxville. So there's the fifth loss. That leaves five games. To reach my bar before the season, Mizzou has to win every one. To reach the newly adjusted bar, Mizzou has to win four of the five. Vanderbilt and New Mexico State have to be wins. Period. I don't care if they're by one or one hundred, they have to be wins. That leaves you needing at least two out of Kentucky, South Carolina and Arkansas. They're all winnable. But do you trust this team to go win any of them? That's up to each individual to answer. I think Mizzou will be underdogs in all three. If I had to predict a final record as of today, I think I'd predict 4-8, but could be talked into 5-7. I think 6-6 is certainly possible, but it will take this team showing me something it hasn't shown me yet this year. If that happens, there's progress and you can sell me on a reason to be more optimistic entering the offseason than I am right now. But at 5-7 or worse, there are a million questions and the hot seat talk is going to be coming from all angles whether you think it's fair or not.
3) My biggest concern is the fact that the problem on this team is the side of the ball Drinkwitz was hired to run. The offense has been very bad. Missouri has scored 151 points this season, an average of 25.2 per game. Eighty-six of those points (57%) have come against Louisiana Tech and Abilene Christian. The Bulldogs are 1-3 against FBS competition and are giving up 42.25 points per game. Abilene Christian is an FCS team that I throw out of the equation.
Missouri's competition is Power Five teams. That's who you judge them against. Against Power Five competition, the Tigers are averaging 16.25 points per game. They are averaging 4.7 yards per play and 299.5 total yards per game. They've turned the ball over eight times and have a minus-3 turnover margin. For comparison, I looked at the same numbers against Power Five competition in the 2015 season, which was the worst offense I can ever remember seeing. In 2015, the Tigers averaged 10.3 points per game against Power Five teams (I included BYU as a Power Five team, but did not include UCONN as one). They averaged 270.3 yards per game and 4.24 yards per play. So this isn't the worst offense we've seen in the last eight years. But it's closer than you'd like.
Again, I come back to the fact that offense is the reason Drinkwitz is the coach here. Barry Odom was hired for his defensive prowess. When you hire a coach who is primarily responsible for one side of the ball (and make no mistake, Odom didn't have much to do with the offense and Drink doesn't have much to do with the defense day to day), there are two things that need to happen: First, they need to hire someone who does a good job running the other side of the ball and second, the side of the ball they're good at has to live up to the billing. Odom's defense wasn't good enough when he was here and that was the side of the ball he was supposed to be good at. He initially hired a guy very capable of taking care of the offense, but when that guy left, the replacement wasn't good enough. The combination of not being good enough on "his" side of the ball and hiring the wrong guy to run the other side got him fired. For Drinkwitz, it's taken three years, but he has the right guy on the opposite side of the ball. Now he needs to get his own side up to snuff. Ultimately, his success will come down to two things: Taking his side of the ball from well below average to at least average or better and either keeping Baker here or hiring the right replacement if he leaves. Both of those things have to happen.
4) I can hear you saying already, "but the only real problem on offense is the quarterback." I don't think that's entirely true. I think Missouri has more problems than just quarterback. But quarterback has been a problem. Coming into this season, I looked at Brady Cook as a guy that probably wasn't going to go win you a lot of SEC games on his own. But you could win SEC games with him if he wasn't losing them. Well, he's losing them. Here are Cook's numbers in Missouri's four losses: 71/113 (62.8%), 719 yards (179.8 per game), 6.36 yards per attempt, 1 touchdown, 5 interceptions. The first three numbers aren't great, but you could live with them. You could win games with them. But the last two numbers are absolutely killing Missouri. One touchdown pass and five picks in four games. That's not good enough. Not even close.
My barometer for Cook was 2020 Connor Bazelak. That was the first year he was a starter. He played all of his games against Power Five competition. Here were Bazelak's numbers that season: 218/324 (67.3%), 2366 yards (262.9 yards per game--I gave him nine games because he played just a little against Alabama and less than the full game against Tennessee), 7.3 yards per attempt, 7 touchdowns, 6 interceptions. The difference is 5% completion rate, 83 yards per game, and a 1.16:1 touchdown to interception ratio vs a 0.2:1 ratio for Cook this year. If Cook was playing at a 2020 Bazelak level, I think Missouri would be 4-2 right now. Maybe 5-1, but to be conservative, I'll say 4-2. If Missouri was 4-2, I don't think anyone would be complaining or asking for a QB change.
For giggles, here are the previous three Missouri quarterback's passing numbers against Power Five teams in their first season as a starter:
2015 Drew Lock (8 starts, 9 games): 117/243 (48.1%), 1154 yards (144.25 per game), 4.75 yards per attempt, 3 touchdowns, 7 INT
2013 Maty Mauk (4 starts, 8 games): 66/130 (50.7%), 1053 yards (approximately 210.6 per game), 8.1 yards per attempt, 11 touchdowns, 2 INT
2011 James Franklin (11 games, 11 starts): 204/326 (62.6%), 2497 yards (227 per game), 7.66 yards per attempt, 18 touchdowns, 10 interceptions
So if we're ranking debut seasons, I'd go Franklin, Mauk, Bazelak, Cook, Lock.
5) That all leads us to this: Should Missouri make a quarterback change? I come down as a firm maybe. Personally, I probably would. But I say that while admitting I have absolutely none of the information required to be qualified to make that decision. The decision is less about Cook than it is about Sam Horn. Eli Drinkwitz has to decide if he's ready to handle it. If he isn't, or even if they think he might not be, you ride it out with Cook, hope he improves a bit, hope the rest of the team around him is good enough and take what you get this year. The argument for making a move to Horn now is basically see what you have, offer some hope, build for next year. My guess is that Drinkwitz isn't ready to build for next year yet. Above, I laid out the path to 6-6. As long as that path exists, I think Cook will remain the starter and I understand why. He hasn't been good, but he hasn't been as awful as some want to think either. If they lose to Vanderbilt, the path to 6-6 is almost certainly gone. I'd definitely make the move then. If they beat Vandy and lose to South Carolina, I'd make the move then. Because while the path to 6-6 would still technically exist, it would require wins over Kentucky and Arkansas and I have a hard time seeing that. In addition, at that point, you'd have four games left in the season. Horn could play them all and not use a year of eligibility.
