You can read my ten thoughts from the win over Vanderbilt here and ten thoughts on the weekend in college football here. On Monday mornings we go big picture on Mizzou. So let's do that.
1) I know it is not breaking news that Missouri's offense is not good. If you don't want to read about that, if you want me to pump sunshine up your posterior, this is not the article for you to read. Because to get to 6-6 (certainly mathematically possible, but by no means something that seems likely right now), it's about fixing what's wrong, not celebrating what's right. So what's wrong with the Missouri offense? In a word, everything. I know that everyone wants to be the person that identifies the singular problem. And everyone wants there to be a singular problem. Because if there's only one problem, it doesn't seem like that big of an issue. Just fix this one thing and it'll be fine. Well, that doesn't work with this outfit. Is it the quarterback? Yes. Is it the offensive line? Yes. Is it the playcalling/scheme? Almost certainly at times, yes. Is it the running game? Yes. Is it the fact they don't have a tight end that is a threat to other teams? Yes. It's all of it, folks. There's not one thing you can fix with this offense that will suddenly make it competent. There are a bunch of things that need fixed. Can they be fixed? Some of them maybe. All of them? During the season? Almost certainly not. But we're going to spend a lot of time this morning looking at what those different issues are, why they're occurring and if there are potential fixes on this roster.
2) The most common complaint is about the quarterback play. This is not unusual. It's the most scrutinized position in sports. It's one of the very few (maybe the only) position in sports where people think it can fix an entire unit. Sometimes it can. I don't think it can in Missouri's case, which I wrote about on Saturday after the game. That doesn't mean I'm against trying something different. That doesn't mean I think Brady Cook has been good enough. He hasn't. He absolutely needs to be better than he has been the last few games. His play has definitely been a part of the problem. It's not that anyone (or at least hardly anyone) is saying Missouri is fine at quarterback. It's just that improving the quarterback play alone doesn't fix the offense.
3) So the real question is whether or not there's a solution on the roster. Here's the thing: Everyone is asking for Sam Horn or Tyler Macon to go in. But neither of those guys is the backup quarterback. When Brady Cook got split in half on a strip sack in the third quarter against Vanderbilt, it was Jack Abraham that was preparing to go in if Cook couldn't go on the next drive. He is Missouri's backup quarterback. That means that after watching all of fall camp and eight weeks of practice during the season, the offensive coaching staff believes Abraham is the second-most likely quarterback to be able to win Missouri a football game. Now, they may be wrong. And that's the real issue here: If you're asking for a quarterback change, you don't trust that your coaching staff is capable of identifying the guy who should be playing. Again, maybe you're right. But that's a bigger problem than just not having a guy that's good enough. I do understand why people are asking for Horn or Macon. We've seen Abraham and it wasn't pretty. There's no future with Abraham. He has five weeks left in his college football career. Playing him is putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. To be fair to Abraham, he wasn't exactly put in the game in the most generous of circumstances. The only time we've really seen him is in a downpour against a defense that was dominating a Missouri offense that hadn't done anything all day in a situation where everyone knew they had to try to throw the ball. I don't think Abraham is some magic solution by any means, but I also don't think he's a guy who's going to throw an interception on 2/3 of his passing attempts.
I was on the field pregame on Saturday and watched the quarterbacks warm up. Missouri has three quarterbacks working with three centers in the pregame. Those quarterbacks were Cook, Abraham and Horn. Macon was standing behind those guys holding his helmet. He's not in the conversation. Horn was supposed to play and then didn't, which is a little bit weird in the sense that if Cook went down long-term, Missouri was playing Abraham, but it planned to play Horn at some point. That's a bit of a disjointed plan. Obviously, playing Horn is less about whether they think he's ready to play right now and more about having your presumed 2023 starter at least have seen the field before he takes the first snap in next year's season opener against South Dakota.
The basic point is this: Whoever you're asking for to play quarterback is likely the third or fourth-stringer right now.
4) The other major issue, personnel-wise, is the offensive line. It has not been very good most of the year. For this analysis, I went to Football Outsiders, a site that keeps track of all kinds of detailed metrics that you can dive into if you so desire. Anyway, here are some of Missouri's numbers with a quick explanation of what each category means:
In average line yards, only 27 teams are ranked lower than Missouri's 2.37. Only eight of those teams are Power Five teams. Those teams (Auburn, Stanford, Iowa State, Viriginia Tech, Northwestern, Iowa, Indiana and Boston College) have a combined record of 20-37. Every single one of them is in last or next to last in its division, as is Missouri.
In power success rate (third or fourth down and 2 or less), Missouri ranks 109th. This team is dreadful running in short yardage, which we knew.
In terms of stuff rate (the percentage of carries that do not gain yardage), Missouri is 86th.
The run blocking has been putrid.
What about the pass blocking? Most believe this has been better. These numbers back that up. Missouri's 3.4 line yards per pass ranks 18th in the country. That's pretty good. However, Missouri's sack rate is pretty poor. The Tigers are 99th in the country in unadjusted sack rate and 113th in sack rate on standard downs (1st and 10, 2nd and 7 or less, 3rd and 4 or less). On expected passing downs, Mizzou is 47th, which means when they are expected to throw the ball, the line is holding up pretty well. My guess is that's because most teams aren't blitzing Missouri much on those downs, but instead are dropping into coverage. According to PFF College, opponents are blitzing on 19.8% of Mizzou's passing attempts and the quarterback is under pressure on 27.8% of all passing attempts. That 27.8% might seem like a big number, but it isn't. That ranks fifth in the SEC. Eight teams in the league (including Alabama and LSU) are allowing pressure on more than 30% of passing plays.
My conclusions: The run blocking is very bad. The pass blocking is average or even above average. So if we have to assign blame, the line gets it in the running game and the quarterback gets more of it in the passing game.
1) I know it is not breaking news that Missouri's offense is not good. If you don't want to read about that, if you want me to pump sunshine up your posterior, this is not the article for you to read. Because to get to 6-6 (certainly mathematically possible, but by no means something that seems likely right now), it's about fixing what's wrong, not celebrating what's right. So what's wrong with the Missouri offense? In a word, everything. I know that everyone wants to be the person that identifies the singular problem. And everyone wants there to be a singular problem. Because if there's only one problem, it doesn't seem like that big of an issue. Just fix this one thing and it'll be fine. Well, that doesn't work with this outfit. Is it the quarterback? Yes. Is it the offensive line? Yes. Is it the playcalling/scheme? Almost certainly at times, yes. Is it the running game? Yes. Is it the fact they don't have a tight end that is a threat to other teams? Yes. It's all of it, folks. There's not one thing you can fix with this offense that will suddenly make it competent. There are a bunch of things that need fixed. Can they be fixed? Some of them maybe. All of them? During the season? Almost certainly not. But we're going to spend a lot of time this morning looking at what those different issues are, why they're occurring and if there are potential fixes on this roster.
2) The most common complaint is about the quarterback play. This is not unusual. It's the most scrutinized position in sports. It's one of the very few (maybe the only) position in sports where people think it can fix an entire unit. Sometimes it can. I don't think it can in Missouri's case, which I wrote about on Saturday after the game. That doesn't mean I'm against trying something different. That doesn't mean I think Brady Cook has been good enough. He hasn't. He absolutely needs to be better than he has been the last few games. His play has definitely been a part of the problem. It's not that anyone (or at least hardly anyone) is saying Missouri is fine at quarterback. It's just that improving the quarterback play alone doesn't fix the offense.
3) So the real question is whether or not there's a solution on the roster. Here's the thing: Everyone is asking for Sam Horn or Tyler Macon to go in. But neither of those guys is the backup quarterback. When Brady Cook got split in half on a strip sack in the third quarter against Vanderbilt, it was Jack Abraham that was preparing to go in if Cook couldn't go on the next drive. He is Missouri's backup quarterback. That means that after watching all of fall camp and eight weeks of practice during the season, the offensive coaching staff believes Abraham is the second-most likely quarterback to be able to win Missouri a football game. Now, they may be wrong. And that's the real issue here: If you're asking for a quarterback change, you don't trust that your coaching staff is capable of identifying the guy who should be playing. Again, maybe you're right. But that's a bigger problem than just not having a guy that's good enough. I do understand why people are asking for Horn or Macon. We've seen Abraham and it wasn't pretty. There's no future with Abraham. He has five weeks left in his college football career. Playing him is putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. To be fair to Abraham, he wasn't exactly put in the game in the most generous of circumstances. The only time we've really seen him is in a downpour against a defense that was dominating a Missouri offense that hadn't done anything all day in a situation where everyone knew they had to try to throw the ball. I don't think Abraham is some magic solution by any means, but I also don't think he's a guy who's going to throw an interception on 2/3 of his passing attempts.
I was on the field pregame on Saturday and watched the quarterbacks warm up. Missouri has three quarterbacks working with three centers in the pregame. Those quarterbacks were Cook, Abraham and Horn. Macon was standing behind those guys holding his helmet. He's not in the conversation. Horn was supposed to play and then didn't, which is a little bit weird in the sense that if Cook went down long-term, Missouri was playing Abraham, but it planned to play Horn at some point. That's a bit of a disjointed plan. Obviously, playing Horn is less about whether they think he's ready to play right now and more about having your presumed 2023 starter at least have seen the field before he takes the first snap in next year's season opener against South Dakota.
The basic point is this: Whoever you're asking for to play quarterback is likely the third or fourth-stringer right now.
4) The other major issue, personnel-wise, is the offensive line. It has not been very good most of the year. For this analysis, I went to Football Outsiders, a site that keeps track of all kinds of detailed metrics that you can dive into if you so desire. Anyway, here are some of Missouri's numbers with a quick explanation of what each category means:
In average line yards, only 27 teams are ranked lower than Missouri's 2.37. Only eight of those teams are Power Five teams. Those teams (Auburn, Stanford, Iowa State, Viriginia Tech, Northwestern, Iowa, Indiana and Boston College) have a combined record of 20-37. Every single one of them is in last or next to last in its division, as is Missouri.
In power success rate (third or fourth down and 2 or less), Missouri ranks 109th. This team is dreadful running in short yardage, which we knew.
In terms of stuff rate (the percentage of carries that do not gain yardage), Missouri is 86th.
The run blocking has been putrid.
What about the pass blocking? Most believe this has been better. These numbers back that up. Missouri's 3.4 line yards per pass ranks 18th in the country. That's pretty good. However, Missouri's sack rate is pretty poor. The Tigers are 99th in the country in unadjusted sack rate and 113th in sack rate on standard downs (1st and 10, 2nd and 7 or less, 3rd and 4 or less). On expected passing downs, Mizzou is 47th, which means when they are expected to throw the ball, the line is holding up pretty well. My guess is that's because most teams aren't blitzing Missouri much on those downs, but instead are dropping into coverage. According to PFF College, opponents are blitzing on 19.8% of Mizzou's passing attempts and the quarterback is under pressure on 27.8% of all passing attempts. That 27.8% might seem like a big number, but it isn't. That ranks fifth in the SEC. Eight teams in the league (including Alabama and LSU) are allowing pressure on more than 30% of passing plays.
My conclusions: The run blocking is very bad. The pass blocking is average or even above average. So if we have to assign blame, the line gets it in the running game and the quarterback gets more of it in the passing game.
