I tried to go big picture in my column here. Now let's dive into the nitty-gritty.
1) Let's start with the call that is getting all the attention and deserves most of it. By the letter of the law, the roughing the punter call might have been right. I'm not positive, but it might have been. Will Norris didn't touch the football and if you tackle a punter without touching the football, you're going to get called for a personal foul. But by the spirit of the rule? Come on. That ball was 40 yards behind the line of scrimmage and I can't imagine Norris thought the punter was actually going to kick it when he picked it up. I sure as hell didn't. I thought he was going to kick it out the back of the end zone and put the game in the hands of the Kentucky defense. Which is what he should have done. The fact that he didn't probably won Kentucky the game.
"They're rewarded for a huge mistake," Eli Drinkwitz said.
Indeed. Just when I think it's not possible for Missouri to lose a game in a way I've never seen, they prove me wrong.
2) It was not the only call or 50/50 scenario that went against Missouri. After a ruckus on the Kentucky sideline, Missouri got a personal foul and no one from the Wildcats did. That one didn't end up hurting the Tigers because the defense got mad and got two sacks after that. A play that was called a Chris Rodriguez fumble at the 17-yard line was reversed and Kentucky ended up scoring the game-winning touchdown a few plays later. Was it the right call? Ultimately, I think it was. But I also thought there was enough doubt that the call on the field would stand. It did not. A targeting penalty against Kentucky was reversed. I think that was the right call. Many of you said the holding penalty that negated a pass near midfield that would at least have given Missouri a shot at a Hail Mary was a bad call. I have no idea. I didn't see it happen and haven't seen a replay. But that's a lot of 50/50 scenarios. Law of averages would tell you at least one of them would favor Missouri. None did. This team isn't good enough to overcome itself AND bad breaks.
3) Even with all of that, Missouri had the ball with a chance to win the game. Before the roughing the kicker call, Mizzou got the ball on its own 25 yard line down 21-17 with 5:18 left. The Tigers went incomplete pass, incomplete pass, pass for 2 yards, punt. The next time they touched the ball they had to go 87 yards in 38 seconds and that rarely happens even for a good offense. Missouri does not have a good offense. Honestly, even if the roughing the punter isn't called, Mizzou gets the ball around the 30 or 35 of Kentucky (I didn't see exactly where it landed). Do you think the Tigers would have scored a touchdown? Maybe. But nothing I saw makes me say definitely.
4) Let me praise Brady Cook before I do not praise him. The kid is tough. I don't think anybody has ever doubted that. On a day when his offense (and he) had done almost nothing right, after having to be picked up off the turf a couple of times by his teammates and limping all over Faurot Field, he led two touchdown drives and gave his team the lead. He deserves credit for that. But he had to come back because he and his offense had dug the hole. I don't doubt his toughness. I doubt his ability. The first 2 1/2 quarters were some of the worst offense I've seen. And I've seen some bad offense this year. They did almost nothing well. The difference between last week and this week was simple. Missouri didn't screw up last week. The offense wasn't great. It was okay. But it didn't kill itself. It killed itself a couple of times this week. I said above they're not good enough to overcome bad breaks. They're also not good enough to overcome huge mistakes. They can win if they play a completely clean game on offense. Anything less, they're probably losing. Even against average Power Five teams.
5) Even with all of that, there was never any indication Drinkwitz considered another option at quarterback. It's time to accept the only way Cook is coming off the field is if he physically can't stay on it. Neither Jack Abraham nor Sam Horn ever put on a helmet. Tyler Macon did as Missouri's designated "try to draw them offsides because there's no way in the world we're snapping the ball here" quarterback. But this is Cook's team. He's Drinkwitz's ride or die this season. What that means about Horn I have no idea. It's at least a little concerning to me to think he must be worse than what we're seeing. It scares me for the future. It makes me wonder if we're going to do the "call every transfer quarterback in the country" dance again. It's my biggest concern for the future of the program. I still have no idea if they have a quarterback on the roster that's good enough.
6) I refuse to put a single bit of this game on the defense. They weren't perfect. But they shouldn't have to be. Perfection isn't a fair standard. And yet, that's what Missouri asks of its defense. You can't let a first round NFL quarterback (I mean, people tell me that's what Will Levis is, so despite any actual proof, I'll go with it) score 21 points because if he does you aren't going to win. Missouri had six sacks and 11 tackles for loss and gave up 242 total yards and held Kentucky to 4.1 yards per play and Chris Rodriguez to 3.9 yards per rush. And it wasn't good enough. That's not their fault.
7) It ultimately didn't impact the game, but I have to spend some time on the final 90 seconds of the first half. It was as if both coaches were trying to prove they could mishandle the situation worse than the other guy. Let's look at the ways:
Kentucky had the ball around midfield and Drinkwitz called a couple of timeouts to try to save time for his offense. Why? That offense had 76 total yards and five first downs, one of which had come by penalty. Even with the wind, what hope was there you were getting into field goal range?
Kentucky made it fourth and 4 at the Mizzou 42. And punted. Again, why? Your offense wasn't great, but it had made a few plays. Even if Mizzou gets the ball at the 40, it has no timeouts, a kicker who is far from automatic lately, and an offense that had done nothing. I'd have gone for it. But this is the least offensive move in the last minute.
Getting the ball at its own 7 with 34 seconds left, Missouri took a knee. Wait, WHAT? Kentucky had three timeouts. You have to run a play. You have to at least threaten to get a first down. If you just kneel on it, they can call three timeouts and you're going to have to punt out of the back of your end zone.
Except you didn't because Mark Stoops just went to halftime. Does he get extra credit for not using any timeouts? Did he think Missouri's special teams were so good that there was no chance they would mess up a punt?
I don't get it. It really bothered me. Even though it had no impact on the final result.
8) The only other thing that I really questioned coaching wise in this game was the failure to call a timeout and challenge the spot on Kentucky's third and one play that was clearly not a first down. It wasn't even close. I don't even think Rodriguez got back to the line of scrimmage. At least call a timeout and make them look at it. Your defense is really, really, really good. Espeically in short yardage. If you put them in fourth and one, you might get a stop and Kentucky might not score on that drive. They ended up with a touchdown for a 14-3 lead. I don't think this was a poorly coached game overall by Drinkwitz necessarily (the bad squib kicks made sense strategically going into the wind and kick to Barrion Brown, but they were terribly executed). That one was bad though. Does it change the result? I have no idea. But it would at least give you a better chance.
9) I've said this a few times, but it needs to be reiterated: Missouri fans deserve so much credit this year. You're still showing up. There were more than 61,000 today, just 1,000 short of a sellout and the third season-high crowd of the year. For a 4-4 team that can't score 20 points. For a program that hasn't given you anything to cheer about other than recruiting rankings for eight years. To watch a team that has found some of the most incredible nutkick ways to lose games in the history of the sport. This isn't on you. It's on them to give you a reason to keep coming back.
10) So what's the impact of this loss? I think Missouri is making a bowl game even at 5-7. I know Arkansas isn't very good. But they have a semi-grown-up offense, which means they can probably score 24 points. I've seen no proof that Missouri can even against bad defenses. Arkansas isn't worse on defense than Vanderbilt. If it's worse than Florida it's not by a lot. To get to six wins, Missouri's defense is going to have to be perfect again (yes, I'm pretty much writing off the Tennessee game next weekend). Is it possible? Sure. But I don't think it's likely. I think 5-7 is the most likely record.
1) Let's start with the call that is getting all the attention and deserves most of it. By the letter of the law, the roughing the punter call might have been right. I'm not positive, but it might have been. Will Norris didn't touch the football and if you tackle a punter without touching the football, you're going to get called for a personal foul. But by the spirit of the rule? Come on. That ball was 40 yards behind the line of scrimmage and I can't imagine Norris thought the punter was actually going to kick it when he picked it up. I sure as hell didn't. I thought he was going to kick it out the back of the end zone and put the game in the hands of the Kentucky defense. Which is what he should have done. The fact that he didn't probably won Kentucky the game.
"They're rewarded for a huge mistake," Eli Drinkwitz said.
Indeed. Just when I think it's not possible for Missouri to lose a game in a way I've never seen, they prove me wrong.
2) It was not the only call or 50/50 scenario that went against Missouri. After a ruckus on the Kentucky sideline, Missouri got a personal foul and no one from the Wildcats did. That one didn't end up hurting the Tigers because the defense got mad and got two sacks after that. A play that was called a Chris Rodriguez fumble at the 17-yard line was reversed and Kentucky ended up scoring the game-winning touchdown a few plays later. Was it the right call? Ultimately, I think it was. But I also thought there was enough doubt that the call on the field would stand. It did not. A targeting penalty against Kentucky was reversed. I think that was the right call. Many of you said the holding penalty that negated a pass near midfield that would at least have given Missouri a shot at a Hail Mary was a bad call. I have no idea. I didn't see it happen and haven't seen a replay. But that's a lot of 50/50 scenarios. Law of averages would tell you at least one of them would favor Missouri. None did. This team isn't good enough to overcome itself AND bad breaks.
3) Even with all of that, Missouri had the ball with a chance to win the game. Before the roughing the kicker call, Mizzou got the ball on its own 25 yard line down 21-17 with 5:18 left. The Tigers went incomplete pass, incomplete pass, pass for 2 yards, punt. The next time they touched the ball they had to go 87 yards in 38 seconds and that rarely happens even for a good offense. Missouri does not have a good offense. Honestly, even if the roughing the punter isn't called, Mizzou gets the ball around the 30 or 35 of Kentucky (I didn't see exactly where it landed). Do you think the Tigers would have scored a touchdown? Maybe. But nothing I saw makes me say definitely.
4) Let me praise Brady Cook before I do not praise him. The kid is tough. I don't think anybody has ever doubted that. On a day when his offense (and he) had done almost nothing right, after having to be picked up off the turf a couple of times by his teammates and limping all over Faurot Field, he led two touchdown drives and gave his team the lead. He deserves credit for that. But he had to come back because he and his offense had dug the hole. I don't doubt his toughness. I doubt his ability. The first 2 1/2 quarters were some of the worst offense I've seen. And I've seen some bad offense this year. They did almost nothing well. The difference between last week and this week was simple. Missouri didn't screw up last week. The offense wasn't great. It was okay. But it didn't kill itself. It killed itself a couple of times this week. I said above they're not good enough to overcome bad breaks. They're also not good enough to overcome huge mistakes. They can win if they play a completely clean game on offense. Anything less, they're probably losing. Even against average Power Five teams.
5) Even with all of that, there was never any indication Drinkwitz considered another option at quarterback. It's time to accept the only way Cook is coming off the field is if he physically can't stay on it. Neither Jack Abraham nor Sam Horn ever put on a helmet. Tyler Macon did as Missouri's designated "try to draw them offsides because there's no way in the world we're snapping the ball here" quarterback. But this is Cook's team. He's Drinkwitz's ride or die this season. What that means about Horn I have no idea. It's at least a little concerning to me to think he must be worse than what we're seeing. It scares me for the future. It makes me wonder if we're going to do the "call every transfer quarterback in the country" dance again. It's my biggest concern for the future of the program. I still have no idea if they have a quarterback on the roster that's good enough.
6) I refuse to put a single bit of this game on the defense. They weren't perfect. But they shouldn't have to be. Perfection isn't a fair standard. And yet, that's what Missouri asks of its defense. You can't let a first round NFL quarterback (I mean, people tell me that's what Will Levis is, so despite any actual proof, I'll go with it) score 21 points because if he does you aren't going to win. Missouri had six sacks and 11 tackles for loss and gave up 242 total yards and held Kentucky to 4.1 yards per play and Chris Rodriguez to 3.9 yards per rush. And it wasn't good enough. That's not their fault.
7) It ultimately didn't impact the game, but I have to spend some time on the final 90 seconds of the first half. It was as if both coaches were trying to prove they could mishandle the situation worse than the other guy. Let's look at the ways:
Kentucky had the ball around midfield and Drinkwitz called a couple of timeouts to try to save time for his offense. Why? That offense had 76 total yards and five first downs, one of which had come by penalty. Even with the wind, what hope was there you were getting into field goal range?
Kentucky made it fourth and 4 at the Mizzou 42. And punted. Again, why? Your offense wasn't great, but it had made a few plays. Even if Mizzou gets the ball at the 40, it has no timeouts, a kicker who is far from automatic lately, and an offense that had done nothing. I'd have gone for it. But this is the least offensive move in the last minute.
Getting the ball at its own 7 with 34 seconds left, Missouri took a knee. Wait, WHAT? Kentucky had three timeouts. You have to run a play. You have to at least threaten to get a first down. If you just kneel on it, they can call three timeouts and you're going to have to punt out of the back of your end zone.
Except you didn't because Mark Stoops just went to halftime. Does he get extra credit for not using any timeouts? Did he think Missouri's special teams were so good that there was no chance they would mess up a punt?
I don't get it. It really bothered me. Even though it had no impact on the final result.
8) The only other thing that I really questioned coaching wise in this game was the failure to call a timeout and challenge the spot on Kentucky's third and one play that was clearly not a first down. It wasn't even close. I don't even think Rodriguez got back to the line of scrimmage. At least call a timeout and make them look at it. Your defense is really, really, really good. Espeically in short yardage. If you put them in fourth and one, you might get a stop and Kentucky might not score on that drive. They ended up with a touchdown for a 14-3 lead. I don't think this was a poorly coached game overall by Drinkwitz necessarily (the bad squib kicks made sense strategically going into the wind and kick to Barrion Brown, but they were terribly executed). That one was bad though. Does it change the result? I have no idea. But it would at least give you a better chance.
9) I've said this a few times, but it needs to be reiterated: Missouri fans deserve so much credit this year. You're still showing up. There were more than 61,000 today, just 1,000 short of a sellout and the third season-high crowd of the year. For a 4-4 team that can't score 20 points. For a program that hasn't given you anything to cheer about other than recruiting rankings for eight years. To watch a team that has found some of the most incredible nutkick ways to lose games in the history of the sport. This isn't on you. It's on them to give you a reason to keep coming back.
10) So what's the impact of this loss? I think Missouri is making a bowl game even at 5-7. I know Arkansas isn't very good. But they have a semi-grown-up offense, which means they can probably score 24 points. I've seen no proof that Missouri can even against bad defenses. Arkansas isn't worse on defense than Vanderbilt. If it's worse than Florida it's not by a lot. To get to six wins, Missouri's defense is going to have to be perfect again (yes, I'm pretty much writing off the Tennessee game next weekend). Is it possible? Sure. But I don't think it's likely. I think 5-7 is the most likely record.
