LISTEN: ESPN’s Ed Aschoff discusses what he thinks Mizzou’s offense will look like under Derek Dooley
He likes FL to win, because we play Mullens in Gainesville, and so do many oddsmakers. I say we get FL after Kentucky and before Vanderbilt, no reason not to bring it all to UF and leave it all on the field - MU 38 - UF 31.
LISTEN: ESPN’s Ed Aschoff discusses what he thinks Mizzou’s offense will look like under Derek Dooley
Aschoff is pretty close to my thoughts on MU. As far as the run game, I think you use our good backs 30-40 times per game, until they drop the ball or meet a brick wall. Lock needs the threat of the run to spread these good defenses, but really mixing up the passing game will be necessary against good secondaries, whether our defense shows up and plays consistently or not.
I agree, @wolfman, Sterk's talk of injuries should only be relevant if it hit one or more key players like Lock, Crockett or Hall, knock on wood. But he doesn't talk about the real problems of 2017. I wouldn't think coaches like to use risky plays unless necessary. I think MU had turf issues on leg injuries a while back, but sometimes injuries happen when guys are playing a bit over their heads in matchups, or very tired, and they strain for an edge, but they break or tear something. Beckner has two knee surgeries already, and a lot of those injuries/surgeries end careers. Although I understand coaches/trainers work to prevent injuries, I think that would be a lesser problem for MU than coaching for tackling, fumbling, drops, and penalties.
Well, I guess Sterk said the right things, maybe using injuries as an excuse. And the offense may very well need to run some high impact/risky plays this year to win. If Odom's defense can't perform, Sterk will need to say the right things about whether Dooley or Haley will be the interim HC.
OK @wolfman - As far turnover margin, it would be great if they could return to forcing turnovers, but drops and fumbles were also on my mind with that comment. I can't speak to officiating, but I can believe you on that too. I think Pinkel once said 4-5 years ago that he would make sure his placekicker position had a scholarship, referring to the then problems with field goal misses. I would think we could always have place kickers coming up from STL highschool soccer/football sharpshooters, how could a team like MU miss on that considering placekickers are almost always top scorers? Yes, Walters, Hargeaves and Odom need to bring good stats on defense or Odom is out of a job. This year they may not be able to pad some of their defensive stats with 40 min of game time each week, either. But that 40 min is hard won experience, so it's down to the defensive coaching, Barry Odom.
I agree with LSUSMC. Tackling, turnover margin and penalties will be the biggest, and most coachable issues for MU. Mizzou certainly has offensive potential and I believe coach Dooley will be able to bring down some consistent performance. Coach Odom's job and MU's success hinges on defensive consistency, I would think. It's hard to know whether Mizzou will show up, but if they do they ought to get 8 or more wins.
I agree Tigurr. The real story at MU is whether Odom can mount a consistent, effective defense. If not, they have interim candidates to replace Odom before 2019 recruiting is dead. Recruiting at Mizzou will be much easier if they win some early games with real defense and real head/defense coaching.
Lock has an array of receivers, running backs and blockers AND he can get a first down himself. Mizzou has a spread offense that really could spread defenses. Having more more time to read and execute should improve third downs, and hopefully the scores against good defenses. I'm still worried about turnover margin and penalties, but I'm most worried about Odom and the D. Having a defense that returns some players who got to play 40 minutes a game all last year may help, IF the coaching is better. The D's effectiveness will dictate more directly whether MU gets a small bowl or plays for the SEC this year.
I agree with this article. Except, I don't know whether HC Odom should be a defensive coordinator either - I think that depends on MUs defense this year.
I'm guessing this guy can help Dooley and MU. He could also get a fast promotion if Odom's defense founders, and then somebody from offense has to take on interim HC's duties.
I'm certainly looking forward to seeing MU's 2018 running attack. If Crockett and Rountree stay healthy and productive, I'd still like to see Dawson Downing get some carries too.
I'm hoping for the very best for the MU Tigers in 2018. Ben Frederickson of the STL Post wrote a few hours ago about hires and developments on MU's offensive coaching as being crucial to MU's success. While I agree that MU can and should be able to use its offensive potential this season, I'm more worried about the defense. The dramatic swings in performance of the defense has to be in great part attributable to coaching and staff problems. In fact, I would guess that if MU turns in another year of spotty defense, then the offensive regime takes over the HC job, replacing Odom. MU could then bring in more defensive coaching.
Drew Lock: There’s no reason why Missouri shouldn’t play for SEC Championship or National Championship
I don't know if MU will seriously contend in the SEC in 2018, but I think Lock knows his teammates need to hear it from him, as a senior and leader. The whole team needs to be critical of penalties, drops, fumbles and poor tackling, poor routes, sketchy blocking, no-energy game performances. On coaching, they need to stop giving away the easy games. They need to bring it on both sides of the ball every practice, game and the post-season. In 2017 they should have been 9-4, not 7-6.
It would be more about expanding on my guestions. The underlying theory I have is that Dooley was brought, but only in part, as an interim HC, if Odom's defense continues to vacillate and donors and writers don't see proof that Odom is a solid asset. Other dynamics of satisfying current staff, preventing loss of them to other teams, as in Ofodile, are important. I know Ofodile was a good alma mater tight end, so I have no direct criticism, only guessing at his performance with coaching receivers and his fit in the MU plans. Personally, I hope Odom can rid the team of senseless penalties. And lackadaisical ball handling with more instruction, and some tough love on number of touches for drops/fumbles. Spread offense, with fast reads and releases can relieve and cover weaknesses in maintaining a pocket, and it's the way of the future, where analysis of time in moving the ball becomes a precision science, I think even in the Pros. Lock's increased versatility in short and mid-range passes, accuracy and velocity, is important for him and MU. Working under center with Dooley is also a part of that versatility, but less so with spread schemes.
I have a lot of respect for Andy. He's had some control of special teams in the past, and MU needs alot of work on special teams now. But, Ofodile coaching receivers? Sounds like Ofodile will handle the daily grind but Dooley will handle the fine stuff for Lock and the receivers. I figure Ofodile still has input into recruiting.
My take on this situation with Derek Dooley's hire is that: 1) He met Lock's evidently meager criteria in an OC to return for another year 2) He can put Lock under center, slow the pace for Lock's reads, talk to Lock about MU receivers and opposition DBs 3) Act as an interim HC if Odom's defense returns to the "working too hard" model and MU has to dump Odom and his defense cadre 4) Remain as HC if his offense proves explosive and consistently effective 5) Get Odom off the hook at press conferences and role model some tough love toward these stupid penalties and player lapses.
I don't believe this loss hurts Odom, but yes he needs a good third year, like 9 wins or more.
I've wanted to see Downing get the handoff more this whole season, even if only 4-6 times per game.
I don't believe this loss to Texas should add any pressure to Odom. In my book he's cleaned up most of his early problems on the non-defense. Having Heupel and Elarbee to blame is convenient for people who need to gripe, but I don't think that would have mattered much. One reason is because I agree with Drew Lock that Joe Jon called a good game under the circumstances. MU lost for several very understandable reasons: 1) Texas punter's All-Pro performance and resulting horrendous field positions 2) The very unlucky or inopportune timing of understandable errors. MUs errors were distributed over many different players and would hardly single out any player for hard blame. Fumbles, drops, snap over the head of Lock, etc. Yes, MU needs fewer foul penalties too. Bottom line, Texas had the MVP punter' best performance and almost all of the luck. I think Herman was surprised almost every time the game went his way.
3 biggest reasons to stay are 1) SEC East contender 2) Heisman contender 3) Record book rewriting for MU and SEC !!! Lock's biggest risk is injury. I would seriously hope that Odom, Hill and other offensive coaches do not allow any major overhaul of a well-developed and still improving offensive scheme. In fact, I'd have Hill be the interim OC and be very careful about selecting an outside OC. MU can promote Ford or Hill and bring a dedicated quarterback coach. MU by 14 over TX in the Texas Bowl.
I like annual Illinois and Kansas games, whether in STL, KC or on respective campuses. I believe these games help MU meet Power 5 conference obligations within travel distance of a natural border in the Big12 and Big10. Aside from being closer than any of MU's division foes, playing 2 different Power5 conferences in existing rivalries instead of 2 more expensive FCS creampuff, scat games, MU would would have more juice on recruiting in-state at the metro KC and STL areas. Talking about teams like Neb, Iowa, etc. is okay but does not offer the convenience or stability, besides we could still schedule another 2 teams per year as needed, whether FCS, regional recruit competitor or blue chip, glamor programs for TV/fan interest.
First I always enjoy the comments from wolfman, tonytiger and others. Teaching Odom to be a HC has been an expensive and thankless task. How he lets the team forget basics each week is amazing. Seems a "team" that has this many disappointments would have some real internal tension, I don't pick up much of that from the coaches. I've wondered about Andy Hill's take on Heupel's plans. I'm less worried about the speed of the offense per se than 1) Lock's decision-making vs timing 2) Heupel's possible acceptance of air-raid offense in these games as reps for a year or two down the way (practice of tempo vs immediate wins). I've worried about corporatization and over-sensitivity to racial politics. Everybody has impressive resume's, coaches and players, but I do not feel any killer instinct or team resolve or whatever to bring down the wins. That may very well be a side effect of the fast, three and out mentality, like we'll get the ball again and again. I also wonder if the offense is soft because they're practicing very carefully and practicing with a poorly run defense. - - I think the team is already waiting to meet their new HC, just like the fans.
I wonder if the offense is lulled to poor performance and intensity from practicing against a pitiful defense? Drops, fumbles, false starts make this team look bad. Odom seems incapable of learning or teaching the basics - how many weeks did we hear about tackling will improve? Talking about players not stepping up as leaders could have been remedied in two meetings where players are asked to speak out - it's no excuse for poor coaching. I'm afraid Odom lost me after the first half of the Missouri State game - and MO ST was shut out the next week by a middle of the pack FCS team?
Odom has been slow to recognize and adjust to every facet of this team and the games they've been in. Everyone talks about S Carolina or Purdue, but Mo St was beyond a catastrophe, ending any credibility for Odom or staff about improving a winning defensive plan, instead, completely compromising its strong points and pushing it into confused chaos. Holding down the scores of S Car and Purdue, I believe, had as much to do with those schools seeing MU was not going to bring offense and deciding to play a slow form of ball protection, possibly not wanting to embarrass an already defeated team. On offense, the most apparent weakness I see, is that it practices against a team coached into tentative over-reading and mis-alignments, so it only looks good when there is poor competition.
I'd like to see MU defense with two fully functioning defensive units to use on alternate drives if the tempo and field time is killing them. No, "starters" would not be on the field every down, but planning for keeping players fresh is superior to waiting until problems appear. Or more changing of personnel out for defense inside the 30 or red zone.
I heard that Colorado and Nebraska were damn sick of Texas too. Supposedly UT had most of the control and percent of profits. They cut Oklahoma some slack, who could have easily gone to a different conference. As I remember, populated television markets like Dallas or St. Louis, were given mixed consideration. I'm glad Texas had the cellar this past few years.