Eric W.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but is this the same Brandon Martin who verbally committed to Mizzou, tweeted #Decommit on NSD 2015, then failed to qualify academically at LSU?

Agreed; but still gives off a natural ballhawk vibe in his recruiting video. I read somewhere that his ACL injury may have deterred other schools from pressing harder in the recruitment process, even though it seems like Mizzou was in pretty good company with the rest of his offer list. Either way, welcome!

Agreed, but considering Agbasimere is not only still learning the game, but also a new position, I hope missing spring practice doesn't stunt his learning curve. Really looking forward to see how "Smash" can help TBJ and Frazier on the line in 2017

100% agree. One thing that didn't get much attention last year was Culkin's improved blocking ability almost anywhere on the field. He may have been an average TE on paper, but he helped a young and inexperienced O-Line give Lock more time to throw in 2016. I also noticed a lot more 2 TE sets than in recent years, which could be a reflection of how position's continuous evolution in both CFB and the NFL. Should be an interesting competition this spring

Alright let's save the meaningless jabs and childish gossip for another site. Back to football: Mizzou has never been a powerhouse when it comes to recruiting players from ANY state. We've always rationalized this with the notion, "We pride ourselves on how we develop the players WE DO HAVE-- just look at the amount of 1st round draft picks we've churned out in the last decade." I agree this shines a brighter light on our program, but what about all the other 3 star/unranked high school kids who come through the system and live up so closely to their projected ceilings as football players? Where has that gotten us besides one season in 2007 and another in 2013 when we ALMOST became nationally relevant? If we want to start contending with the rest of the SEC (and with the nation for that matter), we have to vamp up our recruiting efforts and land more raw talent instead of only relying on the "Mizzou Made" mindset. I'm talking mid-4* guys from around the Midwest and high-3*/low-4* guys from California, Texas, or any state in the Southeast. I know the star rating system is far from perfect, but there's no getting around the consistently strong correlation between NSD rankings and final regular season polls each year. I love how Odom, unlike Pinkel, understands the value in the star system and has gotten the entire athletic department to help land 2018 recruits of this caliber, and I look forward to what that means for the immediate future.

I don't know, I'm not completely sold on Lowary nor Wilson as even mediocre backups, especially since neither have D1 starting experience (let alone, SEC starting experience). I'd love to be proven wrong though. From what I've read Wilson seems to have the most upside while Lowary has the best arm and plays with more fire. Hayden Rymer I haven't heard anything about other than he walked on last year. Lock's gotta stay healthy....

Exactly. Even though we probably won't see an offense like West Virginia's for the rest of the year, it didn't help our defense's stamina that both offenses were playing with pace. I obviously want Lock to continue dominating the snaps as the starter, but it'd be great to see Odom mix in sets with Strong and Ross in the backfield when Zanders is on the field. It may not resemble Auburn's triple option in 2013, but I like to think that Heupel is much more creative than Henson was and ever will be.

It seems like Coach O's success at all levels of football stems from his incredible attention to detail when evaluating strengths and weaknesses on both sides of the ball. As a defensive guru, he fully understood what made his opponents' offenses tick, on top of knowing the limits of his own defenses. Like you said, Wolf-- we have no idea what happens behind closed doors-- especially at a school like Mizzou going through so many changes in such a sort period of time. Each chosen starter has obviously best exemplified Coach O's football philosophy during preseason, and we'll see what adjustments Coach makes during and after the game tomorrow in Morgantown. I do find it interesting, however, that TBJ isn't starting-- Either he just needs more reps at full-speed, or maybe he meshes better with the second unit. It's always nice to have so much depth on the line, and I'm willing to bet that Coach O mixes all eight of those guys (and Nate Howard) in with many different looks. 2016 has finally arrived.

Until he becomes even remotely reliable, Ish Witter should not be on this list. Just because he's put on some weight does not necessarily mean it will translate to an increase in production on the field. That sure helps, but at the end of the day, Witter's greatest obstacle is shifting his willingness to fight for yards after contact. There were way too many instances last year where Ish appeared to be more concerned about his individual health than fighting for a first down. I think Cam Hilton needs to be included here, at least as an honorable mention. He's been consistently competing for starting jobs on both sides of the ball and he's only a freshman... Another young guy that interests me is Terez Hall. From what I've read, he's been giving Newsom (a senior and projected starter at the WILL) a run for his money this spring. Thoughts? Also, Brantley's not listed here because we still don't know if he'll be able to pick up where he left off last summer. He's still recovering from an accident where some questioned his future as a football field. Obviously, if he can resume his normal status as one of the country's elite defensive linemen, he'd be top 3 on this list.

First off, shots to Odom for being able to flip Crockett and Wilson from BSU so quickly after he took the job. That was huge. I think Crockett has some serious potential with his raw athleticism and versatility. Apparently he ran a sub-4.5 his senior year and has very good hands for a running back so we'll see what happens. I just hope he isn't rushed into a first or second-string role (no pun intended) before he's ready.. You never know how that'll affect an 18 year-old kid's development, especially against front sevens like Georgia and Tennessee.

"The good news for Missouri is that RB Ish Witter gained 43 yards on 13 carries.." Am I missing something here? Truthfully, I've been hard on Ish for a number of reasons (the guy gets knocked over by the wind, he's afraid of contact, etc) but come on now. I don't think anyone should be celebrating the fact that he averaged just over 3 yards a carry in the damn SPRING GAME. And what is the deal with Strong? I just figured he'd join the team in the summer but is he in academic trouble again?

I'd like to see Heupel utilize Justin Smith's height and athleticism (turned down a basketball scholarship to UGA) in the red zone as well. I think Emmanuel Hall also turned a few heads at the end of last season because people saw him actually do his job- create separation and catch the ball. What a concept...

Of course they're going to improve after ranking 124th out of 127 FBS teams in total offense last year. I think the real issue is how Heupel and Odom treat last year's offensive starters in regards to the new transfers and redshirt freshmen available (Black, Strong, Howell, Doherty, Smith). Witter, Moore, Brown, and even Lock started the majority of games last season because of the lack of competition behind them so we'll see how their games improve when a higher incentive to perform.

Realistically, how many problems has Odom fixed so far? Other than basically cleaning house (except Hill & Ford) with personnel, I haven't seen much. It's still only February so we'll see where we're at in a few months with the Black/Gold game. My biggest concern is recruiting the offensive line. Sure, Castillo and Simms have potential, but that need was not addressed nearly as much as it should have in the 2016 class (Howell was originally a 2015 commit so I'm not counting that).

Good stuff, zoucat. I'd like to see the progress of guys like Doherty and Terez Hall after a year of D-1 strength training. Both are really athletic, young guys. I also think Ish Witter needs to take a backseat- I'm sure Odom realizes the guy gets knocked down by the wind on a regular basis. That said, I'd like to see Odom and Heupel utilize Abbington much more in short-yardage situations.

Pinkel's personal life has absolutely nothing to do with this. What do you think would have happened if he didn't choose to support his players?

I agree. The fact that Wilson is an NFL-caliber coach speaks a lot to Odom's eye for talent early on, even if it isn't a coordinator position. It's just unfortunate timing- this is happens right when Odom has to make his biggest push to lock down recruits.

I agree with improving the offensive line as the top priority. It'll also increase Lock's confidence from a mental standpoint, thus helping him develop and hopefully reach his full potential as a pocket passer. That said though, I'd also like to see how Abbington and Doherty have improved by this fall after one year in the system. I'll go nuts if Witter keeps getting the most of the touches.

I agree with the myths of "a free degree" and "a free education." The amount of student-athletes in revenue collegiate sports (men's basketball and football) that are occupationally unprepared for life after college is unbelievable. Just because you have a degree does not give you the skills to perform the necessary tasks in your career path.

He is almost correct. However, a more accurate comparison would be calling it a "modern form of sharecropping," not slavery. Sharecropping in the postbellum South reflects the economic exploitation that is strikingly similar in revenue collegiate sports (men's D-1 basketball and football). The imbalance between supplied labor (output) and wage compensation (input) is confirmed when looking at the billions of dollars in yearly revenues generated by "amateur" athletes. Further, the percentage of these amateur athletes that do not make it professionally and are occupationally unprepared for life after college is staggering. Sure, getting a "degree" or an "education" are great and makes complete sense. However, these titles successfully trick the public into thinking that these young men are ready for their careers in "the real world" upon graduation. Many times, the athletic departments are responsible for bending the rules and allowing student-athletes that are academically unprepared to even enroll at these academic institutions of higher education. It is difficult for these athletes who are academically unprepared to catch up with the rest of the student body. Athletic departments also focus primarily on "eligibility," which means even more bending of the rules (in their own institutions' classrooms this time, thus widening the gap between athletes and the rest of the student body) to get their student-athletes on the field/court each game. These amateur athletes may receive an education, but because they achieved their degrees in more unconventional ways than their peers, many are insufficiently prepared for the future. I am not an advocate for directly paying players, but I do believe they should be compensated in much better ways. Research has shown that at many schools, the room & board stipends given to scholarship players each month is equivalent to living on food stamps in housing sub-par to the rest of the university's students. This is usually not the case at schools in the Power 5 conferences, but it still happens at many schools competing in D-1 athletics. On top of increased room & board stipends, universities need to do a much better job of improving the academic opportunities for their student-athletes. This involves better advising and tutoring from university faculty, as well as better mentorship from their older teammates and from the coaching staff. In my opinion, student-athletes should not be allowed to play during their freshman years of college. This year should be used to acquaint student-athletes with college life and to stress the importance of success in the classroom for the years after their playing days. Athletes who compete in revenue collegiate sports may finish college with a degree, but what good is that degree if many of these young men are unfamiliar with the professional skills that their degrees expect of them?