最新杏吧原创

Transcript

Eli 贬辞蹿蹿:听Good morning, all. It's a fine day for a Mizzou chat, so let's have one, eh? You'll notice my responses will be a bit intermittent today 鈥� Dennis Gates is meeting with the media in about 40 minutes, so I'll have to trot over to that and come back. To make up for it, we'll leave the chat open for a longer window today. You can drop your questions in as you please and check back for answers and the rest of the transcript.

senior scramble:聽What is going on with Mizzou women's basketball the last 2 games they look better than anytime the last 2 years. They are running a trapping defense and playing with tempo. They always will turn the ball over that is just Mizzou women's basketball, but it has been fun to watch. I realize winning 6 SEC will be a huge challenge with how good the SEC is. Our Bigs aren't SEC type players, but they do compete. Football it is amazing how the expectations have changed. Used to be in the SEC if Mizzou won 7 or 8 games that was a great year, now 9 or 10 is expected. Drink has really raised the bar at Mizzou, in the SEC. that is very tough task. men's basketball I sure hope Warrick gets a lot of minutes going forward. You never know a player can get a lot of minutes one game and zero the next. I hope Gates settles on 9 players by the Kansas game. Playing within 15 points will be a huge challenge but at least having a consistent rotation should help. pacific won't be easy. Thanks for the chat

贬辞蹿蹿:听What an up-and-down (or, I guess, down-and-up) start to the women's basketball campaign. A couple of really bad losses, and then a 112-59 win over SLU last night. You're right that it'll be much tougher once conference play rolls around, but it's good to see that the year won't be completely fruitless. We'd talked in one of the recent chats about this season being lost. That still is probably true, given the coaching situation, but if players stay bought in that means something for the program moving forward and its ability to rebound.

Drinkwitz has raised the expectations some, for sure, and he and his players fed into the expectation that they could make the playoff this season. That wasn't just external noise 鈥� it was everyone's belief that there was an opportunity there. But I also think the playoff has changed people's expectations for their favorite team, too. Suddenly it's not about thinking you have to go undefeated to make it in, it's a matter of getting a couple big wins and keeping losses to a minimum. It's a confluence of those two developments feeding into morale at the present.

I'm sure we'll talk more about the men's hoops rotation as this goes, but I'm with you. What the rotation and lineups look like against Cal and Kansas in early December will be very telling as to how Gates wants to approach games that this team has to come out and win without enjoying a talent advantage.聽

箩飞惫濒:听Eli, call crazy but I think TX is over rated. What do you think

贬辞蹿蹿:听Well, I won't call you crazy, for starters. The only Texas game I've watched this year was UT-Georgia, and that obviously didn't paint the prettiest portrait of the Longhorns. I haven't watched enough of these CFP contenders to weigh in with any real conviction as to who the 12 should be. All I can tell you is that Mizzou is not and should not be one of them.聽

I wonder how different the perception of Texas would be if Michigan was just a little bit better. That was about as strong of a nonconference game as a team had coming on 鈥� on the road against the champs in that stadium, even if we suspected the Wolverines wouldn't be the same. And now, it doesn't even look like a particularly great win.聽

This wasn't your question, but since we talk about it a lot in these chats: I wonder what that says about how SEC teams wanting to make the playoff should schedule their power conference noncon foes... Or maybe that's generalizing one team and one season too much. I'll add this, though: I'm very intrigued for Texas-Texas A&M. I doubt I'll be able to watch it because of Mizzou-Arkansas, but if I didn't have a game to cover I'd be on the couch and locked in.

叠谤别迟迟辞:听I have 3 observationsI hope the Missouri defensive line found the South Carolina QB and introduced themselves to him, because they never got close enough to him during the game to even say hello.

贬辞蹿蹿:听Yeah, not a banner day for the pass rush. The third down late in the game where Johnny Walker Jr. just about had Sellers wrapped up for the sack and instead he broke free to complete a pass to move the chains was a game-breaking play at that stage. I asked Drinkwitz about the pass coverage lapses this week and he gave me a really interesting answer about some of the specific calls they were using and what went wrong, but he also mentioned the pass rush not getting to Sellers as a factor. Every second that man coverage (or any coverage, really) needs to hold up adds to the chance that it gives way 鈥� so giving a QB time can strain a secondary.聽

叠谤别迟迟辞:听Here at the second and third. Someone should tell the Missouri defensive backs that when doing pass defense that they should try to be NEXT TO the receiver and not 3 yards away Lastly. Tell the defensive secondary that the rules allow them to PUT THEIR ARMS AROUND THE BALL CARRIERS AND TAKE HIM TO THE GROUND. ON the winning drive for SC, three defensive backs had a clear chance to tackle the ball carrier and each one hit with a shoulder instead of tackling the guy. This could be a coaching issue

贬辞蹿蹿:听Some of the DB spacing is probably a zone coverage thing, to be fair. There were definitely instances where man coverage was a step or two behind where it needed to be, but zones tend to be a little bit softer by nature. But again, there were bigger miscommunications and blown adjustments to what South Carolina that collapsed and led to the Gamecocks consistently getting explosive plays.

The tackling was abysmal. I'd counted four missed tackles on Rocket Sanders' game-winning TD, and there were other guys who could've made plays but didn't. When that happens, teams lose. It's a little strange because poor tackling hadn't been an issue too often this season. It just popped up all at once in that game.

顿颁骋:听Eli: It's always hard to tell through print what the tone of a quote is, but I got the sense the HCED was not pleased with the defensive scheming on that last drive, and if I'm right, I'd have to agree with Drink. I have no idea why Mizzou would be in man at any point in that situation, especially since 1) a running quarterback is more dangerous vs man; 2) with an ineffective pass rush, someone is going to break open in man given time; 3) you want to keep receivers in front of you, force the opposition to make a lot of plays, not a big play, and burn clock. I just thought that last series was a stunning failure that did disservice to such a gritty comeback in a difficulty place to play.

贬辞蹿蹿:听You're right. Part of Drinkwitz's response to my question about pass coverage included this: "It鈥檚 a combination of scheme 鈥� coaches take ownership of that. It鈥檚 a combination of execution 鈥� players take ownership of that." Notably, and regardless of tone, he didn't reject my premise of the question nor just wash it out as a "team responsibility" or something like that. When he is actually willing to assign blame, I think that means he's pretty frustrated.聽

And I can't say I blame him or that I think he's wrong. There are clear personnel limitations and moments of missed execution that continue to crop up in the secondary. There are also play calls (in the South Carolina game, "push" calls to adjust coverages and a corner blitz that requires sound route pickup behind the blitz) that are either demanding too much, putting guys in bad spots or for some other reason not working. I think you could make the argument that last Saturday was the defense's worst game of the season. Against Texas A&M, they were on the field constantly and there reached a point where it was out of hand. Against Alabama, they were suddenly having to defend short fields over and over. The Mizzou offense, for the most part, but the Tigers in a position to win that game. Whether on the final drive or at a different moment, the defense cost them that.聽

Once the regular season is over, I'll have time to look back at this secondary and see what the hangup has been. It might be as simple as losing KAD, Rakestraw and Carlies to the NFL and not having NFL-caliber players stepping in. But there's definitely something up with what the on-field product is.

顿颁骋:听I find it odd the Drink is so conversative about going for it inside FG range. I think the defensive collapse on the last drive overshadowed the inexcusable choice to kick a FG on 4th and 1 inside the 10. Nobody kicks that FG anymore and rightly so. It's even weirder given how well the line was playing.

贬辞蹿蹿:听I'll play a little devil's advocate here, for the sake of discussion. If I'm a coach and my offense is consistently stalling out inside the red zone and on third downs especially, how confident am I about going for it in that situation? I generally agree with your view 鈥� if your offense can't get one yard when it needs it, there's an issue 鈥� and in that part of the field, too. Through one offensive piece or another, Missouri should be able to convert in that situation at a rate that would analytically support going for it. But I can see how the game leading up to that point and some of the offensive struggles could lead him to think it's more important to take the points.聽

顿颁骋:听How do you square the o-line putting together its best game by far against a d-line that was supposed to be one of the best in the conference?

贬辞蹿蹿:听I'll note that it's not a "supposed to be" when it comes to South Carolina's pass rush 鈥� they really have been one of the best in the SEC and country. That's what makes the Mizzou offensive line performance quite impressive. Add a center making his first career start in that setting and yeah, definitely noteworthy. I don't know blocking techniques and such well enough to have spotted whether they were doing anything different, so I'm inclined to think that the urgency of needing to keep Cook protected back there might have inspired this performance. That's been one of the bottom lines for this offense all year: It plays best when it is urgent. The cynical takeaway is that Missouri probably wishes the line could've figured this out during the first weekend in October instead of the middle of November, but the positive is that there has certainly been development there.

奥补濒迟:听This bring me back to a comment I made on your PFF grades article. I counted the missed tackles you listed and there were ONLY 15. you just listed 4 on ONE play. IMO there is something drastically wrong with what they judge as a missed tackle. We all have an idea what a missed tackle looks like to us; Is there a standard definition they use or is it just opinions?

贬辞蹿蹿:听PFF doesn't define missed tackles any differently than you or I would. I'm not sure whether their college stats and grades are done by a real person or not 鈥� I know their NFL ones deploy a small army of analysts, but there's a lot more to cover in the college ranks. It's part of why I've been wondering about moving away from giving y'all PFF grades every week and finding something more accurate/representative starting with next season. I suppose to some degree whether a tackle is missed or not is arbitrary, or it can be close enough of a play to be arbitrary. I haven't gone back to make my own count or refute PFF tabbing it at 15, but there sure were a lot, regardless of the exact count.

Todd H.:聽Good day to you Eli--hope all is well your way. Regarding the snippet from an article I will post below here after I ask this: Look, I love Brady Cook, I understsnd he's a "warrior" and all that,, but you read the words from Drink--especially about Cook's wrist--and it makes me wonder if it's just time for Cook to sit out these last 2 games no matter how much we would all hate to see him not play, and likewise makes me wonder if Drink is being a stubborn fool in sticking with聽 Cook to be the starter even after Drew Pyne stepped up big time in the 2nd half vs OU,聽 showed he can indeed still play, and threw 3 huge TD passes(something that Brady has struggled to all season) to lead the team to victory.

贬辞蹿蹿:听Hey, Todd! I get why you're suggesting that, especially given that Cook isn't 100%, but I don't think Mizzou could nor should do that. The QB who gives them the best chance to win happens to be the quarterback who has given so much to the program he grew up dreaming of playing for. You let that guy finish his career the way he wants to, and Cook wants to play. Maybe it's a little stubborn, but I think it's about respect and commitment to the guys in the locker room right now. This isn't the NFL where you can make a switch to really prepare for next year. Any player in that locker room could make a painless exit in just a few weeks' time, so I think it's wise to stay in the moment as much as possible and maximize the current culture. Maybe there's value in letting Drew Pyne have the rest of the season, but I don't think that's worth the cost of what shutting Cook down would do to the locker room and Drinkwitz's reputation.

叠谤别迟迟辞:听If I'm Luther B, I file for the NFL draft this spring. The Tigers lose a boat load of players and prospects for next year are not near as high as this year. Why take the chance of getting hurt with a .500 team and lose out of a huge NFL contract. Any thoughts?

贬辞蹿蹿:听I've been operating under the assumption for the last two seasons that Luther Burden III will declare for the draft as early as possible, and frankly that has been a likely possibility since his high school recruitment. Five-stars are five-stars because they look like they'll eventually be first-round draft picks. And if they realize that potential, they're going to go be that as soon as possible. Burden hasn't made any sort of announcement, but I would be shocked if he came back to Mizzou next season. NIL money is not the same as first-round draft pick money. The question, in my eyes, is whether he plays in the bowl game 鈥� but we'll ponder that more once we get closer to that.

碍别颈迟丑:听That two point conversion attempt I believe in the third quarter, really affected the outcome of that game in my opinion and I am curious if ED has addressed it or not. So we go for two, skipping a free point, then on the next drive or two we end up not going for it on a fourth and one (we had been running the ball so well up to that point, never mind the inexplicable third down pass) but he kicks the FG because, well we are now down by two scores anyway. But had we kicked the PAT (I mean a free point in a game where the object is to score the most points) we would have only been down by one score and I believe they would have gone 4th and a short 1. Your thoughts Eli? Has Drink address this? I mean I love the guy but 4th and short and you know you will need all the points you can get in the end. Am I crazy for thinking the way I am? M-I-Z!

贬辞蹿蹿:听You're not crazy for thinking it. I wondered about that too. I made sure to ask Drinkwitz about this in his postgame press conference because I think it was an important decision and I wanted to give him a chance to explain himself. Here's the whole exchange...

Me: "Coach, after you guys scored your first touchdown, can you walk us through deciding to go for two in that situation?"

Drinkwitz: "Yeah. You're down 15, so you can either wait late and see how it goes, or you can go for two there and then figure out if it's a two-possession game, which is what we did. So, we went for it. Ends up allowing us to kick the field goal and then know we need the touchdown late. It's just a different way to play it. I felt like when we scored, there was maybe five minutes left to go in the third quarter and the game was kind of 鈥� they'd had one possession, we'd had one possession. I kind of needed to force the issue on what was going to be the timing of the rest of the game."

He's said before 鈥� and this is really interesting and worth keeping a mental note of because I don't hear every coach say this so precisely 鈥� that he puts Mizzou's chances of successfully going for two at 41%. In that case, that was evidently good enough when paired with the time management aspect he mentioned, which told the offense what it would need to do the rest of the way.

罢补丑补谤迟27:听Okay, let me try that again: I sent a post earlier that I wasn't sure if it went through or not, then was trying to just past the words again...and accidentally hit send before I was going to post my question. So I'll just try a re-done shorter version here: Given that Drinkwitz has made it clear that Cook is still playing with a wrist injury on his throwing hand....well, I love Brady as much as the next guy, but if a healthy Pyne at this point would give us the better chance to win--and isn't that what matters most(winning) than stubbornly staying loyal to a QB who has a key injury that affects the most important part of his game-is Drink possibly not willing to put the emotion aspect of it aside instead of going with a guy whom might give us a better chance to win? I'!m not saying Pyne should be annointed the second coming of Chase Daniel or whatever after the OU win. But he sure seemed to emerge as the veteran steady QB that we were hoping he'd be in the 2nd half and threw 3 TD passes as part of it--TD passes being something Brady has struggled to do all season at that. Apologies for typos.

贬辞蹿蹿:听I should've pushed this through with the similar question about how to handle the QB situation, so apologies for not linking up questions better. I'll tackle the aspect of which QB gives the better chance to win with this one, though.

I'm not saying it 100% isn't Pyne, but I'm really not sure he's the guy who gives this team the best chance. He had a great half against Oklahoma, a horrid half against Alabama and some other middling performances in other parts of other games. Do we really know at this point where the "true" Pyne falls? I'd suspect it's somewhere in the middle, but that's not enough to say he's going to land in a spot on that spectrum of QB play that's solidly better than Cook, even with a bad wrist.

Cook, even being unable to snap that right wrist fully, did what he needed to do to give Mizzou a chance against South Carolina. That throw to Burden was as good as any from Cook's entire career, and it should have been the game-winner. To me, that settled the debate over whether you play a 75-80% Cook or a 100% Pyne. Cook almost beat a team on the road that is far better than Mississippi State or Arkansas.

And I'll of course refer to what I mentioned before about respecting Cook and his legacy, but your question came in before I'd laid that out, so apologies again for messing up the flow here.

顿颁骋:听I have just convinced myself that I am completely clueless as t what constitutes pass-interference. On one play during the Mizzou game, I see S. Carolina DB all over Wease I believe it was, not looking back and preventing him from getting the TD catch. I was apparently under the mistaken assumption that a DB has to be looking back at the ball in some kind of way for a play not to be called PI rather than him completely facing Wease and tackling him before Wease had a chance to catch it. Then a few moments later, I see a Mizzou DB running neck&neck with the Carolina WR and our guy is looking up at the football, apparently minimal contact w SC receiver during this play, and he doesf get called for Pass Interference. Now, far be it from me to accuse the refs of just simply making "homer" calls there(wink wink!), but anyway, Eli, perhaps you could be so kind as to give me some sort of brief lecture on Pass Interference 101?

贬辞蹿蹿:听There are so many variables 鈥� the defender having his head around, where hands and arms are and whether they impede the receiver, pass catchability, and of course the officials making the right call or not. Pass interference is always going to be one of the most debatable calls, just like handballs are in soccer. It's a lot of body parts and action moving quickly that officials have to dissect. Wrong and inconsistent calls do happen, so it might not be your misunderstanding of it. To be honest, I'm not usually watching replays all that closely in the box since they are shown on TV 1-2 plays behind the action that's happening live on the field, so I don't get to see how accurate or inaccurate they are. Sorry I don't have a better answer for you there.聽

顿颁骋:听I get what you're saying, but I think there's a difference between general red zone futility and getting a single yard. Mizzou has shown itself to be pretty darn good with two point conversions, for instance--they seem to have an assortment of plays that are effective for that short distance, cramped field. But it's just math--you settle for two FGs--six points--and if you just manage to convert one of those drives you get seven (assuming PAT). If you convert both? Bonanza--14 points. ED also made a bad decision to chase the points and go for two so early in the game. Game strategy dictates you wait until later to try to do that, but if you're going to do it once, then do it again. I think general game management and logical strategy is an area the ED has not shown improvement and needs to.

贬辞蹿蹿:听And that's why I agree with you 鈥� just wanted to relay what I imagine the thinking might have been. (And I say might because I didn't ask Drinkwitz about not going for that 4th and 1 so I don't know for sure.) One of the things I want to tackle after the season is a look back at some of his game management. I feel like there have been some timeouts and strategy things that jeopardize or overcomplicate situations, but I don't want to levy that without a fair look at all of it. Those decisions are something that I'll revisit as part of that, for sure.

顿颁骋:听Eli: I know a lot of us fans, me included, have looked at this season as the convergence of things that won't repeat (talent + schedule), but I learned recently that next year, Mizzou's SEC schedule repeats, just flipping location. Assuming that what I read is true, then if Drink lands a legit QB from the portal, Mizzou could be in the hunt again. They're still incredibly deep at receiver, have a potential star in Kewan Lacey (wish he'd get more run), and have shown they can reload on D. The OL will lose a couple of starters again, but that's just how it goes. I think Drink has shown he can keep bringing in talent. It'll come down to QB--if they get that right, they'll be in the mix with another favorable schedule.

贬辞蹿蹿:听You're correct on the scheduling front: Next year, it'll be Texas A&M, Alabama, South Carolina and Mississippi State at home with Vanderbilt, Auburn, Oklahoma and Arkansas on the road. I imagine that'll look similarly favorable, though of course the portal is always a variable for everyone. The nonconference schedule (home vs Central Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana-Lafayette and UMass) has three easy wins and should probably be four. The key part is having the talent for a run. The focus will fully turn after the Arkansas game to what'll be on the portal shopping list, players who could be stepping up, etc. But the offseason personnel acquisition effort should absolutely be grounded in having a path to the playoff once again. If that's going to be the expectation for this program, that's when it kicks in. Quarterback will be very important, which leads us to the final question of the day...

罢颈驳别谤顿辞苍:听How do you see Mizzou handling the quarterback position heading into next season? Seems as though we will have to bring in a portal transfer QB...no? I know it's too early to say for sure...but what are some names from lower levels (non-power four FBS and FCS) that we might explore as guys look for a chance to showcase their talents on an SEC stage? As an example...the Vandy guy certainly has made a huge difference for them.

贬辞蹿蹿:听Eli Drinkwitz has established himself as the kind of guy who likes the result that competition breeds, so I imagine he'll be setting up a quarterback competition heading into next fall.

I see the contenders as: Drew Pyne, Sam Horn (if he wants to), Aidan Glover (on the fringe), Matt Zollers (assuming he signs and is healthy) and a transfer. Functionally, that somehow comes down to 2-3 guys with a real shot. Does that mean Mizzou goes after a portal QB who can slot right in and start, or is it more of a Jake Garcia situation 鈥� someone who can compete but isn't the favorite.

If Missouri is looking for someone to come in and grab pole position, John Mateer at Washington State seems like the most desirable QB who's name is being linked with a portal entry in a few weeks. I've heard nothing about him and Mizzou, to be clear, but he's had a great season up there. I'll have more names once it becomes concrete who's actually entering.

And with that, we'll wrap this week's chat. Thanks for bearing with the wacky timing. There won't be a chat next week because of Thanksgiving, so we'll see you in early December. Cheers!

-

-

-

-