Greetings, chatters. We're pulling double duty here starting at noon when Mizzou tips off against Xavier in Orlando. I'm not on the road with the Tigers today but will be watching from home. Let's get to your questions.
I believe your five-year window for NCAA eligibility has closed, but I'm sure Odom would appreciate the offer.
I'm not sure he'll be in the mold of Shane Ray, Kony Ealy, Markus Golden, but he's got a real burst off the line of scrimmage. If they can develop him into an every-down player on the edge, that shores up a position of concern as far as future depth. I was impressed with him last year and figured he'd be more of a factor this year.
Really tough matchup for Missouri - and a touch matchup for most teams. Xavier will be the second-best team MU plays this year behind Kentucky. Maybe Arizona is better, but the Wildcats haven't been at full strength and might not be when they visit Columbia next month. Bluiett and Sumner might be the best backcourt tandem in the country. Two 6-6 versatile guards who can break down your defense.
By the way, Clemson and Davidson are just into the second half in Orlando with Clemson leading 57-39. The winner gets the winner of Missouri-Xavier ... and the loser gets the loser.
For men's basketball? I think you have to win 15-16. And you have to be competitive against the mid-tier and bottom teams in the SEC. To show promise you have to close out games you should win, play more competitively on the road and protect Mizzou Arena more often than not.
I did not. Did he write it somewhere or say it in a radio interview? Pat always has a reasonable opinion on things, so I imagine I'd agree with his take.
I'd go with a hoops upset today. You see a lot of upsets this time of the year when teams are still working in new players, especially in these half-empty neutral site games. A lot has to go right for both upsets to happen, but I just don't see the football team playing well enough for 60 minutes to beat the Vols. If the game were in Columbia, I'd give MU a better chance, but not on senior day in Knoxville.
It's no secret that Anderson is likely coaching for his job this year as much as any coach in America. Not many coaches survive three straight years of horrendous results - if MU indeed has horrendous results again this year. As for the Ford comparisons, it's not like Anderson didn't have some positive recruiting moments two years ago when he first started. He kept four-star Jakeenan Gant and four-star Namon Wright from signing elsewhere then went out and landed four-star Teki Gill-Caesar. It wasn't the local splash that Ford has made, but things looked promising ... until they didn't.
I think they're using him enough. He had 29 carries a games back. He's had a banged-up shoulder already this year. He's a bigger back but there aren't many backs in the country getting 20-plus carries every week. I think there's some value in handing the ball to Witter 10 times a game. He's put together a nice season, 4.6 yards per carry. Mizzou has run the ball 24 more times than it's thrown. I think most people assume they've thrown the ball significantly more. Only three backs in the country average more than 25 carries a game. You just don't see many guys getting that big a workload in today's game.
It usually takes a few drives for this offense to get into rhythm and to diagnose how defenses are playing. That's not that unusual. The running game has been a slow starter. MU averages just 3.8 yards per carry in the first quarter of games and has only nine 10-yard runs in the first quarter, compared to 16 in the second quarter, 17 in the third quarter in the fourth quarter. That makes sense considering MU's offense is all about tempo. The idea of the no-huddle is to create a cumulative effect on the defense so that it's harder to play defense later in the game. It would obviously help Missouri's defense if the offense could score more points early and/or consume more time. MU's defensive line would get to pin their ears back and rush the pocket more if they could actually play with a lead - like the Vandy game.
I'm not sold on Johnson yet. He might be the most explosive of the group but he's too reckless with the ball. A full offseason with Andy Hill could do him wonders. Mason has been impressive. When Moore is on his game, he's one of the best receivers in the SEC. He's an NFL talent. It's easy to see when he's got the ball in his hands. But he still has too many lapses. He gets frustrated and loses composure when he doesn't get the ball early. To his credit, he's the first to admit all these things. He's incredibly hard on himself. When he, if he, finally puts things together he can be special. He's as talented as any wide receiver to come out of this program the last two decades not named Jeremy Maclin.
It's not exactly a bold statement to call the Cleveland duo the most physically talented KA recruits. Who's the competition? Walton? Jackson is a horse. He's going to be the kind of player opponents hate to play. He loves the dirty work but he's skilled enough to do other things. Hughes is a natural shooter, but he's going to have games where he goes 1 for 9. Streaky. But not much of a conscience, which is good for this team that needs some alpha dogs. This team still needs some bona fide bigs.
Not much there to disagree with. Anderson inherited a mess but hasn't done much to fix it from what we've seen to date. Maybe that changes this year. (Who knows, maybe it changes this week in Orlando.) But when you win 19 games in two seasons you put the questions in everyone's mind: Is Anderson the leader to turn this program around? Can he attract the talent it takes to make MU relevant again? Can he build a program while constantly reshaping the roster?
Ha! There are going to be games this year when Mizzou will miss Rosburg's ability to post up and get an inside bucket. They'll spread the floor more this season and go with a smaller lineup, but he gave MU some solid minutes last year and some big scoring games down the stretch.
Fair point. And the fact that Kim wasn't recruiting guys he necessarily wanted is another reason his program got set back in the early days. Fuller arranged recruiting visits for several high-profile recruits whom MU had no real shot at signing - and it was time wasted, visits wasted that MU's staff could have spent more wisely. We'll see if SLU can maintain the recruiting momentum after a five- or six-win season. It's going to be a brutal year for the Bills. I hope it works out. Maybe some sustained success will make SLU more attractive for a conference that makes more sense.
The way things look now, 2017 will be a better climate to hire a coach in any sport at Missouri than 2016, especially hoops now that the NCAA penalties are out and mostly fulfilled. I have no idea what kind of coach they'd look to hire if there's an opening. Do you hire an older coach who had some success somewhere else ... or an up-and-coming mid-major. So many different ways you can go with a hire. We'll have plenty of time to measure candidates once there's a job to fill.
Final: Clemson 95, Davidson 78. Clemson faces the winner of Missouri-Xavier. Davidson gets the loser.
His leash is shorter than other coaches at Missouri. I'm not sure how athletics will define his status, but he can't have another string of controversies. For his sake, I hope he sticks around for a long time. He's a great coach, tremendous for the media.
He broke his ankle in camp and had surgery. This will be a medical redshirt year for him. MU never formally announced that but there's no way he's playing these final two games.
That comment/passage is clearly from several months ago because Porter already signed with Washington and Haase got the Stanford job last offseason.
The way this season is trending I don't think the offense deserves a lot of criticism. They've steadily improved. It's not a finished product by any means, but Heupel inherited a unit with no offensive line, no running game, no established receivers and a battered QB. We can nitpick a lot of things that haven't gotten well at times, but for a first-year system that required a massive overhaul in scheme and personnel, they've shown some real promise on that side of the ball.
Good question. Gilbert evolved from a gunner to a floor leader and distributor. Denmon was a cold-blooded scorer. Brown was a complete scorer - could shoot deep, from midrange and penetrate. For now, I think Hughes is more one-dimensional as a perimeter shooter. Maybe he evolves into Denmon, capable of playing the point and taking over games as a scorer.