Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/9/18 at 12:15 pm to TigerCruise
Mizzou is a complete different type of team than the blue bloods.
They use 4 and 5 star players that leave early and are ready to play as true freshman.
Mizzou takes 2,3, and 4 star recruits and make them better over 4 to 5 years.
What will allow us to be competitive in the SEC is playing with juniors and seniors. Example is Witter who most of us thought was a terrible recruit his first 2 1/2 years.
They use 4 and 5 star players that leave early and are ready to play as true freshman.
Mizzou takes 2,3, and 4 star recruits and make them better over 4 to 5 years.
What will allow us to be competitive in the SEC is playing with juniors and seniors. Example is Witter who most of us thought was a terrible recruit his first 2 1/2 years.
This post was edited on 1/9/18 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 1/9/18 at 1:53 pm to wubilli
Huh?
Arky: 71st this year
2016: 59th
2015: 32nd
2014: 57th
2013: 107th
One decent year. Yea. Those are pts/game totals rather than total offense but pts still win games. In 2013, MU Ranked 13th. Guess what? That was arguably one of the best MU seasons in the programs history. Most teams getting great bowl invites and playoff chances have top 30 Os or better.
You think this team could run a Bama or UGA style pro-set and finish in the top 30? I don’t. Not in a million years.
A pro-style spread? Maybe. Sure as hell better take in better talent though or 2015-16 O will be the new norm.
Arky: 71st this year
2016: 59th
2015: 32nd
2014: 57th
2013: 107th
One decent year. Yea. Those are pts/game totals rather than total offense but pts still win games. In 2013, MU Ranked 13th. Guess what? That was arguably one of the best MU seasons in the programs history. Most teams getting great bowl invites and playoff chances have top 30 Os or better.
You think this team could run a Bama or UGA style pro-set and finish in the top 30? I don’t. Not in a million years.
A pro-style spread? Maybe. Sure as hell better take in better talent though or 2015-16 O will be the new norm.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 2:00 pm to Athos
Defense was th downfall of Arkansas. It’s also more of the reason Bama and UGA played in ththe championship. They had ok offenses and great defenses.
That’s is also the same formula that Bert used at Wisconsin.
That’s is also the same formula that Bert used at Wisconsin.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 3:07 pm to wubilli
UGA was 16 and Bama 14 respectively in points/game.
Bama was 29 and UGA 32nd in yards/game. Bama liket would have been better in both if Hurts wasn’t so much hot garbage as a passer.
And UGA’s QB was green.
Still not sure where you’re going with this.
MU has already fielded SEC level Ds. However, without a massive increase in talent, going Bama/UGA style pro-sets would set the program back years. They wouldn’t be competitive.
We shall see though.
Bama was 29 and UGA 32nd in yards/game. Bama liket would have been better in both if Hurts wasn’t so much hot garbage as a passer.
And UGA’s QB was green.
Still not sure where you’re going with this.
MU has already fielded SEC level Ds. However, without a massive increase in talent, going Bama/UGA style pro-sets would set the program back years. They wouldn’t be competitive.
We shall see though.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 3:16 pm to Athos
It would be the late Warren Powers years all over again. Let's set the program up for decades of failure! Sounds like fun. Copy what the big boys do without the tradition, resources, name recognition, legacies, and other recruiting advantages they enjoy. Solid plan of attack 
Posted on 1/9/18 at 3:17 pm to Athos
The point is that Arkansas had offenses good enough to win and be competitive.
Arkansas didn’t have a defense that consistently put them in position to win. Their defense was ranked around 100 the last couple seasons.
Arkansas didn’t have a defense that consistently put them in position to win. Their defense was ranked around 100 the last couple seasons.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 3:18 pm to wubilli
quote:
That’s is also the same formula that Bert used at Wisconsin.
We’re not in the garbage half of the B1G.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 3:23 pm to the808bass
quote:
We’re not in the garbage half of the B1G.
I didn’t claim that this was a strategy Mizzou should use, just that Bert tried doing at Arkansas, what he did at Wisconsin.
It didn’t work because he never got the elite defense to go with it.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 3:29 pm to wubilli
He didn’t have elite offenses either. He basically didn’t have enough talent. And he recruited better than us.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 3:39 pm to the808bass
He never had elite offenses at Wisconsin. He won with average to good offenses and elite defense.
Bert got Arkansas to have similar or better offenses to what he had at Wisconsin. What he never got was an elite defense.
To win the SEC West, he probably needed both offense and defense to be elite. That’s the only division in college football that I would say that about.
Bert got Arkansas to have similar or better offenses to what he had at Wisconsin. What he never got was an elite defense.
To win the SEC West, he probably needed both offense and defense to be elite. That’s the only division in college football that I would say that about.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 10:06 pm to Tiger97
quote:
Yeah, Bielema was going to bring Wisconsin's run it down your throat offense to the SEC. How did that work out?
This, thank God almighty, will likely be the last time I have to reply to that line of thought.
He didn't bring the run it down your throat offense to the SEC because he was all about pro-style mixing the pass with the running game. Of all people a Texas fan actually pointed out that "Arkansas only runs the ball right at you if they think you are complete pussies." Which is what we did against them actually. That had to be a bitter pill to swallow for that guy.
What did him in were two things.
The offense could be extremely potent but he did a lousy job of bringing in O-line talent and a pro style system needs good linemen. When we had good linemen while he was here Arkansas put up huge numbers. During Brandon Allen's senior season when we good linemen and a QB that finally settled down we put up numbers that were better then Petrino had managed here.
The second is that while we had one year with a top ten defense... the year after that the SEC figured it out. His insistence on giving big cushions to WRs and love of leaving the middle of the field with only one defender (usually a slow MLB) became bread and butter plays for people going against us. Get past the line on a running play and there was no one ahead of you. A ten yard cushion on third and 4 means the WR jogs forward a few steps, turns, catches the ball, and has a first down.
No. A pro style system can absolutely work in the SEC, even if your name isn't Alabama or Georgia. You are going to need linemen to pull it off though. Get a few good blockers and you can put a hurting on folks.
Posted on 1/9/18 at 11:41 pm to Arksulli
Supposedly, people around the program think that we have at least three future pros on the O-line. Although we had just that a few years ago, and it got us absolutely nothing.
Posted on 1/10/18 at 7:55 am to MIZ_USA
Well, we had four and it got us a top 5 finish?
Posted on 1/10/18 at 12:58 pm to MIZ_USA
I believe it, Mizzou has gone from D-Line U to O-Line U. At least they have that.
Posted on 1/10/18 at 1:02 pm to blueprint_one
quote:
I believe it, Mizzou has gone from D-Line U to O-Line U.
Mizzou’s DL will have at least 3 future NFL players next season. Maybe more depending on the 2018 recruiting class.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 12:24 pm to Athos
I think you guys are getting wrapped around the axle with the "pro style" offense. Magic and I both post on the PD board and when he called the MU offense a "gimmick" offense I posed the following question:
LINK
No one touched the question except Salty but he has weapons grade Alzheimer's.
Here are Matter's thoughts on the offense from his chat yesterday. A poster asked if Lock could flourish in a "pro-style" system:
LINK
I think that installing more power blocking and building RPOs off that run action will only make the offense better and more efficient by creating space behind the LBs for the Slot and TE to work.
The concepts work. Look at what Dallas can do when they have their full complement of skill players. The RB and line stir the drink but the space created for Witten and Beasley keeps the offense on schedule. Now we get to see if that $900k/yr investment was worth it.
quote:
by Navynuke » 05 Jan 2018 20:37 pm
MU predominantly lined up an 11 personnel package last year. 26 NFL teams averaged more than 50% of their formations with 3 WRs and one back. Is the NFL becoming a gimmick league?
LINK
No one touched the question except Salty but he has weapons grade Alzheimer's.
Here are Matter's thoughts on the offense from his chat yesterday. A poster asked if Lock could flourish in a "pro-style" system:
quote:
Good question, but here's another one to ask in response: What's a pro-style offense? I think that term has become antiquated. Watch the NFL and you'll see a lot of the same formations and concepts that you see in college. The pure structure of Mizzou's offense under Heupel was more "pro-style" than what MU ran in its Big 12 spread days and even under Henson in the two SEC East title teams. Under Heupel, MU was predominantly in 11 personnel: one running back, one tight end, three receivers. Mizzou was rarely in four- and five-wide looks the last two years. The tight end sometimes lined up in the backfield or in motion as an H-back. That's a pro-style look. What made the Heupel system more college style was the routes and reads in the passing game. Lock had more full-field reads this year than he had in 2016, but his wideouts didn't run a full route tree like they do in the NFL. There were a lot of horizontal throws and then a lot of deep, vertical throws - but not a lot of intermediate routes. Maybe Dooley incorporates more of those routes and reads into the new system.
Once Heupel left, Lock made it clear he'd like to play in a system that helps him prepare for the style of offense he'll have to play in the NFL, and more so than formations, he was likely talking about the type of reads he'll have to make and the routes his receivers will run.
by dmatter 12:12 PM yesterday
LINK
I think that installing more power blocking and building RPOs off that run action will only make the offense better and more efficient by creating space behind the LBs for the Slot and TE to work.
The concepts work. Look at what Dallas can do when they have their full complement of skill players. The RB and line stir the drink but the space created for Witten and Beasley keeps the offense on schedule. Now we get to see if that $900k/yr investment was worth it.
This post was edited on 1/12/18 at 1:06 pm
Posted on 1/12/18 at 1:06 pm to MizzouBS
You hit the nail on the head. Mizzou seems to play better when most of their starters are juniors and seniors. That's because they get 2-3* players with maybe 1-2 four star players and they evolve and become better in time. I noticed to that Mizzou was pretty good in 2013-14 when they had receivers that were 6'3 to 6'5.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 1:22 pm to Zou brownmajic
Derek Dooley just used air quotes describing a "pro-style offense".
Buckle up, this is gonna get good.
Buckle up, this is gonna get good.
Posted on 1/12/18 at 5:38 pm to JesusQuintana
Didn't we get the fricking guy fired in 2012?
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News