KTGR ESPN 100.5 FM & 1580 AM
By: Andy Humphrey
It wasn’t Tennessee-bad, but it definitely didn’t make Mizzou fans feel any better.
Everyone at Faurot Field quickly learned why Texas A&M was lauded as a Top 5 or 6 team at the beginning of the season, as the Aggies got out to a hot start by winning the first quarter against the Tigers 21-0, and eventually the game, 35-14 on Saturday. The effort by Mizzou was much better than what we saw in their latest SEC game against Tennessee, and it showed when they tried to claw their way back in the final three quarters. Tyler Badie continued to be a strong force, but still struggled on a per-carry basis against a tough A&M defensive front. There were moments where you thought the Tigers could put themselves in favorable positions after playing from behind, like they did against Kentucky and Boston College. But, in the end, we saw more of the same. A defense that continued to let up way too much by SEC standards (431 yards of total offense, 283 rushing), and an offense that while capable, wasn’t equipped to make up the early deficit.
With that, let’s dive into the Knee-Jerk Reactions:
The defense is still getting gashed by big plays
The frustrating part about watching the Tigers’ defense Saturday was that they played better than they did in their last SEC game. Problem is, that was a low standard to meet. Mizzou had five tackles-for-loss, had a 17-yard sack from Martez Manuel, and for the most part stuffed the same amount of runs as A&M did on the other side. But, as we’ve seen far too often, the Tigers couldn’t contain their opponent enough to limit big plays. The Aggies rattled off 13 rushing plays of 10 yards or more, and added a couple pass plays of 15+ yards to pace their offense. At least a few of those running plays came on 3rd and long(!), and allowed the Aggies to extend drives. It left Mizzou fans with an all-too-familiar bitter taste in the mouth.
Believe it or not, there actually were times where I thought Mizzou’s run defense looked okay. But consistency has eluded this group all season long. I thought some of the bright moments of the defense took place when defensive backs helped out in the effort to stop Devon Achane and Isaiah Spiller in the backfield. But that can’t be your solution. It leaves you too susceptible to the passing game. At some point, the front six or seven will need to be able to hold its own, especially since the defensive back room is dealing with depth issues now after last week’s ACL tear for Ennis Rakestraw and Saturday’s injury to Kris Abrams-Draine.
Bad penalties kept Mizzou from having a chance
Even with those big plays given up, there were some chances for Mizzou’s defense to get off the field and provide some openings for a comeback. Those moments quickly went away after some back-breaking penalties. Shawn Robinson and Akayleb Evans were both flagged for pass interference on 3rd down plays on separate drives, both of which ended with touchdowns for the Aggies. In the second half, after Manuel’s 17-yard sack that set up 2nd and 27 for A&M, Mekhi Wingo was called for defensive holding on a running back. The Aggies later converted on the ensuing 3rd down, and scored another touchdown on that drive. Overall, the Tigers were called for 13 penalties for 106 yards in the game. You can’t say Mizzou’s defense had no chance. They had a few, but squandered them away on penalties.
I didn’t necessarily think any of the PI calls on either side qualified as egregious. Some may have been softer than usual, but none were undeserved. I chalk it up to Mizzou’s DBs not being in excellent position to defend those passes. Was it because they had to be more mindful of the run with Spiller and Achane? I can’t really say definitively. But what is easy to gather is that when a team gets penalized as much as the Tigers did in this game, it’s fair to point fingers at the coaching staff. They’re ultimately the ones that put the players in a position to win, and those penalties cost them that chance. Mizzou was never going to be favored in this game, but through the next two weeks the coaches are going to look back at those moments and wonder “what if?”
It’s time to see what else Mizzou has at QB
I’m not saying that Connor Bazelak shouldn’t be starting, or shouldn’t be practicing with the 1’s every week. He’s earned the chance to be the guy. But just two weeks removed from his worst performance as Mizzou’s starter against Tennessee, his next SEC game featured zero touchdowns and two more interceptions, both of which gave A&M chances to score (they missed a field goal after the second INT). Drinkwitz after the game stood by his quarterback when he was asked whether he ever considered making a switch. “Connor is our quarterback,” he said. And I agree, he *is* your quarterback. Until he isn’t. And Drinkwitz not only owes it to himself, but the rest of the program to see what either or both Brady Cook and Tyler Macon can bring to the table against SEC defenses.
Just look at the schedule: there really aren’t any “swing” games left. Mizzou has likely remaining wins against Vanderbilt and South Carolina (could be closer to a “swing” too), and likely losses against Georgia, Florida and Arkansas. If those games go the way we think they will, there will be chances for Drinkwitz to give Cook and/or Macon some snaps when the scoring margin gets higher. It’s obvious that with Bazelak, Cook and Macon having just about the same eligibility length, and with Sam Horn entering the fold in 2022, Drinkwitz will have to make a decision on who they guy is going forward. And it might lead to at least one or two of the guys who don’t get picked to transfer out. In order for Drinkwitz to have the maximum amount of data possible to make the right choice, he needs to see what Cook and Macon have. Because the last thing you want is to keep them benched, and then see them transfer away and have success at another school, leaving you stuck with less talent at QB than you had before. Cook and Macon don’t need to get the majority of snaps, but Bazelak’s play recently should raise the question of whether he deserves *all* of them going forward.
Drinkwitz played this one too safe
You need to roll the dice a few times to win games like this one. Drinkwitz had a few chances to do it, and his choices didn’t necessarily reflect the choices of a head coach trying to upset a ranked team at home. The first chance came early on a 4th and 1 for the Tigers at their own 34. Mizzou rushed to the line to try and draw A&M offside, but never really seemed intent to snap the ball and were eventually flagged for a false start themselves. I know going for a fourth down that early and on that spot on the field isn’t ideal, but with how Mizzou’s defense has struggled to stop any opposing offense regardless of field position, that’s as good of a chance as any to keep the ball and respond after the Aggies scored the first touchdown. Instead, Mizzou got flagged, then punted, which led to A&M driving 90 yards downfield to double the lead. Not great!
The others involved playcalling. Faurot Field fans booed at the end of the half when the Tigers sat on the ball for the final 90 seconds of the half down 28-7. The drive started after an interception by Jaylen Carlies, which included a blocking penalty on Mizzou putting them inside their own 20. The next two plays were Tyler Badie runs of six yards and one yard. I understand getting the ball into the hands of your best player, but there didn’t seem to be a sense of urgency to gain a first down on that drive. Drinkwitz explained postgame that he didn’t want to give A&M the ball back with timeouts before halftime. But, again, you have to take risks against this team. The more confusing situation came near the end of the third quarter, with Mizzou facing 3rd and 9 on the A&M 40 and trailing 35-14. The play was a draw to Badie, resulting in a three-yard loss. Again, he’s your best player so it makes sense that he’s involved. But why, in that spot, are you running the ball in plus-territory, and then punting immediately afterward? I don’t like to nitpick about specific play calls like this, but I’m mainly questioning the intent behind those calls. They seemed way too conservative for a team trying to pull an upset.
Hopes of an A&M hangover were doused quickly
The possibility for a let-down after beating Alabama was certainly there for the Aggies. But they squashed those doubts early with a fast start, which is how they’ve found most of their success under Jimbo Fisher. The 21-0 first quarter score looks a lot more frustrating in hindsight when you consider that Mizzou played them evenly to a 14-14 score through the next three quarters. The only way you were going to upset this team was by hitting them early and often. The Tigers didn’t do that. The game wasn’t decided in the first quarter, but it was the difference.
Now with Mizzou at the bye week, it’s time for some soul-searching. This is their most prime opportunity to figure out what’s leading to all of these breakdowns on defense, and finding ways to fix them. It won’t be fun, but if they want to make everyone in the program and the fanbase feel better about the finish, those preparations have to start now. As you break down the remaining schedule, bowl eligibility for the Tigers will probably hinge upon their chances of beating Arkansas in the last regular season game. Right now, I can’t call that game a victory for Mizzou. But if drastic improvements happen from within leading up to that point, I can be proven wrong.
