2016 Tiger Mailbag: 34th Edition
mexicojoe asks: Rank the remaining 7 games in terms of "win ability" where 7 is most likely a Tiger win and 1 is least likely.
GD: 7--Middle Tennessee
6--Vanderbilt
5--Kentucky
4--South Carolina
3--Arkansas
2--Florida
1--Tennessee
Mizzou Mule asks: Which leads to this next question. Please give your odds on Mizzou making ANY bowl game in 2016 please? Thanks.
GD: I still think this is a bowl team. This team could make a bowl and the best win could be South Carolina. They have a schedule that says if they're even just a slight bit better than last year, they're a six-win team. Beat Middle Tennessee, Vandy, Kentucky and South Carolina and you're in a bowl. I don't think any of those teams is particularly good. Now, I'm not saying they're walkovers. Missouri isn't that good either. But win those games and you're in a bowl. Win one of the other three and I'd be virtually certain of it. I'd still say the odds of making a bowl are better than 50-50. As Joey Burkett said on Monday, "you're defined by your last game." Missouri's last game sucked. So people define them as being worse than they actually are. Hell, it was less than two weeks ago we had people on here talking about how they'd compete to win the East. I thought that was misguided, but how you go from that to "Oh my God, we might not win another game" based on the outcome of one game against a team that was certainly better than Mizzou, it's over reactionary to me.
Tkee06 asks: Florida is playing really good defense...what adjustments can Heupel make to get our offense going against such a tough defense?
GD: I don't think there's a magic wand he can wave. I think the receivers have to win some one on one matchups and Lock has to be a lot better than he was against LSU. Odom said a few times yesterday that this team wasn't going to line up and power run its way to a bunch of wins. That's not how they're built. The simple fact is Missouri's running game isn't that good because they have an average offensive line and, right now, below average running backs. So they're going to have to throw the ball to win. The receivers have to get open, Lock has to put the ball on target and then Florida has to make some mistakes. Because this is a game where if Florida plays its best--or close--Missouri isn't going to win no matter what.
Biker Bob asks: Which current SEC Coach in your opinion does the worst job given the talent of the players he has had?
GD: Historically, I'd say Will Muschamp because of what he did at Florida. But he's not there with Florida's talent right now. It's too early to judge Barry Odom and Kirby Smart and Ed Orgeron. I'd probably go with Mark Stoops. Now, certainly, I think some of that highly-ranked talent was ranked too highly. But I think they've had enough talent that they should have been better than 15-27, 6-22 in the SEC and no bowl games. And I think they'll miss a bowl game again because they have to beat Mississippi State and Missouri to get to six wins.
Mokane asks: After watching he LSU game and the Bama v. Arkansas game, I've concluded that DB may be the area where the talent disparity between the elite in the SEC and the rest (particularly Mizzou) is the greatest. Mizzou's DBs always seem to be classified as "athletes" or DB/WR as high school recruits - I've assumed that they usually have good measurables but haven't proven themselves at receiver, or who played more QB in high school but aren't good enough to play the position in college. Do you know if Bama and LSU recruit this way too, or are they getting kids who've earned their scholarships primarily because of DB play in high school?
GD: Without going through the commitment lists of those schools from the last few years, my initial reaction is that most players who are good enough to play defensive back at an SEC school were probably so good that they also played tailback or wide receiver or even quarterback in high school. If you have an SEC level player in high school, you want him on the field as much as possible. Missouri's defensive backs may mostly have been classified as athletes, but they were targeted almost as exclusively as defensive backs, other than Cam Hilton, who has played offense and defense. I don't think the issue is how they're classified, but simply that the schools you mention get better players than Missouri at pretty much every position. That said, I agree with your thought. Defensive back and offensive line are probably the biggest differences between Mizzou and the SEC's elite. I think it played itself out against LSU. The LSU defensive backs were flat out dominating Missouri's wide receivers. Oh, by the way, Florida has some hellacious players in the secondary too.
rtnick asks: Who do you read, Gabe? Meaning, are there sportswriters you make sure and read weekly? For example, I used to wait religiously for Bill Simmons' Sports Guy column. I open Peter King's MMQ every Monday morning. Andy Staples... Pat Forde? Matter? Just curious as to what other writers you enjoy/follow. (And are you a READER reader? Favorite authors?)
GD: This is one of my favorite mailbag questions ever, so kudos to you. I don't know that there are many guys who are "appointment reading for me." The one is probably Wright Thompson. When he writes a story, I read it as soon as I see it. I used to love Simmons too, but not anymore. I like a lot of what Pat Forde writes. I think Gregg Doyel is very good. I like a lot of Jon Solomon's stuff. I tend to be a fan of longform. I like the in-depth feature stuff. I don't want to read the numbers analysis or game stories. I want the human interest stuff, the stuff with great quotes where I really get to know a subject. I get the "Sunday Long Read" from Don Van Natta, Jr. delivered to my inbox every Sunday and try to pick two or three of those to read during the week.
I like to read beyond sportswriting, but this time of year, I don't get much of it done. I'm currently reading "Waiter Rant," a years-long running diary of a professional waiter in a New York City bistro. I try to mix some non-fiction in and get some culture, but I'm also good with an easy-read novel now and again. Love Dean Koontz, Steven King and Lorenzo Carcaterra. John Irving is great.
Thanks for the question to allow me to prove myself as a renaissance man and not just a Mizzou sports savant.
Mizzoufan89 asks: What is the feel of the locker room right now? Lots of rumblings about defense not happy with new package. Are the players together or fractured?
GD: With the limited amount of time I get to spend around these guys, I can't really say for sure. I'll say I think it's something to monitor. Ugly losses have a way of bringing that out. I don't think Missouri had a good locker room last year. At all. From Mauk's issues to the boycott, that thing was split in a million different pieces. I think it's much better than that this year, but I don't know if that's something you can totally fix in year one. A win in Gainesville would fix a lot of these issues. Another ugly loss would make them worse.
buddha7mu asks: Look I understand the softball thing, but as a fan can you get the link to our #3 class in the country? That has to be the highest rating ever
GD: It was posted in the softball thread. I don't know if anyone covers softball recruiting, but it's as simple as googling "Missouri 2017 softball recruiting class," which I did and found this.
MizzterMizzou asks: Is the Mizzou job too big for Odom?
GD: I know (or for the love of God I assume) this is a sarcastic question, but the answer is that we will have an answer in two or three years. Five games in, it's foolish to make a judgment that it is or isn't.
mexicojoe asks: Assume the schools below win their respective leagues:Texas A&MWashingtonClemsonWisconsinOkla StateThat would mean a playoff without traditional powers such as OU, FSU, Mich, Ohio State, ND, Tex, S Cal etc. Would that be good for college football ?
GD: I think it would. I've got no interest in watching Alabama and Ohio State play for another national title. I've seen it. I'd love A&M/Wisconsin and Washington/Clemson in the national semifinals. It's different. It gives hope to everyone else. I want to see the Cubs and the Indians in the World Series. Give me two teams that don't make the Super Bowl very often too. Vikings/anybody but Pittsburgh, Denver, New England, Oakland is good with me. The ratings will suck. It's proven time after time that the general public likes the traditional powers. I don't. I like new blood and parity.
mutigerscott asks: after the few weeks on the job for our new AD, do you see him changing who we schedule as our non conference games in football (and basketball)? Or how we schedule to bring more fans to the games (especially in Basketball)? If you look at the schedules we played back in the 70's, we played at least 2 very respectable games against hard opponents during this time in football. It was a hard ticket to come by when we were playing Ohio State, Alabama, USC, Wisconsin, etc. Our attendance seems to be down when we play the lesser opponents, and this would seem to be a good way to bring the fans out to all the games by scheduling better games.
GD: It's way too early for me to have any idea how Sterk feels about that. Basketball is going to have the Illinois game and probably 2-4 other "name" teams in the non-conference schedule. They've got Xavier and potentially Oklahoma in Orlando. Arizona comes here. You're always going to have seven to nine "guarantee" games. In football, you're going to have a Power Five team, a second game against either a Power Five or a decent mid-major, a low-major and an FCS team. It's what almost everybody does. You're not going back to the 1970's in terms of scheduling. Almost no one does that. And honestly, it wouldn't be smart. What it would get you is more losses. Look at those teams in the 1970s. They had a reputation of giant killers because they'd beat some of those teams you mentioned. Then they'd lose to Iowa State or Colorado. You can't get up and play well enough to win every week against top flight competition. Nobody can. If Alabama played a non-con of Ohio State, USC, Michigan State and Virginia Tech every year, I bet they wouldn't win the national title. They'd lose somewhere along the way. As far as helping attendance, wins help attendance. And you should be going to the game primarily to see your team. Now, if you can only go to one or two games, I understand you're more interested in Georgia than Delaware State. But when you play in the SEC, I don't think one more home game against a Power Five team every year is going to make that big a difference in attendance.
GowerTiger asks: Will there ever be a single point in time where Drew Lock is the best qb in the SEC?
GD: For a week or two, yeah, I think there will be. Will he be an all-SEC first-team QB at Mizzou? Odds say no.
Graphic Edge Guy asks: Can you find out how Alabama came to know about lightly recruited Joshua Jacobs late in the recruiting process when they seemed to steal him away from us? Did they possibly ride on Mizzou's coat tails in discovering him?
GD: Here's a story that details exactly that. They found him by watching film. I would assume that's the same way Missouri found him unless Odom got tipped off by someone he knows in Oklahoma. I'm going to give Nick Saban a little more credit than to think he needs to wait for Missouri to identify players and then jump in on them. I just don't think that's probably how it goes on any sort of a regular basis. And if it does? Hey, that's the benefit of being Alabama. You can come in late and get a kid. Perks of being a blue blood.