GD: Let's be clear that I'm in no way qualified to be a football or basketball coach. So were I to give advice to either of these men, I would hope they would treat it with about the same amount of value I'd put in their advice on how to write my next column. But we say we'll answer your questions, so here goes.

For Odom, I'd say change less. What Gary Pinkel did worked here. It worked at Kent State and Washington for Don James and a lot of it has worked a lot of places for Nick Saban. You don't have to copy everything, but Pinkel was really good at Missouri and keeping a lot of what made him successful in place would make sense.

For Martin, I'd say get the nation's No. 1 player every year. But for real, I'd say be the voice of reason. Don't let the ridiculous expectations get into your guys' heads early and don't let them get down when they hit a rough spot--and they'll hit one or two this year. It's a long year with a young team. The goal is to be one of the best come March, not in November.

GD: For those who pay any attention to Missouri right now, the perception is simple: They pile up great numbers against bad teams and tend to struggle when the competition gets better. Missouri has November to change that perception. As for Heupel's future, I think his next move is to be a head coach somewhere assuming the staff stays in place here.

GD: Congratulations, we may have the first question that is longer than the answer in the Mailbag. Actually, that's not true. Some weeks I don't give my best effort and answers are often shorter than questions. I'm working on getting better every Wednesday.

The three plays against South Carolina were huge. Missouri didn't answer. It beat them again the next week (they may not beat Purdue anyway, but they never gave themselves a chance). I've maintained this week if the schedule set up that Missouri State, Idaho and UConn were the first three games of the season, Missouri would have started 3-0 and would probably be 5-3 right now and nobody would be panicking.

As far as the Purdue game, yeah, I said at the time it was one of the five worst Missouri football games I've ever seen. Most of the others came against teams that were quite a bit better than the Boilermakers.

Finally, on Drew, he was very raw, in large part because he played basketball as much as football up to his freshman year in college. Heupel talked about his development quite a bit on Monday.

GD: I think the regular season schedule will remain pretty similar. You'll have Illinois and two or three other high-major teams, hopefully one on the road. You'll have two or three solid mid-major programs and then six or seven "gimmies" against low-major type schools. The beauty of these exhibitions is they don't count. Do the teams want to win? Sure. Anytime you keep score, you'd rather win than lose. But these are like spring training games where the starting pitcher goes out to work on situations and stuff rather than trying to shut the opposition out any way he can.

GD: I think saying they have a decent chance to go 7-5 is overstating it. They have a chance. It would be a weird way to arrive at 7-5 or even 6-6 if it happens. As far as who's to blame, it's never one guy or one thing. It's everything. Coaches deserve blame and so do players. Heck, blame me some if you want to. There's enough to go around. But if he gets year three, a bowl game is a must and you have to see a better program. Let's say they do get to 6-6 this year and go bowling, if you're 4-8 again next year, I think he's probably out. Barring injuries or unforeseen circumstances, this year isn't going to be enough of a major step forward to have another step backward next year.

GD: Rountree is 135 yards behind Witter right now, so he'd have to make up 34 a game to surpass him. I'll go with Witter. Moore has 141 more than Johnson and 185 more than Hall, so I think his lead is safe considering how much the Tigers have been spreading the ball around.

GD: No promises, but maybe I'll try getting him on an offseason podcast. If I'm successful, it will likely consist of me having him say, "Snap back, ball down, the kick is up, it's long, it's high, it's GOOD!" over and over and over.

GD: The high point, right now, is probably the second half comeback win over Arkansas (though I'd say the first half against Georgia last year is close because I think that's the best Missouri has played against a good team). The low point is Purdue. I simply can't imagine anything that's been worse.

The reasons for optimism would be the improvement at the end of last year and the (hoped for) improvement over the final six weeks this season. There are a lot of young players who are seeing the field, gaining a ton of experience and set up to play bigger roles next year. Drew Lock is coming into his own and could end the season as one of the SEC's better quarterbacks and he should be back.

On the negative side, we still see far too many penalties and lack of focus/discipline issues. They've never really gone away. And 7-13/2-10 doesn't exactly inspire hope and awe.

GD: Even though the numbers will put him there, he's not as good as Jeremy Maclin or Danario Alexander, who were the two best I've seen. His upside is as high as anyone other than those two, but his downside has been lower. He's just wildly up and down. Guys like Tommy Saunders, Will Franklin, Jared Perry, you more or less knew what you were going to get and every now and then they'd jump up and play a huge game. I can't really rank J'Mon. He's a good player who could be better and whose individual production hasn't translated into team success at all.

GD: This is a good example of why I don't like to say things, because then people twist it into things you didn't say. I did not in any way "guarantee" a bowl game. I said that if they do win Saturday, I expect them to make a bowl game. It's a prediction worth nothing more than the 14 seconds it took me to type it. I'm well aware they can win Saturday and still not win enough to make a bowl game. I understand math.

As far as the boycott, I've never said it's no longer pertinent. I don't think it explains why this team is 3-5 instead of 4-4 or 5-3 or even 6-2 which I think it should be. I said at the time it happened it was going to take the football program and the University as a whole years to get past all of it (for the record, a lot of people called me versions of "reactionary idiot" at the time). My stance is simply that it's not the be-all and end-all of problems and I'm sick and tired of talking about it and having people relate every single thing that happens in Mizzou sports back to it. Not that there has been no impact.

GD: I'm gonna look into getting a sponsor for the weekly "Graphic Edge Guy list of mailbag questions." That said:

1. Yes and no

2. If Odom does

3. Defensive coordinator who will also coach linebackers

4. 5-7

5. Yes. And it absolutely should. It's a young team that needs the practice. This team isn't too good for anything. You absolutely take the bid.

GD: On Holmes, they just keep saying he's getting better and close. At this point, he wouldn't play in more than three games. Unless you see him as the difference between making a bowl game and not (and I don't) I'd redshirt him. To do otherwise wouldn't make much sense.

As far as the recruiting question, here's how I view it: In the Big 12, you had a ton of kids in Texas who couldn't be offered by Texas, Oklahoma or A&M (a few hundred every year). So you could make a pretty good living outrecruiting Texas Tech and Baylor and Oklahoma State for kids in the Lone Star State. In the SEC, you've got seven programs that have far more history and are pretty much always going to outrecruit you (Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Texas A&M, Tennessee). Trying to go into those states and get kids that none of them want mean you're basically saying you are going to take your chances competing against half the league by taking kids they don't want. If you recruit a kid from Georgia, Florida or Alabama, he legitimately has to drive past at least half the schools in the league to get to you (and you're located further from home than every single school in the league). And we're not even talking about programs like Arkansas, Ole Miss, South Carolina, North Carolina, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and on and on who are much closer for most of these kids. So I think Missouri should go back into Texas and I think they should go to places like Illinois, Michigan and Ohio and pitch kids on "If you want to play in the best conference in the country, this is the closest place you can do it."

GD: Hands for legs. I'm already short. What's another three feet going to do.

Missouri will be ranked if they beat Iowa State soundly.

GD: I don't care who is here and who isn't. Turnover happens every year. Missouri absolutely at a minimum has to be in a bowl game next year (and not a 5-7 bowl game they get cause their players passed more classes than another team's players).

GD: Roman Wilson is on Missouri's radar and they'll keep tabs on him. That said, he told me this summer he's academically ineligible for the first semester this year, so that's not promising.

GD: I imagine it's happened before, though I don't really want to go back and look to prove it. As far as being successful, you can make bowl games and win seven a year without in-state talent. You're never competing to win the league if you can't. You need star players. The most logical place to get them when you're not a national program is close to home. I offered more thoughts on in-state recruiting here.

GD: A lot higher than it used to be, but I still have some PTSD from last year and missing the opening extra point this year. If he proves to be very good the rest of the year, I'll change my tune. He's no Harrison Butker yet.

GD: We will assume the first eight are Harris, Phillips, Porter, Porter, Puryear, Tilmon, Barnett and Robertson. For number nine, right now I'll go with Cullen VanLeer because he played the most minutes of the three in the only "game" I've been able to see so far and he has a potentially difference-making skill. I'm not sure what the standout part of Geist or Roberts' game is yet (not saying they don't have one, I just can't easily identify it right now). VanLeer can be a guy that comes in makes some shots and gives you some offense. That skill lets him fill a specific role. Don't be shocked if the ninth is Reed Nikko, especially if Jeremiah Tilmon keeps fouling at a record rate.

GD: I'm going to link the post I made about recruiting the state again here rather than go through it all again. I feel like we have this discussion pretty much every year. You just have to win. If they want to come here, great. If not, go find other good players. Where they're from seems to matter to Missouri fans more than it does to a lot. Maybe I'm wrong on that and I'll admit to perhaps just being myopic because I don't read other message boards every day, but you just have to have players. Where they went to high school doesn't matter.

I'll assume the Rivals ranking will be higher than we think it will be today (something about it's never as good or as bad as it seems). But it's also unlikely to be better than about 40.

GD: I know USC had Matt Cassell, Matt Leinart and Carson Palmer. I'm going to be there have been others, but I don't know who they are right off hand.

GD: I'd guess it's probably less than 50 percent. It depends how good the player is whether you save a spot. However, you do also have to keep in mind maintaining relationships with high schools. If you sign a kid and he's loyal to you, it's not as simple as just cutting bait because he isn't as good as you expected him to be.

GD: I think he'll land Daniel Parker in that scenario. Maybe Michael Thompson, but I'm not sure. No more than that, although I would be interested to see if they'd have a shot at Cameron Brown and Mario Goodrich if Nebraska makes a coaching change.

I think Cameron Taylor still has a good shot to end up at Mizzou. Not so much on the others.

GD: I don't have a handle yet on who the specific targets are. You'd like to find someone that can compete for the job in 2019. Maybe even a juco guy that has three to play two. But I like the limited amount I've seen of Micah Wilson and heard good things about Taylor Powell in camp, so I think with another year under their belts, they'll have a shot...and would have even if James Foster had signed.

GD: Florida is clearly above Mizzou. I'd say it's the second best job in the SEC. Tennessee is a better job than Mizzou. So is Texas A&M if it comes to that (but I'm not sure the Aggies will be looking). Same with Auburn. Arkansas is comparable to Mizzou. You can make arguments on either side. Historically it's probably a little bit better program, but as of today, I don't think it's any better (and it's in a much tougher division to win with a fanbase that--I think--has outsized expectations). Ole Miss is probably a little bit worse than Mizzou, but I don't think it's a huge gap. Nationally, Nebraska's a better job (although I think it's a lot closer than it was ten years ago or than anyone in Corn Country would admit). But I don't think you sit tight and stick with a guy you don't believe in because other schools are looking too. Other schools are always looking. And a lot of the schools I listed here shop at different stores than Mizzou does.

GD: Can't hurt. It gives Cuonzo Martin and staff another few months to work on him and opens up the possibility that Mizzou could have a really good season to sell at that time. If he signed next week, it wouldn't have been Mizzou, so any delay can only be a net positive.

GD: I'm sure somebody exists that fills the final three traits. I don't even know why the first one matters. You think Gary Pinkel "loved Mizzou" when they hired him? I would assume he loved that they were willing to pay him millions of dollars. These coaches wouldn't do this for free. Loving Mizzou is all well and good and makes some fans feel all touchy feely. It is in no way a qualification to be a head coach here. If it was, there are a lot of dudes on this message board who should get interviews (and from what I read, they'd probably instantly make Missouri much better). Hire the best coach you can. If he happened to go to school at Mizzou, fine. If not, also fine.

GD: No. And if Missouri is short-sighted enough that rumblings are out there, it should just quit trying to play big boy football.

GD: Neither is fun, but bad football is worse. There are just a lot more people who are football fans. Most who identify themselves primarily as basketball fans are also Mizzou football fans. But I know quite a few Mizzou football fans who don't much care about hoops (or at least didn't until March 24, 2017). People talk about football year round. Most places, college hoops largely disappears from the radar between May and September.

On the second question, I think most of them are bought in. I'm sure there are a few exceptions because if you find me a group of people larger than two who always agree on everything, I'll comp your subscription (Actually I probably won't, but you get the point).