Published Oct 6, 2024
Report card: Week 6 vs. Texas A&M
circle avatar
Kyle McAreavy  •  Mizzou Today
Senior Editor
Twitter
@kyle_mcareavy

After a night’s sleep, let’s look back and hand out some grades for Saturday’s matchup.

Advertisement

Overall offense: F

Missouri gained a total of 254 yards on 61 plays for an average of 4.2 yards per play.

Even after that dragged down the season averages in a year that has had a few disappointing performances in a row, the Tigers average 428.6 yards per game and 5.8 yards per play.

Most of that came in garbage time, anyway.

The Tigers started fast with a 35-yard drive, mostly gained on a game-opening 27 yard pass to Luther Burden, then Brady Cook found Burden for what looked like a 75-yard touchdown pass two drives later before it was called back for an ineligible man downfield.

But the Tigers’ second drive went only 1 yard, the third ended up as a 7-yard drive and the fourth was a 6-yard series. The Tigers went three-and-out three consecutive series as Texas A&M built its early lead.

By the time the Tigers got closer than the Aggie 40-yard line, the game was all but over.


Rushing offense: F

Missouri entered the game averaging 5.16 yards per carry this season, they left College Station averaging 4.7 for the year.

The run game had been the key to the Tiger offense while the pass game had sputtered through the first third of the season. Nate Noel had rushed for more than 100 yards the past two games with a 199-yard performance last time out.

But the Tigers gained only 68 rushing yards as a team on 30 attempts for an average of 2.3 yards per carry. That’s dragged backward by six sacks allowed, but the Tigers moved forward for only 97 yards anyway.

It was a terrible performance.

“We weren’t able to protect the passer as well as we needed to obviously and we weren’t ever able to establish a rhythm with the run game,” Missouri coach Eli Drinkwitz said. “You know, when the score got lopsided, we really weren’t able to even try to run the football, so that put a lot of pressure on the offensive line and let them (Texas A&M) do what they do best.”


Passing offense: D

The only reason this isn’t also an F is the Tigers hit on a couple of deep passes throughout the game which was something I’d been waiting to see.

They came out firing deep attempts early and hit one on the first play, plus the only touchdown of the day came on another.

“We were just trying to attack them vertically, obviously started the game with one but after that there weren’t enough completions,” Drinkwitz said.

But it also seemed at times like the Tigers were trying too hard to hit the deep pass when their were opportunities open underneath and drives died because of it.

The Tigers were just 13-of-31 (41.9 percent) passing for 186 yards for an average of 6.0 yards per attempt and 14.3 yards per completion.

As a team, the Tigers were 108-for-151 (71.5 percent) for 1,063 yards this season, which gets averages of 7.04 yards per attempt and 9.84 yards per completion.

Overall defense: F

The Tigers gave up 512 total yards, six touchdowns and scores on the Aggies’ first four drives and six of their first seven. Texas A&M averaged 8.8 yards per play for the game and converted on 7-of-12 third downs after entering the game with a success rate under 40 percent on third downs.

The team seemed wholly unprepared for the change in A&M’s offense with Conner Weigman under center after Drinkwitz said it was “Semantics” that he was listed as the starter on the depth chart on Tuesday. And when asked “Texas A&M’s decision to flip that quarterback, did the play any role,” Drinkwitz cut off the end of the question and instead answered “What did you think of Weigman’s performance?”

“He’s a great player, really good player, he was very accurate today,” Drinkwitz said. “Did a great job scrambling, threw the football extremely well. We weren’t ever able to make him uncomfortable.”

Passing defense: D-

Statistically, the passing defense could have been worse.

A&M threw for 276 yards on 18-of-22 passing on one touchdown. It looked pretty bad in the moment as Weigman and his receivers were able to repeatedly find open spots in zone coverage and the receivers were able to come down with multiple contested catches to convert long third downs. Missouri was unable to get a pass rush at any point as the Aggie offensive line gave Weigman all day to throw, but the numbers could have looked worse.

Rushing defense: F

The reason the passing numbers aren’t as bad as they might have been is because the rushing numbers are.

The Aggies ran for 236 yards on 36 attempts for an average of 6.6 yards per attempt and five touchdowns.

A 75-yard touchdown to open the second half makes the numbers look worse, but Texas A&M had its way with Missouri on the ground throughout the game.

“We didn’t do much of anything well on the defensive side of the ball today,” Drinkwitz said.

Special teams: B-

If you want a positive takeaway, I guess special teams would be the area to look at.

After being listed as questionable all week, Marquis Johnson had a 63-yard kickoff return in the fourth quarter.

Luke Bauer averaged 45.6 yards on his five punts and had two travel farther than 50 yards and Blake Craig made the 23-yard field goal he was sent out for with 8 seconds left on the clock.

Great.

Coaching: F

Everything about this game felt poorly coached. I already mentioned it seems like the team was completely unprepared for what Texas A&M might do offensively if Weigman started. Add on the deflation you could see from the offense when the pass interference was picked up on the 4th-and-2 game’s initial drive, though I think the decision to go for it was correct, followed by an even larger deflation when Burden’s touchdown was called back.

The team started faster than it had the past two games, but when two things went wrong, everything fell apart quickly.

And when given an opportunity to make some halftime adjustments and try to make a game of it, the Tigers immediately allowed a 75-yard rushing touchdown before many fans had made it back to their seats after the break.

“We weren’t competitive and that’s not Mizzou football,” Drinkwitz said. “That’s not what we’ve worked really, really hard to be about. So if we’re not competing, then that’s on me and I’ve got to get that fixed. So everything is on the table.”


Overall: F

There’s no way to sugarcoat that game, it was terrible start to finish. The Tigers got beat in every facet and the best thing to do is just forget it and move on. Because I don’t see any positives to take away.

Head on over to the Tiger Walk to discuss the game, this story and so much more.