SB Nation - Martin Rucker

Targets and Catches (Part Two, a.k.a. Will Franklin's Redemption)

Bill C. — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:00:17 -0000

Image via The Trib's G.J. McCarthy

You may have noticed that, somewhere around 1pm yesterday, the title of yesterday's "Targets and Catches" post changed to "Targets and Catches (Part One)." That's because I figured out the next direction I wanted to take the concept of targets and couldn't wait to get started on it.

As discussed yesterday, the concept of targets (catches + incomplete passes intended for a given receiver) versus catches is a pretty good one, despite the likely flaws in the ways target data is collected (dropped/tipped passes that become interceptions don't have target data attached, not every scorekeeper probably records targets the same way, etc.). It allows us to look into a receiver's reliability in ways that simpler measures do not, and once national data is collected on this (offseason project #12,424), it might give us a way to measure a quarterback's performance independent of the quality of his receivers (hey Uribe Auction, here's how we get to Receiver Independent Passing Stats, or RIPS...I love it when a plan comes together).

But simply looking at a players Catch% (Catches per Target) does a disservice to those who are likely to run deeper, lower-percentage routes. How about we do this as well: create a Yards Per Target measure. Yards Per Catch is a good way to measure a receiver's explosiveness, and wouldn't the incorporation of target data create something that shows us both explosiveness and reliability? Let's try that.

Below are tables for 2006-09 giving us the following information:

Catches
Yards
Catch% (Catches divided by Targets)
Yards Per Target

2006

2006 Yards Per Target
Name	Pos.	Catches	Yards	Catch%	Yds/Target
Chase Coffman	TE	58	638	65.2%	7.2
Martin Rucker	TE	53	511	77.9%	7.5
Will Franklin	WR	48	829	57.8%	10.0
Jared Perry	WR	37	429	67.3%	7.8
Brad Ekwerekwu	WR	32	430	64.0%	8.6
Tommy Saunders	WR	25	271	73.5%	8.0
Danario Alexander	WR	15	251	71.4%	12.0
Jason Ray	WR	6	50	40.0%	3.3
Tony Temple	RB	6	34	85.7%	4.9
Earl Goldsmith	RB	5	59	100.0%	11.8
Greg Bracey	WR	3	79	50.0%	13.2
Marcus Woods	RB	2	11	40.0%	2.2
Jimmy Jackson	RB	1	-2	50.0%	-1.0
Andrew Hoskins	WR	0	0	0.0%	0.0
TOTAL	ALL	291	3,590	66.0%	8.1

Here's where we start to see the value of Will Franklin. The 'Copta had an awful catch rate this season, but as we see here, a) he made up for it with his explosiveness, and b) being a deep threat means you're probably seeing more low-percentage passes. Meanwhile, tight ends running high-percentage routes will have good catch rates, but their Yards Per Target figures show that while it's good to have high-percentage targets, there isn't necessarily a lot of explosiveness there.

Two other interesting things to note:

1) Danario was very clearly showing his big-play potential early on. It really is a damn shame that he ended up having to fight so many injuries, but on the bright side, if he hadn't, he'd have almost certainly gone pro last year.

2) Clearly we should have been passing to Earl Goldsmith more often. Ahem.

2007

Image via the inestimable Bill Carter

2007 Yards Per Target
Name	Pos.	Catches	Yards	Catch%	Yds/Target
Martin Rucker	TE	84	834	77.8%	7.7
Jeremy Maclin	WR	80	1,055	72.1%	9.5
Chase Coffman	TE	52	531	80.0%	8.2
Will Franklin	WR	49	709	64.5%	9.3
Tommy Saunders	WR	41	397	74.5%	7.2
Danario Alexander	WR	37	417	77.1%	8.7
Jared Perry	WR	13	152	65.0%	7.6
Derrick Washington	RB	10	70	71.4%	5.0
Jason Ray	WR	8	61	80.0%	6.1
Tony Temple	RB	7	68	77.8%	7.6
Jimmy Jackson	RB	6	30	100.0%	5.0
Earl Goldsmith	RB	4	20	66.7%	3.3
Greg Bracey	WR	3	53	33.3%	5.9
Blake May	WR	0	0	0.0%	0.0
TOTAL	ALL	394	4,397	73.2%	8.2

And here's where the numbers even out for Senor Goldsmith.

Even though his YPT dipped in 2007, Franklin was still a decent weapon here, averaging over 9.0 per target (which appears to be a pretty good number) and, as we must not forget, becoming one helluva downfield blocker for Maclin. In all, Chase Coffman was the most reliable target this season, but obviously the WRs were more dangerous, even though they didn't really thrust too many nunchuks.

(Non-RMN regulars just read and re-read that last sentence 5-6 times, then gave up on figuring it out what it meant. Here's the explanation.)

2008

Bill Carter again

2008 Yards Per Target
Name	Pos.	Catches	Yards	Catch%	Yds/Target
Jeremy Maclin	WR	102	1,260	75.6%	9.3
Chase Coffman	TE	90	987	88.2%	9.7
Tommy Saunders	WR	72	833	78.3%	9.1
Jared Perry	WR	41	567	68.3%	9.5
Derrick Washington	RB	29	277	76.3%	7.3
Danario Alexander	WR	26	329	60.5%	7.7
Andrew Jones	TE	20	146	83.3%	6.1
Jerrell Jackson	WR	9	98	69.2%	7.5
Earl Goldsmith	WR	5	58	83.3%	9.7
Michael Egnew	TE	4	22	50.0%	2.8
Jimmy Jackson	RB	3	26	75.0%	6.5
Wes Kemp	WR	1	15	50.0%	7.5
Jon Gissinger	TE	1	10	100.0%	10.0
Brandon Gerau	WR	0	0	0.0%	0.0
Forrest Shock	WR	0	0	0.0%	0.0
TOTAL	ALL	403	4,628	76.0%	8.7

Here's where Chase Coffman became the best tight end we'll ever see. He was so reliable that throwing to him actually resulted in more yards per target than Jeremy Maclin, All-American. Here's also where Jared Perry, a.k.a. Will Franklin 2.0, began to show value. He was a reasonably reliable option his first couple of years (obviously targeted much more in 2006 than 2007, when Maclin emerged), but while he still couldn't hit 70% from a Catch% perspective, his big-play ability went up a notch, and he went from averaging 7-8 yards per target to over 9. Meanwhile, Jerrell Jackson registered with numbers very similar to Perry's freshman numbers, albeit on a small sample size.

2009

Yup, Bill Carter.

2009 Yards Per Target
Name	Pos.	Catches	Yards	Catch%	Yds/Target
Danario Alexander	WR	107	1,644	73.8%	11.3
Jared Perry	WR	46	695	53.5%	8.1
Jerrell Jackson	WR	37	458	60.7%	7.5
Wes Kemp	WR	23	335	52.3%	7.6
Derrick Washington	RB	23	99	69.7%	3.0
Andrew Jones	TE	7	39	58.3%	3.3
Rolandis Woodland	WR	4	23	66.7%	3.8
Michael Egnew	TE	3	25	60.0%	5.0
De'Vion Moore	RB	3	13	100.0%	4.3
Kendial Lawrence	RB	2	42	100.0%	21.0
Brandon Gerau	WR	2	19	66.7%	6.3
T.J. Moe	WR	2	8	40.0%	1.6
Gilbert Moye	RB	1	5	50.0%	2.5
TOTAL	ALL	260	3,405	63.9%	8.4

And here's where we find out just how amazing Danario Alexander has been this season (as if there were any doubt). Looking only at receivers who were targeted at least ten times in a given season, Alexander's 11.3 per-target average is topped only by ... 2006 Danario Alexander, who was targeted only 21 times. For ~~Domino Axelrod~~ Danario to be both this reliable and this explosive has just been amazing.

Here are the overall averages per position:

WR: 67.3% catch rate, 8.7 yards per target
TE: 77.2% catch rate, 8.2 yards per target
RB: 75.0% catch rate, 5.5 yards per target

So for the last four seasons, here are your top ten in terms of Yards Per Target (with a minimum of ten targets):

Danario Alexander (2006): 12.0 per target (on 21 targets)
Danario Alexander (2009): 11.3 (145)
Will Franklin (2006): 10.0 (83)
Chase Coffman (2008): 9.7 (102)
Jeremy Maclin (2007): 9.5 (111)
Jared Perry (2008): 9.5 (60)
Jeremy Maclin (2008): 9.3 (135)
Will Franklin (2007): 9.3 (76)
Tommy Saunders (2008): 9.1 (92)
Danario Alexander (2007): 8.7 (48)

Will Franklin, you are absolved.

Danario Alexander, you officially have a case for having been the best receiver in Mizzou history.

Targets and Catches (Part One)

Bill C. — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:00:15 -0000

One of the measures I am looking to track more in-depth in the future, in terms of my play-by-play data, is the notion of catches versus targets. In the play-by-play data exists a line that I have yet allowed to go unrecorded: "Pass incomplete to _____." Obviously I record that the pass is incomplete, but I have not really paid attention to who the pass was intended for. It's a rather objective measure -- does everybody record who a pass was intended for the same way? If the QB is throwing the ball away and it goes 20 feet over a certain receiver's head, does it count as an incompletion "to" that receiver? Does every score-keeper even keep track of this? Plus, if a ball is tipped by a receiver and intercepted (e.g. Jerrell Jackson in the Oklahoma State game), the "intended for" bit isn't recorded. Clearly this is a piece of data that is rather inconsistent.

That said, this is also one of those measures where you figure that the inconsistencies balance out over time. Even if it doesn't paint a perfect picture, it probably tells an interesting story. Therefore, let's take a look at how our view of a receiver's (or quarterback's) performance changes when adding in "intended for" data.

The categories below are:

Catches: receptions
Targets: receptions + incomplete passes intended for that receiver (as recorded in the play-by-play data). In general, you can think of those incomplete passes as either being a) dropped or b) too well-covered to be completed. If your QB is accurate, you will obviously catch more of your targeted passes, but if you struggle to get open and clear space from the guy covering you, a lot more of your targeted passes are going to fall incomplete.
Catch%: the percentage of "targets" a receiver catches
Target%: the percentage of a team's overall targets aimed at a specific receiver

Without further ado, let's take a look at the last four years of Mizzou "target" data and see what it tells us.

2006

Image via Phoebe Sexton / Columbia Missourian

2006 Targets and Catches
Name	Catches	Targets	Catch%	Target%
Chase Coffman	58	89	65.2%	20.2%
Will Franklin	48	83	57.8%	18.8%
Martin Rucker	53	68	77.9%	15.4%
Jared Perry	37	55	67.3%	12.5%
Brad Ekwerekwu	32	50	64.0%	11.3%
Tommy Saunders	25	34	73.5%	7.7%
Danario Alexander	15	21	71.4%	4.8%
Jason Ray	6	15	40.0%	3.4%
Tony Temple	6	7	85.7%	1.6%
Greg Bracey	3	6	50.0%	1.4%
Marcus Woods	2	5	40.0%	1.1%
Earl Goldsmith	5	5	100.0%	1.1%
Jimmy Jackson	1	2	50.0%	0.5%
Andrew Hoskins	0	1	0.0%	0.2%
TOTAL	291	441	66.0%	100.0%

WRs: 60.1% of targets
TEs: 35.6%
RBs: 4.3%

Before looking at ensuing seasons, it is hard to get a grasp on what these numbers actually mean, but a couple of things should stick out pretty quickly. First, thanks to a midseason bout with the dropsies, Chase Coffman's numbers were only decent, not great. Martin Rucker was a rather automatic target at TE, but Coffman wasn't amazing. Meanwhile, if your #1 WR is only catching 58% of the passes thrown at him, that is going to do a number on your completion percentage.

Anyway, before we try to interpret this too much, let's take a look at how 2007 unfolded.

2007

Image via ESPN.com

2007 Targets and Catches
Name	Catches	Targets	Catch%	Target%
Jeremy Maclin	80	111	72.1%	20.6%
Martin Rucker	84	108	77.8%	20.1%
Will Franklin	49	76	64.5%	14.1%
Chase Coffman	52	65	80.0%	12.1%
Tommy Saunders	41	55	74.5%	10.2%
Danario Alexander	37	48	77.1%	8.9%
Jared Perry	13	20	65.0%	3.7%
Derrick Washington	10	14	71.4%	2.6%
Jason Ray	8	10	80.0%	1.9%
Greg Bracey	3	9	33.3%	1.7%
Tony Temple	7	9	77.8%	1.7%
Earl Goldsmith	4	6	66.7%	1.1%
Jimmy Jackson	6	6	100.0%	1.1%
Blake May	0	1	0.0%	0.2%
TOTAL	394	538	73.2%	100.0%

WRs: 63.9% of targets
TEs: 32.2%
RBs: 3.9%

Despite a deep, experienced cast of receivers (Rucker and Franklin were seniors, Coffman and Saunders were juniors), Jeremy Maclin came out of nowhere to become Chase Daniel's most trusted receiver. His 72% Catch% was much higher than Will Franklin's 58% from the season before. Meanwhile, MotherRucker stayed right around 78% while Chase Coffman improved dramatically, from 65% to 80%. Franklin did improve to 65%, but he was still a far less reliable target than others around him. Of course, he obviously ran deeper routes than guys like Coffman, Rucker or Saunders, so that might have something to do with it. Then again, were his routes any different than those of Maclin? Maclin still outshone him in that regard.

With Maclin and an extra year of experience for Chase Daniel, the overall Catch% rose from 66% to 73% in 2007. This, of course, tells us nothing about how many passes Daniel chose to throw away (which would just go in the play-by-play as "pass incomplete" with no "intended for" information), but it does show that Daniel was completing one more pass for roughly every 14 catchable balls in 2007, and that could make a difference of 2-3 completions per game.

2008

Image via Chris Lee / Post-Dispatch

2008 Targets and Catches
Name	Catches	Targets	Catch%	Target%
Jeremy Maclin	102	135	75.6%	25.5%
Chase Coffman	90	102	88.2%	19.2%
Tommy Saunders	72	92	78.3%	17.4%
Jared Perry	41	60	68.3%	11.3%
Danario Alexander	26	43	60.5%	8.1%
Derrick Washington	29	38	76.3%	7.2%
Andrew Jones	20	24	83.3%	4.5%
Jerrell Jackson	9	13	69.2%	2.5%
Michael Egnew	4	8	50.0%	1.5%
Earl Goldsmith	5	6	83.3%	1.1%
Jimmy Jackson	3	4	75.0%	0.8%
Wes Kemp	1	2	50.0%	0.4%
Jon Gissinger	1	1	100.0%	0.2%
Brandon Gerau	0	1	0.0%	0.2%
Forrest Shock	0	1	0.0%	0.2%
TOTAL	403	530	76.0%	100.0%

WRs: 66.6% of targets
TEs: 25.5%
RBs: 7.9%

In 2008, Missouri lost Martin Rucker and his 78% catch rate but still improved as a team, from 73% to 76%. Danario Alexander aside (this was the year he was recovering from knee injuries and was clearly not as confident/aggressive a receiver), just about everybody showed improvement. Coffman improved to a sickening 88% (that means that eight of every nine balls that were thrown at him and were even remotely catchable, were caught...yeah, he deserved the Mackey Award), Saunders improved to 78%, which is the highest you'll see from a highly-targeted receiver, and even Maclin improved to 76%. Having a ton of reps with the same quarterback helped a ton, I'm sure, as did the fact that said quarterback (Daniel) was as automatic as a computer in his reads, especially over the first half of the season.

So what happens when you lose your quarterback and your top three targets? As shocking as it may sound, your numbers go down!

2009

Image via the one, the only Bill Carter

2009 Targets and Catches
Name	Catches	Targets	Catch%	Target%
Danario Alexander	107	145	73.8%	35.6%
Jared Perry	46	86	53.5%	21.1%
Jerrell Jackson	37	61	60.7%	15.0%
Wes Kemp	23	44	52.3%	10.8%
Derrick Washington	23	33	69.7%	8.1%
Andrew Jones	7	12	58.3%	2.9%
Rolandis Woodland	4	6	66.7%	1.5%
Michael Egnew	3	5	60.0%	1.2%
T.J. Moe	2	5	40.0%	1.2%
De'Vion Moore	3	3	100.0%	0.7%
Brandon Gerau	2	3	66.7%	0.7%
Kendial Lawrence	2	2	100.0%	0.5%
Gilbert Moye	1	2	50.0%	0.5%
TOTAL	260	407	63.9%	100.0%

WRs: 86.0% of targets
TEs: 4.2%
RBs: 9.8%

So here's where I start to get encouraged about Blaine Gabbert's prospects moving forward. With a relatively similar cast of characters in the receiving corps (Alexander was clearly better than any receiver in 2006, but Gabbert was without anyone nearing the reliability of Rucker, so they cancel out) and the propensity for throwing many more deep balls than Daniel, the Catch% for Gabbert's sophomore season was almost identical to Daniel's.

Now, unless one of our redshirting freshmen is suddenly capable of pulling a Jeremy Maclin impersonation (doubtful, to say the very least), Gabbert will head into 2010 without his top two targets, which is obviously something Daniel didn't have to worry about heading into 2007. However, while losing Alexander is a huge concern, losing Perry simply might not be too big a deal. Jackson has done a lovely Perry impersonation in recent weeks, and besides, Perry's 54% catch rate is simply horrendous. We know that Perry had a decent amount of bad luck this season -- how many times did Gabbert throw too high for him in the Oklahoma State game? -- but 54% is too low to blame simply on bad luck. Over four seasons, Perry never topped 70%, and while Jackson's 61% is nothing impressive, it is still better than what Perry managed this season. With another year (at least) of getting used to catching Gabbert's fastballs (and another year of Gabbert learning to keep the ball down as much as possible), I would expect Jackson's catch rate to be closer to the 65-70% range next year.

However, is that good enough? Gabbert can be expected to improve a decent amount next year, but ... who becomes the #1 target? And if it's Jackson, can Mizzou succeed at a high level with a #1 WR target catching only 65-70%, especially when there is suddenly no ultra-reliable tight end option to fall back on in times where a completion absolutely must be made?

Speaking of the tight end position, I guess this is the year in which we officially learned that WRs and TEs are basically exactly the same in this system. Alexander's Target% of 35% this year was 10% higher than Maclin ever managed and came within 10% of matching that of Maclin and Coffman from 2008. Lining up in the tight end slot position quite often, Alexander was actually able to approximately compensate for the loss of both players this year and catch passes at a very high rate for a receiver. Meanwhile, thanks to Alexander being a WR, tight ends accounted for only 4% of targets this year, and that's only if you count Michael Egnew as a tight end. The position disappeared from Mizzou's repertoire, but the passing numbers stayed relatively successful thanks to Alexander. With Alexander gone in 2010, do we see guys like Andrew Jones or Egnew working their way back into Gabbert's sights, or will another big receiver like Wes Kemp move into that role?

I have a lot more questions here than answers, but answers weren't the purpose of this exercise. I wanted to see if target data was viable and interesting, and while I found it both of those things, I'm curious what you think.

Mizzou Links, 10-20-09

Bill C. — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:52:19 -0000

Texas Links!

MUtigers.com: OFFICIAL RELEASE!
If all ticket holders for Saturday’s game come out to see Mizzou and Texas clash, it will mark only the 10th time in MU’s history that a crowd of 71,000+ has come to Memorial Stadium. The last time a crowd of that size saw a game in Columbia wa back in 1983, when 72,348 saw the Tigers take on Nebraska.

Again, capacity for Memorial Stadium prior to the reconfigurations performed in 1995 was over 75,000 on a standing room-only basis. The alltime Memorial Stadium record crowd was 75,298 who saw MU host Penn State in 1980.

Since the capacity was dropped in 1995, the largest crowd to see a Tiger home game was in 2007, when 70,049 saw MU down Nebraska, 41-6. That stands as the “modern-day” Memorial Stadium record crowd, one that Mizzou officials will be gunning for this Saturday.
The Trib: Tigers hobble home to face Texas
The Trib (Dave Matter): Tigers Meet the Press
A hot topic this season has been the disappearance of the tight end in Missouri's passing game, a storyline Joe Walljasper's addressing later this week in the Tribune. But Missouri's actually getting tremendous production from a tight end, sort of: Danario Alexander. When MU goes to a four-receiver set, replacing Jones with Jerrell Jackson or another wideout, Alexander takes over the Y position in MU's lexicon, which is the same position Martin Rucker and Chase Coffman played the last two seasons. Yost said a good chunk of the big plays that Alexander has made this year have come when he's playing the Y.
Dallas Morning News: NO. 3 TEXAS AT MISSOURI 7pm Saturday
Post-Dispatch: Longhorns cast long shadow over Mizzou
Post-Dispatch: Missouri optimistic it can contain Texas' Colt McCoy
PowerMizzou: PMTV: Bouncing Back
Houston Chronicle: Nothing coming easy for McCoy, Texas offense
Burnt Orange Nation: Texas Depth Chart for Missouri
Burnt Orange Nation: Injury Report -- Post OU
ESPN.com: Texas quarterback Colt McCoy says thumb OK to play Missouri

McCoy hurt his throwing hand in the second quarter of the 16-13 win Saturday over Oklahoma (No. 25 AP). He struggled through one of the worst passing games of his career, completing 21 of 40 for 127 yards with one touchdown and one interception.

Team trainers checked out the thumb to make sure there wasn't more significant damage.

"It's sore but it's not going to keep me out," McCoy said. "It's football."

The Greatest Win - FINALIST #1

Bill C. — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:00:18 -0000

The Greatest Win in Mizzou History

In anticipation of Friday's Greatest Win finals (that's right, I flipped the schedule around yet again...ain't I a stinker?), let's take a longer look at Finalist #1, 2007 Mizzou-Kansas. Fitting that it comes during Kansas Week, eh? Let's start with an expanded version of the game description you've been reading for the last month.

After decades of producing bad, to mediocre, to good, to occasionally very good results, Missouri and Kansas had simultaneously thrown together potentially their greatest seasons ever in 2007. Missouri was 10-1 and ranked #3 in the country. Kansas was 11-0 and ranked #2. Both programs were riding sudden and shocking momentum late into November. And did I mention, they were meeting at Arrowhead? And that ESPN's Gameday crew was in attendance? And that #1 LSU had lost the day before, meaning the MU-KU winner would move to #1 a week before the BCS Championship pairing was determined?

All photos here come from the lovely and missed Sarah Becking's epic gallery.

This was the biggest game in history for both schools, and they played like it early. Two untouchable offenses were out of sync, trading three-and-outs at the start. Midway through the first quarter, neither team had managed a first down, but when Jeremy Maclin struck with a long punt return to KU's 32, Mizzou was in prime position. But after a personal foul on William Franklin, Mizzou had to settle for a 39-yard field goal attempt. They faked it, with Tommy Saunders throwing a quick out to Franklin, but he was stopped by Chris Harris and Justin Thornton short of the first down, and the game remained scoreless.

After another KU punt, Mizzou finally got rolling. An 11-play, 78-yard drive, assisted by a 20-yard pass to Danario Alexander and a 13-yarder to Saunders set Mizzou up with first-and-goal. On fourth down from the 1, on the game's first huge play, Chase Daniel found Martin on a quick inside screen for the game's first touchdown. With under a minute left in the first quarter, Mizzou led 7-0.

Kansas started the second quarter with their first good offensive play, a 39-yard pass to Kerry Meier, but going for the jugular on the next play, Todd Reesing underestimated William Moore, who stepped in front of a bomb to the endzone.

Thirteen plays (including some great runs by an on-his-game Tony Temple) and 98 yards later, Daniel had his Heisman moment, scrambling for seemingly minutes before finding Alexander for an 11-yard TD and a 14-0 lead. Things were looking up for Missouri, and that didn't change when two potential KU drives ended in missed field goals. What was supposed to be an offensive shootout was actually a bit of a grind, and Mizzou went to halftime up 14-0, just 30 minutes from their first #1 ranking in 47 years.

In the third quarter, Mizzou won the game. Once again, Kansas drove to start the second half, but on third-and-nine from the Mizzou 16, Castine Bridges made a spinning interception of Todd Reesing and returned the ball 49 yards to KU's 40. Nice rushes from Temple and freshman Derrick Washington, and a 10-yard pass to Franklin, set Mizzou up at KU's 1, and Jimmy Jackson barreled into the endzone. 21-0 Mizzou.

Finally, after spotting Mizzou a cushion, KU started to get untracked. Dezmon Briscoe made an amazing, diving catch of a 34-yard Reesing pass, and Brandon McAnderson scored from one yard out, cutting Mizzou's lead to 21-7, but Mizzou's offense was clicking at this point. Playing a bit of keep-away, Mizzou methodically drove 69 yards (in 14 plays and six minutes), converting three short third-down attempts and scoring on a short dump to Washington. With 1:19 left in the third quarter, Mizzou was up 28-7. They would have to hold onto that lead with all their might.

Whether it was a more conservative defense from Mizzou or just an angry, dialed-in KU offense, the Jayhawks were pretty much unstoppable in desperation mode. They drove 65 yards in three minutes, and on fourth-and-two from the Mizzou 5, Todd Reesing bootlegged into the endzone to cut Mizzou's lead to 14. Mizzou responded with a 10-play drive of their own but settled for a field goal. Jeff Wolfert was thankfully automatic at this point, and Mizzou took a 31-14 lead with 9:55 remaining. Tick, tock.

It took Kansas only 83 seconds to score again. After a nice kickoff return by Marcus Herford, Reesing found Briscoe three times and found Kerry Meier on a gorgeous pass-and-catch to set up a Dexton Fields touchdown reception. 31-21, 8:28 left.

Of all the memorable plays in this game, potentially the single biggest came in the middle of Mizzou's ensuing drive. KU was within 10 points and had momentum on their side. After a holding penalty on Martin Rucker, MU faced a third-and-14 from their own 42 with under seven minutes to go. In both of their finest hours, Daniel found Alexander once again, this time for 16 yards and a huge first down. With new breath, Mizzou got another first down and set up Wolfert for a clutch, 43-yard field goal. Mizzou was trading field goals for touchdowns, but they still led, 34-21, with just 3:31 remaining.

Once again, it took KU just 83 seconds to score. Reesing scrambled for seven yards on fourth-and-three from the Mizzou 33, then found Marcus Henry for a 5-yard touchdown. Two minutes and three seconds remained, and Mizzou's lead was somehow down to six points, 34-28. Every Mizzou fan in the stadium just knew that KU was going to recover the ensuing onside kick, but they did not. Mizzou was unable to get a first down, but they made KU kill another timeout and ran the clock down under 30 seconds before having to punt.

Every Mizzou fan in the stadium just knew that KU was going to block the ensuing punt, but they did not. Not only did Adam Crossett get off a lovely pooch kick to KU's 7, but Aqib Talib was able to return it for only four yards. KU had 17 seconds to go 89 yards. Here's where the Sports God would apply the biggest dagger ever to Mizzou hearts. Somehow KU was going to win this game.

Nope. The Mizzou defensive line blew up KU's offensive line and gang-tackled Todd Reesing in the endzone for the game-clinching safety (Mike Kelly's call: "Safety! Ballgame! Bingo!"). Sod Reesing was born, and Mizzou had just won the biggest game in the history of the rivalry.

This win led to the single most celebratory week most Mizzou fans have experienced. Not only did they move to #1 with the win, but they had also ruined (somewhat) KU's best season ever. Mizzou was one win from the national title game--the closest the Tigers have ever come to a "Final Four." Here's something Michael Atchison wrote on RMN the days after the game.

I am prone to belief in the divine, but not the supernatural. I recognize the existence of coincidence, happenstance, and random events of bad fortune. Never in my life have I believed in curses. Except when it comes to the Missouri Tigers.

There are the lightning bolts of cosmic scorn that even casual fans know: Colorado’s fifth down, Nebraska’s kicked ball, Tyus Edney’s zero-to-heartbreak in 4.8 seconds. There have been other moments, equally powerful but more obscure, like first round NCAA flameouts against Rhode Island and Northern Iowa back when I’d never heard of Rhode Island or Northern Iowa (geography, alas, was not a strong suit). And then there were those times when we were made to pay for our prosperity, like when the undefeated, top-ranked football Tigers lost their shot at the national title by falling to Kansas in the 1960 season’s final game, only to have the game futilely forfeited back later. Or Norm Stewart being blindsided by cancer at age 54 in the midst of a season in which he had one of his best and toughest teams. Or 2002, when an ascending basketball program welcomed Ricky Clemons to town and became a national punch line. Sadly, I could go on. There’s more where that came from.

Despite what rational thought tells you, sometimes you have to believe your eyes. When water falls from the clouds, it’s rain. When calamity pours from the sky, it’s a curse.

After one remarkable week in Kansas City, though, I proclaim Mizzou to be cleansed. The curse is over.

It started on a Sunday night, in a reborn downtown, in a shimmering building, when Norm Stewart took his place in the National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame. As the coach stood at the podium nearly nineteen years after beating cancer – and helping countless others do the same through his charitable efforts – you knew that he was blessed. He was surrounded by family, including Virginia, his wife of fifty-one years, and his son Lindsey, who gave a world-class induction speech, full of the humor and fire he inherited from his dad. Coach Stewart also was joined by the other starters from his high school basketball team, and by members of the Stalcup, Faurot and Devine families who brought him back to Columbia in 1967. And he was surrounded by his players, Tiger titans like John Brown, Willie Smith, Steve Stipanovich, Jon Sundvold and Derrick Chievous, who won eight league championships and eleven conference tournaments (five old holiday affairs, six post-season events) in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. To see this living history mingling in the same room, it was plain that the good times have far outnumbered the bad, and hard to fathom that we might ever have considered ourselves unlucky, let alone cursed.

It continued the next night in the same building, when the Tiger basketball team played eleventh-ranked Michigan State. I had heard laments that years of scandal and mediocrity had crushed fan enthusiasm, as evidenced by only 5,000 turning out to see the Tigers play Central Michigan on a Monday in Columbia. But what I saw in the Sprint Center suggests that the problem may be playing Central Michigan. On a Monday. In Columbia. In Kansas City, against a top-flight opponent, an overwhelmingly pro-Mizzou crowd of more than 18,000 turned out, and those fans were fierce and hungry for success. And though the Tigers’ rally from sixteen points down fell just short, they played with purpose, and the crowd loved them for it. The next night, when those fans returned to see the Tigers drill Maryland – a program with a national title this decade – it was plain that Mike Anderson’s team is immune from the voodoo of Mizzou’s recent past.

Then, on Friday, already surrounded by a family of Tigers in town for Thanksgiving, I drove to the airport to meet my friends Scott (in from Denver) and T.J. (New York). In recent years, with the demands of careers and families, our gatherings had been limited to weddings and funerals. But with our alma mater’s football team set to play its arch-rival in the year’s biggest game, we ran out of excuses not to get together. As we caught up and remembered winter nights at the Hearnes Center and spring Saturdays at Simmons Field, I realized that the Missouri Tigers had blessed me with the chance to share time with these great friends.

And then, of course, came Saturday night. I’ve never seen a stadium so electric, or a Tiger team so self-assured. From my perch on the verge of 40, it’s easy to forget how young these guys are. Chase Daniel and Martin Rucker are barely old enough to remember the past’s great disappointments. They don’t believe in curses, they believe in each other. When Stryker Sulak and Lo Williams fell down like hard rain on Todd Reesing to secure a heart-stopping triumph, I looked to my right at my wife, who has shared the joy and despair of Tiger sports with me for nearly two decades, and I saw relief. I looked left at my father-in-law, who played on that star-crossed 1960 team, and I saw vindication. Then, as I thrust my hands in the air and looked up into the night sky, from which no calamity had fallen, my mind drifted to the elegant toast T.J. made at Scott’s wedding. Traditionally, he said, the guests bless the newly wedded couple. But when a bride and groom like this share their moment, they bless us.

Missouri Tigers, you bless us. The curse is dead.

Mizzou 2009, Part Eight: Wide Receivers and Tight Ends

Bill C. — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 15:00:11 -0000

The Three Burning Questions train keeps a-rolling...

Wide Receivers / Tight Ends

2008 Unit Ranking: #25 in the nation (#5 in the Big 12)

Projected WR Depth Chart
Danario Alexander (6'5, 215, Sr.)
Jared Perry (6'1, 180, Sr.)
Wes Kemp (6'4, 225, So.)
Jerrell Jackson (6'1, 190, So.)
T.J. Moe (6'0, 190, Fr.)?
L'Damian Washington (6'4, 175, Fr.)?
Gahn McGaffie (5'11, 185, RSFr.)
Brandon Gerau (6'0, 175, So.)
Rolandis Woodland (6'3, 200, RSFr.)

Projected TE Depth Chart
Andrew Jones (6'5, 245, So.)
Michael Egnew (6'6, 230, So.)
Jon Gissinger (6'3, 250, Sr.)

So...has a #1 WR emerged? Yes and no. By all accounts, Danario Alexander is looking faster and healthier than he has since August 2007, when, as Gabe Dearmond has pointed out multiple times, he and most press thought he was playing far better than either Will Franklin or Jeremy Maclin. (And as a reminder, a quick look at the box score from the 2007 Illinois game reminds you that the coaches kind of thought so too--Alexander had ten touches, while Maclin and Franklin combined for seven. Then Danario got hurt...for the first of many times.) If he's healthy and confident, he's competition for Dezmon Briscoe in the "pure explosiveness" department.

But, and here's where it may not be smart to pay too close attention to practice reports, Danario's had at least a little trouble catching Blaine Gabbert's passes. Simply reading this in the practice reports doesn't really worry me, but this was, at times, a bit of an issue last year too. He seems to catch the deep and intermediate balls pretty easily, but the shorter, more fired-in passes seem to give him trouble. And we throw a LOT of shorter, more fired-in passes...which, needless to say, Gabbert probably throws with quite a bit of fire. Hands are the single biggest issue with both Alexander and Wes Kemp, so while we should never read too much into practice reports (good or bad), there's at least a bit of a red flag here. It's hard to underestimate how much of a killer dropped passes can be to an offense, much less an offense led by a first-year starting quarterback.

But if Alexander doesn't struggle with the dropsies or get hurt again (one more injury, and he catches Kirk Farmer* for the career record, I think), he could absolutely be a "6-9 catches, 70-120 yards a game" type of player. And it sounds like there are enough other capable guys to benefit if Alexander's good enough to draw extra attention.

* That's my second Kirk Farmer reference in three days. What the hell?

Will a true freshman play? More than one? Really, we can look at this question from two different angles. The other angle would be, "Are the returning backup candidates holding off the new guys?" We'll start with the way the question was originally asked. It appears that two main freshmen are leading candidates for breaking into the rotation, though each has a physical liability. First, there's L'Damian Washington, who has been the most consistent freshman receiver in camp and appears to be a legitimate big-play threat. He's also holding only 180 pounds (with rocks in his pockets) on his 6-foot-4 frame. As has been mentioned many times over the last few days, Jared Perry showed up on campus weighing less than 150 pounds, and he contributed immediately. And for that matter, Brandon Banks of Kansas State STILL doesn't weigh 150 pounds. Washington looks like he might break in half with one good hit, but clearly if he's good enough to make a difference, go ahead and play him.

The other candidate is T.J. Moe, who is smart and explosive...well, he will be explosive if he can ever get back to 100% after a foot injury. He's been making his way back for months now, and I think we all assume he will play if healthy...but at some point, he needs to be 100% in practice to prove what he can do.

On the other side of the equation, how are the other potential backups doing? Will there be a need to play both freshmen? Reviews have been mixed thus far. After a nice spring, Brandon Gerau has apparently been more-or-less invisible in August...which I guess could be good or bad, depending on how you look at it. Rolandis Woodland struggled with his own dropsy issues, but it sounds like he's started to make some plays, which is a lovely sign. Gabe Dearmond has been talking up Woodland's ridiculous speed for a while now, but...well, Greg Bracey was really fast too. He hardly ever saw the field, though, because "ridiculously fast" doesn't naturally equate to "good wide receiver" (it does, however, equate to "badass res hall linebacker").

Beyond Gerau and Woodland, the other candidate to break into the rotation is Gahn McGaffie. He was threatening to lose his redshirt this time last year before injuries held him back, and while he's getting some reps in the return game, he hasn't been mentioned a whole lot in terms of receiving.

What percentage of Rucker-Coffman can Jones-Egnew be? It's easy to watch Andrew Jones and Michael Egnew play and see a poor man's version of Martin Rucker (Jones) and Chase Coffman (Egnew). Jones is the "seven yards on third-and-six" guy, a strong runner who looks for contact. Eggo is long and lean and seems to glide more than search out contact. While Egnew is still working his way back into the rotation after some offseason injuries, Jones seems to have really started to come along. He and Gabbert seem to have a pretty good connection going.

But back to the question at hand: just how much can they approximate the best tight end duo in Mizzou history? It would not be fair to compare them, as sophomores, to what Rucker and Coffman did in 2007, as a senior and a junior. But what about 2005, when Rucker was a sophomore, Coffman a freshman? That year, the two combined for 94 catches (tying for the team lead with 47 each), 1,070 yards, and 5 TDs with Brad Smith at quarterback. Can Jones and Eggo copy that? Why not? In a 12-game schedule, that's 7.8 catches per game, 11 yards per catch. At worst, I would expect 5-6 catches between them at 9-11 yards per catch, which isn't that far off. Between Jones, Jared Perry, Wes Kemp, and Derrick Washington, it appears that Blaine Gabbert has some serious bail-out options, which will be an awesome thing if bigger-play guys like Danario Alexander, L'Damian Washington, Rolandis Woodland, and Egnew can make good a handful of times a game.

Mizzou 2009, Part Two: Putting 2008 to bed

Bill C. — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:00:10 -0000

More photos » by Donna McWilliam - AP

He just doesn't look right without the visor.

Browse more photos »

Part One: Blaine Gabbert and the Four-Year Precedent - Why establishing expectations is so difficult

It struck me as I was hammering out the K-State preview this week that...well, I haven't actually talked about Missouri much this offseason, in BTBS-ese or English. In honor of preseason camp's kickoff, why don't we change that, mmkay?

Consider this Part Two of an ongoing Mizzou 2009 series, following rptgwb's Blaine Gabbert post from Tuesday. Moving forward, we'll take a look at the same types of BTBS projections that we've been making for all the other teams on the 2009 schedule, we'll take an in-depth position-by-position analysis (like you didn't know that was coming), we'll revisit the "Gary Pinkel vs History" series from last December, and...well, we'll do a whole bunch of other things as well. August is going to be a fun month.

So without further adieu, it's time to put 2008 to bed once and for all. The games that were lost are still lost, the players that have gone are still gone, and the 2009 season is less than a month (!!!) away. Over the next couple of days, we'll look back to 2008 to try to understand specifically what might have gone right or wrong and get a read for what it might mean for 2009. Let's get started!

2008

Record: 10-4 (5-3 in conference, Big 12 North Champions)
S&P+: 241.1 (10th in the country, 3rd in the Big 12)
Scoring Margin: 591-381 (+210)
Conference Scoring Margin: 325-213 (+112)
Wins (S&P+ Ranking in parentheses): #21 Nebraska, #25 Illinois, #36 Nevada, #40 Baylor, #44 Northwestern, #79 Kansas State, #81 Buffalo, #82 Colorado, #104 Iowa State, 1-AA SEMO
Losses: #3 Oklahoma, #5 Texas, #14 Oklahoma State, #20 Kansas

So how exactly does Missouri end up 10th in the S&P+ rankings despite four losses and an overall drop-off in play over the last few games of the season? Easy answer: they were just that good in their wins. Despite what amounted to an average performance against OU and below-average performances against Northwestern, Kansas, Baylor, Texas, and Oklahoma State, Mizzou was flat-out untouchable in the other eight games of the season (in close-game circumstances, mind you...so none of those late-game points and yards against Kansas State, Nebraska, Illinois, etc., counted in the totals). There is no late-season bias in the numbers--the whole season is evaluated equally--so clearly the good times outweighed the bad when it came to Mizzou's "+" performance.

And let's be honest. The 2008 season didn't play out as Mizzou fans wanted or expected it to, but...well, stuff happens. Things don't always bounce your way. A year after becoming basically the only team in the country that didn't lose a game it shouldn't lose in 2007 (LSU lost to Arkansas and Kentucky, Ohio State lost to Illinois, Oklahoma lost to Colorado and Tech, etc.), Mizzou lost two such games in 2008, to Kansas and Oklahoma State. But beyond that, there was another reason Mizzou's title run never took shape: OU and Texas were great again. Whereas Mizzou made a move in 2007 when Texas was struggling a bit and OU was going through a couple of brainfarts (lord knows they wouldn't have lost a game if they played every game like they played the Big 12 title game), their title hopes really ended before anybody had noticed--they ended when OU and Texas became OU and Texas again. To win a national title, they had to at least go 1-1 at Texas and in the Big 12 title game. Texas played just about the most perfect game of the season against Mizzou in Austin, and nobody in the country was beating OU the Saturday of the Big 12 title game.

So really, the disappointment comes down to the two losses to OSU and KU. Mizzou was out of sync offensively in both games, and the defense had just enough breakdowns to lose the game, but in the end they were one bounce or break from winning either or both games. Sometimes it just doesn't happen like you want it to.

So before we officially close the door on 2008, let's compare the S&P+ rankings from 2007 and 2008. It's rather surprising.

S&P+ Offensive Rankings, 2007 vs 2008

Close-Game S&P+: 8th in 2007, 11th in 2008
Rushing S&P+: 17th in 2007, 27th in 2008
Passing S&P+: 7th in 2007, 12th in 2008
Standard Downs S&P+: 10th in 2007, 8th in 2008
Passing Downs S&P+: 5th in 2007, 21st in 2008

So the rushing game was a bit worse in 2008 than 2007, not necessarily in the way you would expect. Derrick Washington outproduced Tony Temple (5.9 yards per carry versus 5.6), Jeremy Maclin and Chase Daniel were basically equally effective in both years, and the 2008 backups (Jimmy Jackson, De'Vion Moore) produced more than the 2007 ones (JJ, Marcus Woods, D-Wash). Basically the only thing that changed was the strength of the run defense Mizzou played against. The offenses on the schedule improved, as did the pass defenses, but the run defenses did not.

Even more than the 10-place drop in rushing, there was one major drop in 2008: Passing Downs success. Every time I I've talked about Texas this offseason, I've mentioned their disproportionate Passing Downs success and how it might not be sustainable from one year to another even if the talent of the next year's offense is as good or better. Missouri's 2007 success wasn't as disproportionate as Texas' in 2008, but it was apparently a little too good, and despite the presence of Jeremy Maclin and Chase Coffman, their success ended up falling as the year progressed, especially after avoiding three-and-outs for the first five games of the season. The timing just wasn't quite there in Mizzou's losses, and it cost them.

So the offense regressed ever-so-slightly from 2007 to 2008. The storyline from the offseason was just how infintiely terrible Mizzou's defense was, particularly their pass defense. Is that what the numbers actually tell us?

S&P+ Defensive Rankings, 2007 vs 2008

Close-Game S&P+: 21st in 2007, 20th in 2008
Rushing S&P+: 34th in 2007, 14th in 2008
Passing S&P+: 17th in 2007, 26th in 2008
Standard Downs S&P+: 32nd in 2007, 33rd in 2008
Passing Downs S&P+: 22nd in 2007, 32nd in 2008

I realize this is probably kind of hard to accept, but according to national "+" ranking, the Mizzou defense was actually a smidge better in 2008 than 2007. You read that correctly. The Mizzou defense was actually better in 2008 than 2007. So how the hell does that happen? Haven't we heard all offseason that "Mizzou had the fourth-worst pass defense in the country*?" Two reasons:

* If I hear that line one more time without the disclaimer that a) nobody played a tougher slate of passing offenses, and b) for over half the year, opponents were getting drubbed by Missouri and therefore throwing a ton of passes on Mizzou's second string, I'm going to lose my mind. But we'll return to that...well, right now.

The slate of offenses Missouri played in 2008 was so, so much better than the 2007 slate. According to Passing S&P+, Mizzou played the #1 (Oklahoma), #9 (Texas), #10 (Nebraska), #11 (Oklahoma State), #24 (Illinois), and #25 (Kansas) passing offenses in the country in 2008. Of COURSE they were going to give up a ton of passing yards. Yes, there were some breakdowns, particularly against Illinois and Kansas, but in the end, against the six teams listed above, Mizzou fared alright. They got roasted by Texas and Oklahoma, but so did everybody else, so that doesn't really count against them. They held Oklahoma State well below their per-game averages. They held Nebraska very well below their per-game averages. Kansas was a glitch, and most of Illinois' damage came when Mizzou was up a healthy margin and the game was not considered "close." As soon as Illinois cut the game back to within a close margin, the Mizzou defense stepped up and made plays again. Which brings us to...
Junk time was very, very cruel to Missouri's per-game yardage figures. Missouri blew teams out in eight of 14 games in 2008, meaning their second string was facing the blown-out opponents first- and second-string, and most of the time those opponents were passing the whole time. But in general, Mizzou's defense took a tumble when the close-game margin (game with 28 points in Q1, 24 in Q2, and 16 in Q3/Q4) was broken.

Against Illinois, Mizzou gave up 9.1 yards per play (36 for 327) when the game was not "close" and 5.0 (41 for 205) when it was. Against Kansas State, it was 7.0 per play (39 for 274) when not close, 2.5 (36 for 89) when close. Against Nebraska, Mizzou's second/third stringers gave up 70 yards in 8 plays on the final drive. Against K-State, Mizzou's second/third stringers gave up 150 yards in 7 plays in the final two minutes. Plus, because of Gary Pinkel's obsession with not running up the score (which made the third-quarter fake field goal against Nevada all the more disorienting), Mizzou's second-stringers tend to play very conservatively, handing the other team quite a few fourth-quarter yards (against Buffalo, Nevada, Nebraska, Kansas State, and Iowa State).

Here's the bottom line: for a number of reasons, Mizzou's defense didn't make enough plays in 2008. William Moore may not have been utilized correctly, members of the secondary didn't communicate well at all at the end of the year and gave up too many big plays to KU and Northwestern, etc. But the main thing that hurt Mizzou last year was that their defense stayed about the same, while everybody's offense got better. In 2007, three of Missouri's opponents ranked among the Offensive S&P+ Top 20 (OU #10, OU #10, Kansas #12). In 2008, that number was five (OU #2, Texas #10, OSU #13, Nebraska #18, Kansas #19).

Summary

So that's why the defensive numbers didn't really change from 2007 to 2008. Here were two other factors that doomed Mizzou's dreams of 12 or 13 (or 14) wins:

In 2007, Mizzou recovered 58.7% of all fumbles that occurred. In 2008, they recovered 40.6% of them. That's a rough difference of about seven turnovers that went to Mizzou in 2007 and not in 2008. Think about what kind of difference that can make. In 2007, Pig Brown recovered two Eddie McGee fumbles and returned one 99 yards for a touchdown. In 2008, Chase Daniel ran for 50 yards in the first half against Kansas and was stripped at the end, and KU recovered. And of course, the "Danario Alexander trips and has a pass bounce off his helmet and into the arms of an OSU defender" play doesn't even count as a fumble. Mizzou just didn't get the bounces in 2008.
Passing Downs didn't go in Mizzou's favor. While the offense still did enough to rank 12th overall in Offensive S&P+ (a very good number no matter how you cut it), they improved slightly on Standard Downs and regressed rather significantly on Passing Downs (from 5th to 21st). On defense, they made enough plays to rank just about the same in Defensive S&P+, but unlike 2007 the plays they didn't make came in big Passing Downs situations (they fell from 22nd to 32nd in that regard). Passing Downs are volatile--the rankings for Passing Downs appear to change more from year to year than Standard Downs success.

For whatever reason--potentially the lack of Martin Rucker on offense, or the misuse of a blitzing William Moore on defense--those pivotal plays didn't work to Mizzou's favor in 2008, and it made certain games (two in particular) close enough that they could be doomed by bad bounces.

What does all this mean for 2009? Well, let's be honest--not much. While Missouri still has the second-most proven offensive talent in the North, the second-best defensive tackle in the North, the best linebacker in the conference, and the Carl Gettis Treatment™ (yes, I'm going to blindly pretend that all of the late-season breakdowns were Justin Garrett's fault--sue me), the onslaught of youth means that last year's performance really won't have a lot of bearing on this year's, good or bad. But if Missouri wanted to recover 60% of all fumbles again in 2009, I wouldn't complain.

Mizzou Links, 7-16-09

Bill C. — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:47:33 -0000

Once again we start with Mizzou links...

The time is now for Martin Rucker in Cleveland.

Rucker’s prime competition for the starting tight-end job with the Browns seems to be free agent Robert Royal. And while Royal might teach Rucker a thing or two about blocking in the fashion of a traditional tight end, Royal’s legacy with the Buffalo Bills was that he had hands of stone.

When he wasn’t dropping passes he should have caught, he was fumbling passes he had caught.

Also in the mix should be veteran backup Steve Heiden. So much was Cleveland’s dependence on Winslow that some may not recall Heiden was even on the team.

He, like Royal, is more of a retread than a new tire — a comparison that didn’t come from Rucker, by the way.

"I hope it’s my time," Rucker said.

PowerMizzou checks in on a couple of recruits. 3-star TX DB Damion Payne lists Mizzou in his top five, while TX ATH Tevin Thompson (wasn't he a great child/teenage R&B singer?) picks up a Mizzou offer, his first.

In case you missed it from our Twitter feed, MU Volleyball is now on Twitter!

As part of an ongoing series, PowerMizzou re-ranks the State of MO recruits of 2005. Damn right, Chase Coffman is #1...

Head over to SimmonsField.com for a massive look at Mizzou products in the majors and minors.

A little Mizzou golf news, as Jace Long of the Mizzou Men's Golf Team is through the first round of match play at the US Amatuer Public Links Championship, which is being contested down in Norman. Long came through the two rounds of stroke play as the #3 seeded golfer, and defeated his opponent 2 up yesterday. He will tee off this morning around 8:45, and the action can be followed here.

The Missourian has a neat story about a Mizzou wheelchair basketball player who recently played for a world championship.

And now for the non-Mizzou links...

Dave Matter unveils his look at the SEC. I'm sorry...I hope that Ole Miss wins the West because I like Ole Miss, but I don't see it happening. I don't think their overall talent level is much higher than it was last year, and I think 10-3 is just about their ceiling. Yes, they lost four games by a touchdown or less--they also won two. They were 2-4, meaning they were just a game away from .500 in those circumstances. Anyway, I think LSU will bounce back pretty strongly, and I think both they and Alabama have more talent than the Rebels. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.
You knew it was just a matter of time: the Tim Teblog. Live it, love it.
Finally, how awesome is this? "There is no such thing as a secondary receiver. Everybody starts out as a primary receiver. I might have five guys out there in the pattern. How can I be sure which of those five guys I'm going to throw to when the defense has maybe twelve different coverages it can run? The way the defense revolves is what dictats who my receiver is going to be."

RMN Wall of Excellence: Now open for voting!

RPT — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 14:00:09 -0000

With the nomination period now officially concluded, it's time to take the next step in crowning the members of the inaugural induction class to the Rock M Nation Wall of Excellence.

Voting is now open to all Rock M Nation readers by means of replying in the comments section of this thread. Members are asked to rank their Top 3 in each tier, with a first place vote garnering five points, a second place vote earning three points, and a third place vote earning one point. In Tier V, a single vote will suffice.

Three members from Tier I, and one member from each remaining tier (including the newly added "Administrator/Coaches Tier") will be honored during induction week, to be held the first week of February. Voting ends Friday, Jan. 30.

Happy voting, and spread the word!

Tier I (2004-2008)

- Brad Smith

- Brian Smith

- Chase Daniel

- Chase Coffman

- Jeremy Maclin

- Martin Rucker

- Tony Temple

- William Moore

(Ballots for Tiers II-V after the jump)

Tier II (1994-2003)

- Brock Olivo

- Corby Jones

- Demontie Cross

- Devin West

- Justin Gage

- Justin Smith

- Zack Abron

Tier III (1974-1993)

- Eric Wright

- James Wilder

- Jeff Handy

- John Clay

- Kellen Winslow

- Phil Bradley

Tier IV (1973 and older)

- Bob Steuber

- Bus Entsminger

- Danny LaRose

- Darold Jenkins

- Harry Ice

- Johnny Roland

- Mel Gray

- Roger Wehrli

- Paul Christman

Tier V (Administrators/Coaches)

- Dan Devine

- Don Faurot

Can't vote because you aren't a Rock M Nation member? Take no more than 45 seconds to sign up for a free account and enjoy easy membership across the entire SB Nation network.

SB Nation - Martin Rucker

Targets and Catches (Part Two, a.k.a. Will Franklin's Redemption)

2006

2007

2008

2009

Targets and Catches (Part One)

2006

2007

2008

2009

Mizzou Links, 10-20-09

The Greatest Win - FINALIST #1

The Greatest Win in Mizzou History

Mizzou 2009, Part Eight: Wide Receivers and Tight Ends

Wide Receivers / Tight Ends

2009 Mizzou Football Preview Series

Mizzou 2009, Part Two: Putting 2008 to bed

2008

S&P+ Offensive Rankings, 2007 vs 2008

S&P+ Defensive Rankings, 2007 vs 2008

Summary

Mizzou Links, 7-16-09

RMN Wall of Excellence: Now open for voting!