• Facebook StumbleUpon
• Email

1. Phenomenal Smith said:

   October 28th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

   Baby Joe can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the ’93 Southwest Missouri State Bears ran a wishbone the first three games of the season and then switched to a run and shoot. Maybe it was ’92.

2. 3 MNC in a row said:

   October 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

   Testing 1,2,3… testing 1,2,3.

3. 3 MNC in a row said:

   October 28th, 2009 at 7:02 pm

   Sorry about that guys, just making sure if my post would post. Yep, got banned from the Bark again, banned to the point of having nothing post for even a millisecond, after I wrote another brilliant post on the Tebow=VY article. It was a nice satire. If you look, I even got complimented about it during what short interval it was up before it was deleted. Scip must really be mad at me (Dude, I can’t help what you are. Don’t blame me for it. You are just lucky I am too nice of a guy to refrain from going on and on about it in public.). I just don’t get what his problemo is with 3MNC. Just check out some of the radical ass responses on that thread and tell me again that they banned me cause I’m too controversial for that site. There are people saying more crap on that thread than I would ever dare say in public. Do they care? Nope. And hell, I probably inspired half of those posts with my prior “Tebow” white/all black OL post a few days ago and they still don’t mind. They only care when it is 3MNC. It’s obviously not the content of the posts, but the poster they have a problem with.

   My, My how did it get so personal? Yes, I am aware that I am the one poster none of those boys can handle or touch, on any subject matter outside of anatomy (some of them have tried, including Scip once or twice in the beginning – I remember those moments as I am sure that he does as well, ha, ha, ha – and they all got a serious case of the public bitch slap, so they all got too frightened to test me anymore), but is that state of affairs any reason to resent and hate someone to such a degree? Yes, those boys don’t exactly feel comfortable walking around with their 24/7 hard ons when I’m around, but why blame me for that. I can’t help it if I am invincible. Shit man, I was just born that way. No need to fear me. I was not born a bully and I, unlike some people I know but won’t care to mention, do not go around actively looking for every opportunity to bully my weaker siblings on this planet.

   “Or, we could consider that this offense, with the hobbled 19 year old QB, put up over 300 yards of total offense, on the road, against a top 15 opponent, in the first half.”

   OSU is not really a top 15 team in reality and neither is UT a top 3 D. If you are going to use those rationales for remaining optimistic about your O, then so be it, but I think you are setting yourself up for a let down. Right now, the Mizzou O could play against air (which would not be real different from playing against that sorry ass OSU D) and it would still struggle. The problem is not so much what the other team is doing, as it is with what the Mizzou O can’t do, even with little resistance. It is frustratingly inconsistent which leads to unnecessary stalled and killed drives.

   I don’t know if putting Gabbert under center and going to a traditional set would help – if he has trouble accurately throwing off of that bum ankle when standing still, how is he going to look when he has to stop on a dime after dropping back – but something has to change with the Mizzou, even if it is only a change in emphasis. I really don’t know how accurate and consistent Gabbert is, since I have only seen him injured (Suh may have just tanked your entire season), but I know he is not really accurate, confident, or consistent in his throws with that bum ankle. Your WR’s can’t really get wide open, or maybe its Gabbert who is late with his reads (who knows?), but Gabbert consistently is in a situation where he has to rifle a throw through a tight window just to complete a regular, ordinary pass in your O system right now. And he really has trouble with that due to his bum ankle, which explains all the high ass throws. That’s why I said before that your coaching staff was asking too much of him.

   GC’s offered remedy seems to be best and most realistic way to salvage what is a bad situation. Mizzou needs to run the ball more, leading to play action or at least LB’s who honor the threat of a run to (1) take advantage of the strength of your team, your OL (I still say that this is the strength of your team, despite everyone saying it has been a liability. Their performance in the Texas game has not cause me to change my opinion.) and (2) to offer Gabbert the chance for easy throws which do not require a rocket through a tight window. RIght now, with that bum ankle, he just cannot make those throws consistently and if he is continually asked to do so, as he has been in the past few games, then your O will continue to tank and sputter no matter who the hell you guys are playing.

   Mizzou needs to balance itself on O somewhat if it wants to salvage what is left of the season. I think Mizzou has the OL and the RB’s to do this, especially considering the crap competition it is going to be facing in the B12 North. As gimpy as Gabbert is, it seems that Mizzou is going to need him, gimpy or not. Your backup QB looks and plays like the second coming of that runt, Cody Hawkins, (not a exactly a compliment). Even a gimpy, sitting duck Gabbert gives Mizzou a better chance to win than your Hawkins clone of backup QB.

   And your friend, while he is extremely well spoken (moreso than 3MNC I am willing to admit), is simply wrong. You should be able to see through this, GC, given your always present logical acumen. He says: “you guys have found an offense that works”, while you right before said: “If we want to fault Pinkel for something, it should be for not being able to stock the WR position with studs in this scheme, not for the scheme itself”. Anyone else see the contradiction in this? How does the O work exactly without the admittedly required skill players? How long has Pinkel been up there at Mizzou? Hasn’t that been more than enough time to stock said position with more than just one player? And if he has unable to consistently stock the position for the past 6 or 7 years, what makes anyone confident that he can do so now?

   Also, while your overall scheme might have an identity as a theoretical, large picture matter, your O this year in the factual, real world simply does not have one, unless inaccurate passes, non-open WR’s, questionable playcalling and unforced offensive stalling and shooting itself in the foot is consider to be an identity. That’s exactly the problem with the Mizzou O this year. It has no freaking identity at all. It can’t make up its mind what it wants to be or do (or it is simply unable to do so even when it has made its mind up). What is Mizzou’s go to play, its bread and butter play, which its goes to when crunch time hits and the game is on the line? What is Mizzou’s bread and butter play which serves as the foundation upon which all the rest of its offensive plays are built. Frankly, I can’t see it. Is it running the ball? Nope, Mizzou can’t make up its mind on whether it wants to do this with regularity. Is it passing the ball? Downfield? Or the short intermediate stuff? Is it a screen game? None of these seem to apply. The only description which would come close to being accurate as such an identity would be as a high, inaccurate passing team. That is not exactly what you want your O to be built upon, but, right now after the last few games, you’d have to say that this description comes as close to any as defining what your O identity truly has been thus far this season.

4. AZHorn said:

   October 29th, 2009 at 12:26 am

   I’m guessing you got banned because no one wants to scroll through a mile of incoherent rambling by some homer with a 5th grade education (the equivalent of an SEC degree).

5. AZHorn said:

   October 29th, 2009 at 3:19 am

   I’m guessing you got banned because no one wants to scroll through a mile of incoherent rambling by some homer with a 5th grade education (the equivalent of an SEC degree).
   OH! You’re my new favorite blogger fyi

6. Hiphopopotamus said:

   October 29th, 2009 at 6:13 am

   Personally, I think DeArmond is onto something. Your team is made to play from the I-formation. Let it be so.

7. Gene Claude said:

   October 29th, 2009 at 6:58 am

   I question your motives, hiphop….

8. FarmerTed said:

   October 29th, 2009 at 9:57 am

   3MNC,

   I agree with GC’s well spoken and handsome friend, and I’m having trouble seeing the “contradition” you flagged. While it’s admittedly careless and masturbatory to declare an offensive system to be sound and effective if only the right personnel can be found to run it, as a non-MU fan my sense is that there is enough of a history that we can in fact say that the MU offense works. Aspects of it seem to be predicated not on finding favorable mano-a-mano matchups but on finding ways to give skill players open spaces to run. It’s not a permanent solution — every scheme has a shelf life — but I doubt anyone can show that something changed between 2008 and 2009 to render it obsolete. More likely is that there are temporary mitigating factors (transition/learning curve? ankle problems?) that are limiting its effectiveness in spots in 2009.

   And I do think that the sign of a very good college scheme is the underperformance of its “stars” in the NFL against expectations. It’s not at all a perfect test, but it can provide interesting evidence that by and large it’s the system and not the players that make it work. Chase Daniel is a really good example (although he’s admittedly physically more suited to the college game, like Harrell at TT). And at the risk of hurting MU feelings, Chase Coffman may become the next “good” example. I’m sure there are others. Maclin is not one, but we knew that.

   The point is that MU has a “thing” that they are now known for and can recruit to. To toss that out would be to erase a competitive and recruiting advantage that took years to generate. Right now, MU has an answer when four star skill position recruits ask “Why should I go to Missouri?” If MU switches to something that a high school kid and his parents and his street agent perceive to be pretty much what everybody else is running, the answer to that question will become much less persuasive.

9. 3 MNC in a row said:

   October 29th, 2009 at 11:42 am

   “I’m guessing you got banned because no one wants to scroll through a mile of incoherent rambling by some homer with a 5th grade education (the equivalent of an SEC degree).”

   I maybe a homer with a 5th grade education, but at least I still know that UT is miles and miles away from beating a FU or a Bama this year. Wait for the MNC game and get back to me with all this smelly hot air, you know, what is otherwise known as farts and flatulence. Even on an off day, FU and Bama would drill a UT. UT is not that good this year and while I think UT will continue to improve as the season goes along, I doubt if that improvement will be near enough. And if a University degree is required to be foolish enough to believe UT has a chance against either of those powerhouses, then I’m glad that life circumstances have allowed me to pass on such a degree and the “duh” dunce cap which seems to inevitably go along with it.

   “The point is that MU has a “thing” that they are now known for and can recruit to.”

   If this year is any indication, this “thing” sure hasn’t helped much. The Mizzou O maybe about “finding ways to give skill players open spaces to run”, but that’s the problem. It’s skill players right now do not seem able to beat the opposing players to the degree needed to be successful even when they do have the open space to run.

   “Right now, MU has an answer when four star skill position recruits ask “Why should I go to Missouri?”

   Does having four stars automatically win games? Whether they are four stars or not before they get to Mizzou, from what I am seeing this year, they sure don’t look like four stars afterwards on the football field and that is what counts, I think. If Mizzou finishes in the bottom half of the B12 North, then what does that say, in actuality, about all that “competitive and recruiting advantage that took years to generate”? Possibly that such an advantage never did really exist. That it was more perception than reality. Could this be it?

   Mizzou’s O scheme is fine assuming that it has the players to run it (what scheme isn’t?). And while I agree that this year’s tank can be attributted to various mitigating factors, this does not negate the readily apparent lack in the skill player department. What that suggests is that even supposing everything else was humming along as perfectly as it could with no mitigating factors, Mizzou, while it would be better, would still not be where most Mizzou fans desire and hope it to be. It still would get regularly splattered, in a non-competitive manner, by the UT’s and the OU’s of the world.

   In truth, if Mizzou really wants to take the next step as a program, it needs to change its scheme. An O scheme based on a mobile QB is always more efficient, makes the most of the talent on hand, than any other scheme possible. A pro scheme is the most inefficient. That’s why only the USC’s of the world run it and even they do it with only moderate success given all the talent on hand. The spread I suppose would be somewhere in the middle. One based on a mobile QB is the most efficient in the use of on hand talent and this by a far, far margin over the others.

   That’s why Urban (remember the stacked deck guy with his all blk OL) runs this scheme. Smart guy. And that why Snyder of KSU has always favored such an O. Another smart guy. He knows he could never pull in the talent required to run any other O scheme and still achieve a high level of success. A scheme based on a mobile QB allows a team with some difficultly in the recruiting department to do without as many skill players. It is the great equalizer in unequitable landscape of college football.

   Such a team can pinpoint its recruiting to get that one player who will truly be a difference maker (he is all that they will really need) and, additionally, it allows more recruiting emphasis to be placed on the defensive side of the ball (put the athletes on the D side of the ball instead, since they are no longer as needed on the O end), since the coaches are spending less time and effort chasing and begging all those prima donna skill players all around the country. Such a scheme allows a more efficient allotment of sheer athletic talent on a team, particular on the defensive side.

   The ultimate reason why NU fell from dominance was because it was somehow foolish enough to change its scheme which was so rewarding to them for so long. Not surprisingly, soon after, their D tanked as well. NU may improve as a program in the future (I fully expect it) but it will never again return its dominance of old until it returns to its old scheme, the one which brung it to the dance as the saying goes. In the days of the old NU O, mobile QB’s with passing abilities were fairly rare, but now with the improved coaching at the high school level, those double threat players are much easier to find. Imagine an NU O with a legitimate passing threat – it is not too unrealistic given the talent coming out of the high school level these days – and you have the O NU would be looking at right now if it had not been idiotic enough to go along with the modern trend and change its O into something which cannot really thrive up there in Lincoln (they will never be able to recruit enough athletes to make that thing work as they desire it to). That double threat O would be literally unstoppable, especially today, given all the soft, undersized, spread O D’s that have sprung up in the B12. It maybe a big step, but if Mizzou really wants to takes its program to the next level, and not just win recruiting wars or meaningless “I have more four stars than you” contests, then it should switch to an O that is founded upon a mobile QB. To be honest, given all the inherent recruiting difficulties all the Northern B12 schools have, that is the only scheme of O which would allow any of those programs to become an actual, legit power program. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a program which would actually send fear down the spines of the Longhorn faithful in the same manner as the prospects of facing a program like FU or Bama does today? To be frank, Mizzou, changing your O scheme would be the only way. One does not need to be a genius to realize this, or at least that should not be the case. It is as obvious as daylight and my 10″ weiner.

10. 3 MNC in a row said:

    October 29th, 2009 at 11:54 am

    Oh, and Farmer Ted, with all due respects, just because you are having trouble seeing the contradiction, does not mean that it is not there. Your eyes might be issue rather than the validity of the contradiction. If all Mizzou fans desire is an occasional upset win over a so so Arkie team in a Tier II bowl, like once every five years or so, even during their best years, then you might be right. There might not be one. But if Mizzou fans desire more, as I think that they do, then the contradiction is there and it is clear and apparent. Mizzou has not come close to recruiting the talent required to become a better team than the one described, and that’s assuming they can even manage to attain such mediocre heights as that given the current direction the program seems to be on.

11. FarmerTed said:

    October 29th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    3 MNC,

    I disagree.

    FarmerTed

12. AZHorn said:

    October 29th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    “Wait for the MNC game and get back to me with all this smelly hot air, you know, what is otherwise known as farts and flatulence.”

    Interesting choice of words considering I pointed out your incessant diarrhea of the mouth. I look forward to Texas playing UF or Bama. Especially UF. Our D will be the Romans in the nationally televised performance of the The Passion of the Tebow. I have great respect for both teams defenses, except that they only play SEC offenses for most of their seasons. I also have great respect for people that can say what needs to be said in as few words as possible. Unfortunately for myself and anyone else who reads these blogs, you are not one of those people. You might gain just a sliver of respect if you disappeared until after the MNC game, a vasectomy would be an encouraging move as well.

13. 3 MNC in a row said:

    October 29th, 2009 at 7:49 pm

    “You might gain just a sliver of respect if you disappeared until after the MNC game, a vasectomy would be an encouraging move as well.”

    Bud, put your money where your mouth is, and when I turn out to be right as usual, why don’t have the decency and the integrity to follow your own above advice. Are you man enough for the bet? Do you have the balls and the integrity to follow up on it? As far as I am concerned, my posts maybe long but I am actually saying something in them or at least I am attempting to do so. Maybe I am right or maybe I am wrong (I already admitted that my understanding of football is limited and not perfect), but I feel as if I have contributed something to these boards. More than I believe you can say for yourself.

    And dude, if I had not been unfairly oppressed for so long for the silly personal reasons I stated above, I would have already have become an internet legend. You just have no freaking idea. I am aware that the unjustified repression and censoring goes over and beyond the mere personal vendetta against me (to put it simply, in this world some people are born to be harrassed and harrassed some more whereever they might go til the day that they die, and, unfortunately, it seems that I am included in that group for one reason or another), but that sissy ass personal stuff plays a larger role than it really should. To me it is sort of sad but then, hey, that’s reality. That’s the nature of people in this world. It would be unrealistic to expect anything better or more.

    By the way, Tebow may not be much, maybe not more than media hype, but, believe me, against that Texas D, with his OL in front of him, he is going to truly look and play like a Superman if UT is ever unfortunate enough to run into that buzzsaw. And if you think that Texas could have any success against that FU D, you need to get your Horns out your AZZ and get a good, deep whiff of reality to clear your convoluted senses. If last year’s record setting OU O could not do crap against that FU D (the same one this year cause they returned everyone), then how on earth do you think Texas will have any more success. The Texas O this year is no where near where OU’s was last year. Also, the Texas D-line is not close to being as stout as OU’s was last year either. Against UT’s softer front, FU will have an easier time merely pounding the ball down your throats. Plus you have the same liability on the O-line as OU did last year. Ulatoski is just another Loadholt. He is like a white Loadholt and the FU ends will eat him up alive, just as they did with Loadholt last year. Quit kidding yourself.

14. AZHorn said:

    October 30th, 2009 at 10:38 am

    “my posts maybe long but I am actually saying something in them or at least I am attempting to do so.”

    You keep missing the point yet make it yourself. Your attempts to say “something” are moronically long and incoherent, and in general only say that you are an SEC homer without the balls to even pick a team to support. I would acknowledge a shred of credibility in you claims of repression if you ever had anything remotely valid or even vaguely intelligent to say. Your sole purpose is to be the poster child for homerism.

    If Texas loses to Florida I’ll be the first to acknowledge anyone who called it different, it still won’t change my mind about you being a long-winded, SEC homer dumbass. I hope we get the chance to prove you wrong, we have a few games left to win before that happens.

    As for the rest of your point, the part where you “attempted” to say something I only have a couple comments. First, if Florida’s O-line is so devastating why are they ranked 76th and 79th in redzone offense and sacks allowed? Second, pointing to UF dominating Loadholt isn’t that impressive, Texas dominated him in RRS last year too. I would argue that our D is the equal of anyone’s this year and against the Gators weak offense I like our chances even more.

    Florida’s D is good, no argument there; but I don’t think Florida can put many offensive points on the board against us so their D better have their game of the season. I mean hell, all we have to do is let them drive inside the 20 and we’re guaranteed no more than a field goal against us. And while Florida’s offense seems to be getting progressively more stagnant; Texas seems to finally be finding their identity (read: Muschamp punched Greg Davis in the sack) with half the season left to fine tune it.

    Florida is a good team, so is Bama. Neither is dominant this year. Texas is a better team than it it has played this season. I’m not a homer of your caliber so I won’t begin to say the Horns will dominate either of them, but I like our chances.

15. Cortaflex For Horses said:

    November 12th, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    I’ve really enjoyed reading your articles. You obviously know what you are talking about! Your site is so easy to navigate too, I’ve bookmarked it in my favourites

Leave a Reply