FanPost

Two Post-Game Thoughts: Mizzou's Moral Victory? Try Morality Play

John Rieger-USA TODAY Sports

I believe in so-called "moral victories." That is to say, I believe that teams must usually play well consistently before they can win consistently. But, in a given game, playing well may not lead to a win while a loss may be even more diagnostic of long-term success. Playing well but losing may, for example, reveal a higher than expected ceiling or point to other qualities that are strongly correlated with winning.

There is indeed much to savor about stretches of Mizzou's play against Georgia. However, I would not put the game into the "moral victory" column. In fact, I'd argue that despite some good (even great) plays Mizzou did not "play well" on offense. Rather than a moral victory, the game more closely resembled a morality play. Where I believe in moral victories, I typically hate when people want to turn every random thing into some Calvinist object lesson. (I'm looking right at you, Brent Musburger.) But, here we are.

I'm not upset by the loss. At the same time, I think it is a key early moment for the Odom regime that can set the program's trajectory. Our protagonist (the team), fresh off a painful defeat, brought about in no small part by his own hubris, is at a proverbial fork in the road. He must learn a crucial object lesson that will aid him in conquering his inner demons, or face tragic defeat/death.

If this loss is going to be something the team builds on instead of just some stuff that happened (and keeps happening) it's got to both internalize and enact two related object lessons.

  1. Object lesson: You can't score without the ball. A QB's first responsibility is to shepherd the offense, not thread the needle. The interception Lock threw in the general direction of Chris Black I'm willing to chalk up to a miscommunication. The other two picks could get you benched in junior varsity high school football, so I'm not buying youth and inexperience. (Eason wasn't efficient and he missed some big throws, but overall he didn't force the ball into dangerous areas.) Look, Drew Lock's ceiling is as high as any QB in the school's history. I don't think that's hyperbole. (Lock has Jay Cutler's easy velocity.) But, those two (non-Chris Black) second half INTs appeared to be classic "eff you" throws, where he chose to ignore his obligation to value the ball. (Cutler's really never grown out of that phase. So you can't just say, "it gets better with experience.") My respect for coach Heupel grew by leaps and bounds when he basically took the offense out of Lock's hands coming down the stretch despite the fact that we had guys running wide open against Georgia's secondary all night. The QB must earn the right to shepherd the offense. Once earned, he must respect the obligation that go with that, or the offense will be bad.
  2. Object lesson: Players must be ball strong (because you can't score without the ball). Did I mention, ball security is paramount? As talented as the skill position players are, they are also disturbingly cavalier with the ball. Some of that gets better with off-seasons in the gym getting stronger forearms. That said, stronger forearms only matter if the player has the proper focus. Too often, in just three games, I have seen insufficient focus on catching the ball (receiving the handoff) and securing it properly.

This is one of those moments where a new staff must establish these lessons as having central importance. I'm not talking about yelling and screaming or necessarily benching who made mistakes. I'm talking about imparting an understanding that talent alone will allow you to make plays, but winning is about playing well not just making plays. Talent combined with a focused understanding of game situations and ball security is what allows you to play well consistently. That's the moral of the story.

FanPosts may be posted by any RMN member and may not reflect the views of the management staff of Rock M Nation or SB Nation.