Let's speculate where Odom miscalculated his tenure (long)
Posted on: December 2, 2019 at 21:40:18 CT
North co-co champs MU
Posts:
13749
Member For:
15.66 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
In some ways, Odom was done a disservice by Mack Rhodes. Rhodes left almost immediately for Baylor and Odom was working for a new AD before he had coached even 1 game.
Who knows what Rhodes told him he expected, vs Sterk who said he expected a Top 25 football program as the backbone of Mizzou Athletics.
I have zero inside info, so this is just fanatical speculating, but it always appeared to me that Odom way-way-way overplayed his hand in thinking that he was taking on a rebuild job and that he had "time" to build his program his way.
When I say "time" I mean the same 5 to 6 years you would give a coach who was taking over a bottom feeding 1-11 program.
Odom made many changes to the coaching staff and administration immediately. I get wanting your own program... but the group in place were winners, and ran like a well-oiled machine and did so on Mizzou's budget making them double-valuable.
Perhaps just keep everyone and make incremental changes organically. Eventually it will be your own program. But riding a good thing is never a bad idea. Especially since it could get him off to a fast start.
Instead, Odom stripped the old dominating 4-3 defense apart and implemented an entirely new 3-4 system, even though they didn't necessarily have the personnel recruited for it.
He was left with a great core foundation. The old staff left him the NFL QB with 3 years eligibility, the most important thing you can have.
He was left the most explosive and productive receiver that Odom ever had, Emmanual Hall.
He was left with a kick returner that could return TDs - Richaud Floyd.
He was left with an NFL DTackle in 5-star Terry Beckner Jr.
He was left with a dominant pass rusher on the edge in Marcell Frazier.
Terez Hall at linebacker.
Jonthan Johnson and Ronell Perkins.
Cory Fatony - the best punter in the nation.
He was handed future productive players and stars at QB, Receiver, DL, LB, DB and Special Teams.
Instead of going 6-6 or 7-5 his first year, which he most certainly should have... he went a needless 4-8. Losing to Middle Tennessee State for God's sake.
Instead of improving on the 2015 record... a more experienced unit came back in 2016 and lost more games under Odom.
The 2017 team lost games to Purdue, Kentucky and Texas that prevented us from being a 9 or 10 win team. Started 1-5 nearly totally killing off the entire fanbase and recruiting. He might have been fired that year until the 2nd half come back.
2018, lost three more inexcusable games to South Carolina, Kentucky and Oklahoma State. A team that could have been 10-3 or 11-2 for sure.
This year, the defense he tore apart after 2015 finally had some bite.
But he lost Pinkel's guys in Lock and Hall and Odom didn't recruit or develop any QBs so the offense was pathetic and we lost 4 games we should have never, ever lost.
A special season that should have had Mizzou competing for the SEC Championship (surely at least a 9 win season) ended with more disappointment than almost any season that's come before it.
Odom lost - at minimum - 2 to 3 games, sometimes 4, that he shouldn't have. Every single season.
His regular season record (conservatively) should have looked like this:
6-6
7-5
9-3 Top 25
9-3 Top 25
------
31-17 overall
And it could have been better than that.
Instead he was just a mess, of ups and downs and 1 step forward, 2 steps back.
We started a horrific 2-8 in 2016. Then 1-5 in 2017. Then won 6 in a row by an average of 45-16. Talk about Jeckyll and Hyde. Can you explain a weirder team than 2017?
Lost 4 in a row again in 2018 (a pattern for sure) but rebounded again.
Started strong in 19 then lost 5 in a row.
Who the hell were we?
Were we good or bad?
Were we a program on the verge of breaking out or a program on the verge of total collapse?
Well, the answer may not be easy. But the decision of what to do was.
Without even deep diving we know that almost all 25 of Odom's wins came against SEC bottom feeders, DII teams, and mediocre G5 teams.
After 4 years there was absolutely no discernible way to measure success with certainty.
In fact, it took some ridiculous pretzel twisting logic and manipulation to compare him favorably to anyone. (lumping him in with the previous coaches that took over graveyards while he took over a decade+ long winner).
With Larry Smith, the progress was obvious in year 4. We were in a bowl in year 4 after not being in one for 13 years. We had a star QB and some star players and a little bit of national relevancy for the first time.
Under Pinkel, the progress was obvious. We had our best season in 2003 than we had had since Warren Powers. Brad Smith was a true college football star, shattering records and the most important player to come to Mizzou, maybe ever. Even with the 2004 disappointment, we were still playing better football, we were more competitive in every game, we were disciplined and we were recruiting better than we had at any point in the past quarter century.
With Odom... we were not playing better football in year 4. We were a mess. Our "star players" were regressing (i.e. Albert O and Roundtree). And he didn't have any QB that could come close to properly replacing Drew Lock. And he didn't have any receiver that could properly replace Emmanuel Hall. Meaning... the further we got away from the old staff, the uglier the future was starting to look.
I perceive through Odom's actions and statements that he assumed this was a rebuild in which he had a long time to get them to be a consistent winner.
It wasn't. The foundation was already in place - which was that Pinkel had us a near annual top 25 program and constant division title contender.
If you are Jim Sterk, and you are going to be judged in a year or two on where the football program is... the decision was easy.
There was absolutely no way you could leave your future to chance, in the hands of Barry Odom who had provided no discernible improvement in the program, nor proof that it was in good future shape. There was just as much evidence that it was getting worse, as there was that it was getting better.