SB Nation - Wes Kemp

Mizzou Links, 12-18-09

Bill C. — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:53:23 -0000

Mizzou Football Links

The Trib: Navy present unique battle
PressBoxOnline: Unflinching Midshipmen Face One More Obstacle
The Annapolis Capital: Navy circles wagons for big Texas test
(If nothing else, read this article for it's hilarious description of Danario Alexander as a 6'4, 230-pound sophomore...clearly mistaking Alexander for Wes Kemp.)
Sporting News (STATS): Navy-Missouri Preview
Rivals.com: 2009 All-Big 12 freshman team
PowerMizzou: Recruiting Mailbag
PowerMizzou: Different paths, same destination (James Franklin & Tyler Gabbert)
"As a quarterback, it helps to know what it's like as a running back, wide receiver, even as a lineman," Young said. "[Franklin] never played line, but as a tight end, he was able to see what they do, blocking wise. What might be more important was James' time on defense, when he played linebacker and defensive back. He knows the fundamentals of those positions. He knows what to look for."

That's the main difference between Gabbert and Franklin. While Franklin dabbled in other positions, quarterback runs through Gabbert's veins. Since he started football, Gabbert has been the signal caller, following in big brother Blaine's footsteps. When Blaine began to work with renowned quarterback guru Skip Stitzell as a junior in high school, Tyler joined as well.

"He had a lot of natural ability," Stitzell said of Tyler, "what I call a very good foundation. He had a good idea of how to do things. We worked on taking all the mechanics he had, refining them, and introducing some new ones that maybe he didn't have."
PowerMizzou: Freshman video report: Donovan Bonner

Big 12 Football Links

KC Star (Campus Corner): Big 12 Below .500 in Bowls
San Antonio Express-News: Audit says A&M has problems
Crimson and Cream Machine: Offensive Line Could Determine Murray's Return

Big Ten Talk

Rush the Court (seriously, a wonderful blog...I've been linking to them about six times a week lately): A Closer Look at Big Ten Expansion -- here's a blurb, but read the whole thing

Missouri
For: Solid programs in both football and basketball, large stadiums with big budgets, and a decent size school/city.

Against: No real relationship with any of the Big Ten schools and a question of what will happen with their rivalries with Big 12 schools (Kansas? Nebraska?)

Verdict: Our most likely choice. The Tigers seem like the perfect fit with the exception of the rivalry issue. I think they can get around it in basketball, but football will be tough with its smaller schedule.
The Trib (Dave Matter): Four and Out: What else? Big Ten talk
[B]efore anyone starts making 2013 travel plans for Columbus, Madison and Ann Arbor, let’s not lose sight of 1993, 1998 and 2003. In each of those years, the Big Ten explored expansion and said no thanks. The league has gone down this road before and come home content with its party of 11 … though this time the path is paved in flashier gold, in the form of Big Ten championship game ticket sales and untapped TV markets.
The Trib (Steve Walentik): Changing conferences would have drawbacks

There are also downsides. A big one, I believe, has to do with Missouri's ability to recruit football players from the state of Texas if the Tigers aren't in the Big 12, which is clearly the most visible league in the Lone Star State. Now, this more my colleague Dave Matter's area of expertise, but I do think it's silly to quickly dismiss this premise.

I see at least two other significant drawbacks closer to the team I cover. The biggest has to do with the Missouri-Kansas rivalry, which would be dramatically altered by a move to the Big Ten. Sure, the Tigers and Jayhawks could schedule a Braggin' Rights-type game to be played on a neutral court over the holidays, but it would have no where near the same meaning as a home-and-home series with a conference title on the line. I can't imagine Missouri fans not missing the chance to see their team get Kansas in its own backyard, a scenario that has produced some of the most memorable victories in school history. The other thing I see affected by a move to the Big Ten is the conference tournament. Now, Missouri gets a bit of an advantage getting to play it two hours from campus in Kansas City. I don't think the Tigers could expect the same in the Big Ten, where Chicago and Indianapolis will also be more natural destinations for the league tournament.
Chicago Tribune: How about Big 14?
Post-Dispatch: Would move to Big Ten be good for Mizzou?
Topeka Capital-Journal: Call border patrol on Big 10 raiders

Mizzou Basketball Links

The Missourian: Missouri players enjoy Hickman-Rock Bridge rivalry
PowerMizzou: J.T. Tiller suspended for Tigers' next game
The Missourian: Face of Missouri men's basketball suspended one game
The Missourian: Missouri men juggle finals and practices

Other

StateCollege.com: There is no 'A' in BCS (by Jay Paterno)

I am proposing a solution, a new way to determine who plays for the national title. It is an idea that would alter the BCS ranking formula and also allow the reformers at the NCAA to take a big step forward.

With the selection of a new NCAA president on the horizon, the new leadership could take up a new cause.

The new BCS ratings would include a third component to rank the teams. While computer polls and human polls make up the current rankings, my new BCS poll would utilize those rankings as 2/3 of the equation while adding the graduation rates of the top 25 BCS schools into the formula to come up with a complete ranking.
San Diego Union-Tribune (via @dmatter), Costly kick in the teeth to bowl teams
SI.com: Tim Tebow, USC Trojans dominate college football decade

And of course...

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.

The Border War: Beyond the Box Score

Bill C. — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:30:10 -0000

Confused? Catch up with the BTBS Primer.

I'm not going to lie. As Mizzou-Kansas ended early Saturday evening, one of my first thoughts was that I was going to need help from the BTBS numbers to make sense of everything I just saw. In a game that featured over 1,100 yards of offense, Mizzou's defense made the plays in the last five minutes that won the game. In a game where Danario Alexander and Dezmon Briscoe combined for 29 catches and 475 yards (seriously), it was Andrew Gachkar, Jake Harry, Brian Coulter/Aldon Smith, Derrick Washington and Grant Ressel making the breakthrough plays down the stretch. So many people did so many amazing things ... what do the numbers say about what took place?

The best receiver in the country

	Kansas (39)	Mizzou (41)
Close %	100.0%
Field Position %	46.6%	46.7%
Leverage %	65.8%	66.7%

TOTAL
EqPts	31.9	33.3
Close Success Rate	50.7%	45.3%
Close PPP	0.43	0.44
Close S&P	0.944	0.898

RUSHING
EqPts	5.7	18.2
Close Success Rate	50.0%	51.5%
Close PPP	0.35	0.55
Close S&P	0.854	1.066
Line Yards/carry	3.15	3.53

PASSING
EqPts	26.3	15.2
Close Success Rate	50.9%	40.5%
Close PPP	0.46	0.36
Close S&P	0.969	0.766
SD/PD Sack Rate	2.8% / 4.8%	0.0% / 5.0%

STANDARD DOWNS
Success Rate	56.3%	54.0%
PPP	0.36	0.42
S&P	0.927	0.960

PASSING DOWNS
Success Rate	40.0%	28.0%
PPP	0.58	0.50
S&P	0.977	0.775

TURNOVERS
Number	3	1
Turnover Pts	14.3	4.9
Turnover Pts Margin	-9.4	+9.4

Q1 S&P	1.103	0.952
Q2 S&P	0.976	0.492
Q3 S&P	0.730	1.779
Q4 S&P	0.949	0.456

1st Down S&P	0.838	0.803
2nd Down S&P	0.730	0.888
3rd Down S&P	1.529	1.116

Projected Pt. Margin	-10.8	+10.8
Actual Pt. Margin	-2	+2

So many things here that I didn't expect to see:

Mizzou's offense was almost nonexistent in Q2 and Q4. Their passing numbers? Only decent, despite Danario Alexander's unbelievable third quarter (7 catches, 181 yards). And they still struggled on passing downs.
Both teams were only decent on 1st and 2nd down, but automatic on 3rd down. KU, especially, had Mizzou's defense on a string on 3rd down ... until their final two, in which Mizzou came up with two game-turning sacks.
Both teams were exactly the same from a Field Position and Leverage standpoint, despite KU starting three drives from inside their 3.
Unsung heroes: Mizzou's offensive line, which allowed one sack and plowed away for over three and a half line yards per carry.

What to make of Mizzou's pass defense

I was on Big 12 North Talk Radio Sunday night and was asked about Mizzou's struggling pass defense, and I stammered through an answer about how you probably shouldn't take much away from a rivalry game (after all, Texas A&M gained 530 yards on a dominant Texas defense Thursday night), and how Mizzou's struggles have been caused by different things at different times (no pass rush and poor LB play against KU, poor tackling against Baylor, complete miscommunication against Texas, Carl Gettis' backup getting burned against NU, etc.), but despite that, there's no question that something has been amiss in recent weeks.

Here are Missouri's Passing S&P+ numbers in terms of individual game "+" scores (disregarding Furman). Remember, a) 100 = average, and b) the higher number, the better the performance.

Nevada (193.5)
Colorado (182.3)
Bowling Green (148.9)
Nebraska (109.6)
Oklahoma State (105.4)
Illinois (103.7)
Iowa State (95.6)
Kansas (84.0)
Kansas State (72.9)
Texas (66.8)
Baylor (59.4)

Over the first five games (not counting Furman), Missouri averaged a 132.2. Over the last six, Missouri has averaged a 93.5, and that's with the Colorado outlier. Missouri's five worst games this season all came in the last six weeks (and remember, this is adjusted for opponent, so even if the offenses Mizzou faced improved, that doesn't mean Mizzou's numbers should automatically fall). Meanwhile, Missouri's sack rate has actually improved over that time (from 1.0% on Standard Downs and 8.9% on Passing Downs, to 6.0% on Standard Downs and 9.9% on Passing Downs), actually giving the pass defense numbers a bit of a boost. Obviously the pass rush wasn't great against Kansas, but it's been decent down the stretch.

So what has changed in the last six weeks? For one thing, Carl Gettis got hurt. It was hinted in October and early-November that he hurt himself worse than anybody thought against Nebraska, but while his and Jasper Simmons' injuries absolutely played a role in the Baylor debacle, he's still seemed steady enough that his ankle alone can't explain a 29.2% drop in pass defense. What else has changed? Well, Hardy Ricks was lost for the season. I wouldn't have thought that would have made a difference, but maybe it did? Plus, opponents got film on Simmons and Jarrell Harrison and were probably better able to take advantage of whatever weaknesses they may have. And quite frankly, Kevin Rutland has been maddeningly inconsistent, matching nice pass break-ups with horrible mishaps.

Is there something else I'm missing here? It's not like the scheme has changed. Like it or not, the general philosophy of pass defense is simply not going to change as long as Gary Pinkel is in charge. We are going to run a basic Cover-2, and we're going to give receivers giant cushions and allow the short passes while hoping to tackle well, not get burned deep, and bend just long enough to force a mistake from the opponent. When and how we blitz may change, but in general, we defend the pass as we always have under Pinkel, and that's just the way it is. It's not like opponents suddenly figured out what we were doing and changed their approach halfway through the season. Anyway, I'm all ears. Let me know why you think things have regressed.

No matter what the cause, there's no question that, with opponent taken into account, this pass defense is not as good as in recent years. Whether you want to believe it or not, the opponent had as much to do with last year's regression in raw stats than anything else. Missouri ranked 26th in Defensive Passing S&P+ in 2008 and 17th in 2007, but they rank only 66th this season. Maybe this is just what we should have expected in losing three of four starters in the secondary (and a hit-or-miss pass rush hasn't helped). Or not.

But that's enough negativity. We did, after all, beat Kansas.

Three Positives

Always. Be. Closing. For 55 minutes, the 2008 and 2009 MU-KU games were strikingly similar. For the first half, KU's offense was strong and Mizzou made a series of mistakes, leading to a halftime deficit that could have been a lot worse than it actually was (19-10 in 2008, 21-13 in 2009). Then, Mizzou found their offensive rhythm in the third quarter and stormed back to take a fourth quarter lead (30-26 with 6:52 left in 2008, 36-28 with 13:29 left in 2009). But thanks to some combination of Reesing, Briscoe, and Kerry Meier, KU got the momentum back and, with roughly five minutes left, faced a third down in Mizzou territory.

Here's where things start to diverge. In 2008, Reesing completed a 31-yard pass on 3rd-and-11 to Marcus Herford, setting up a go-ahead TD pass to Meier (who forever earned the middle name of "Effing" after this game). Mizzou responded with a go-ahead drive of their own, but as we all know, Reesing and Meier connected again to win the game in the final minute. For the last five minutes, Reesing was 8-for-11 for 106 yards and two touchdowns.

For the last five and a half minutes on Saturday, Reesing was 0-for-3 passing with two "sacks" (the second one was considered a rush, not a sack) for a loss of 19 yards. After 55 game minutes of stress and momentum changes, KU faced a third-and-goal from Mizzou's 5, and there was absolutely no reason to think KU wouldn't convert. All game long, if Mizzou blitzed, they got burned; if they dropped into coverage, they eventually got burned. Todd Reesing was able to do whatever he wanted to do. But for the first time all game, Mizzou blitzed effectively. Kevin Rutland came at Reesing on a CB blitz, and while Reesing got away, Andrew Gachkar tracked him down and forced an intentional grounding penalty (and yes, it was a good call, as the pass landed about two yards short of the line of scrimmage). Then, nursing a three-point lead, KU now-notoriously attempted to pass out of their endzone and landed two incompletions before Reesing was sandwiched by Aldon Smith and Brian Coulter. He came within about two inches of getting out of the endzone, and those two inches gave Mizzou two points in a two-point win.

Those two inches took 2009 from a decent season to a good one. Coffee is for closers.
Blaine Gabbert's ankle. How freaking big and fast did Blaine Gabbert look in those first-half keepers?? He had a 30-yarder and a 40-yarder in the first half, and while his arm was scattering some inaccurate passes in the second quarter, his legs kept Mizzou in the game before Danario took over in Q3. This goes without saying, but it really is simply amazing how much different Gabbert looks now than he did about six weeks ago, and if Mizzou has any sort of steady receiving weapon in 2010 (Jerrell Jackson, you've got all the opportunity in the world to show what you can do), I cannot wait to see what #11 might be able to do if/when healthy for an entire season.
Domino Axelrod. Remember when Danario Alexander caught eight passes for 123 yards and two touchdowns against Colorado and was the primary reason Mizzou broke out to a 30-point first-half lead? Yeah, that was his eighth-best game of the season. His output from just the last three games (606 yards) would have led the team in receiving in 2005. His three 200-yard receiving games in November match Mizzou's all-time total of 200-yard receiving games before November. The list of Alexander's superlatives this year top anything Jeremy Maclin, Chase Coffman, etc., ever managed ... and trust me, I know what I just said, and I mean it. As I said during the game, we are never going to see sustained WR play like this again, and we need to soak it in for all it's worth.

Three Negatives

Bad time for the linebackers' worst game of the year. I'm a forgiving soul, and I try to stay even-keeled as much as possible. I'm willing to accept that Todd Reesing was simply in a zone for much of the game, and no matter what Missouri did on defense -- blitz, drop everybody into coverage, etc. -- he was just going to make some plays, as was (obviously) Dez Briscoe. But there was one part of the defensive play that I found completely unacceptable, particularly in the first half: coverage of Jake Sharp (and later on, Rell Lewis) out of the backfield. For three years, Sharp has been a more dangerous receiver than runner, and it was no surprise that Reesing would check down to him whenever possible. And yet we left him wide open with run to room, over and over again. For the game, Sharp/Lewis had nine catches for 120 yards. Seven of Sharp's eight catches came in the first half, and four went for first downs, including an inexcusable 17-yard reception on 3rd-and-11 from KU's 1 that allowed KU to get momentum, eventually scoring a touchdown to cap off a 99-yard drive.

How did the dump to the RBs succeed in ways it hadn't in the previous two games at Arrowhead? Who was to blame for this? Again, I have more questions than answers, but in the Cover-2 structure, the main people responsible would appear to be the outside linebackers and the cornerbacks. Indeed, in previous seasons, it was Sean Weatherspoon and Van Alexander making most of the tackles or defending the pass to the RB. Maybe the strategy changed this year, or maybe the LBs were just overloaded with coverage responsibilities considering how long the coverage lasted (thanks to the lack of a pass rush), but between Sharp's and Lewis' success, and the awful personal foul penalty on Spoon that allowed KU to prolong a drive and get seven points instead of three, and the fact that Gachkar went completely missing until the late-game sack, this did appear to be the worst game of the season for the Mizzou LB corps. We survived, and that's good, but they picked a bad time to have their worst game.
"The Scorpion". Again, all's well that ends well, but do you remember at the beginning of the season, when we thought the "Scorpion" defense (where Mizzou features three DEs in passing downs, lining up Aldon Smith at DT) was going to wreak havoc on most of Missouri's opponents? That didn't so much happen. Missouri now ranks 84th in Sack Rates+ this season, and even though things have improved in general over the last half of the season (again, while the overall pass defense was regressing), the pass rush produced almost nothing whatsoever for the game's first 55 minutes on Saturday. That's not a good thing when your general defensive strategy is to blitz as little as possible, drop a ton of defenders into coverage, and hope your pass rush gets to Reesing before somebody comes open. Reesing had a ton of time to find receivers, and his receivers are good enough that they're going to break open eventually. This was like playing Missouri in 2007, and honestly, Reesing looked better for most of Saturday than Chase Daniel did in 2007 when facing the same strategy.

Considering the mid-season improvement, and considering the overall youth of the defensive line (only Jaron Baston and Brian Coulter leave this season, and a majority of the team's DL playmakers return), I'm still guardedly optimistic about this unit in the future, especially considering how well Mizzou stopped the run in conference play, but for the season the pass rush has still been a major disappointment.
The two-point conversion. When Mizzou scored early in the third quarter to get to 21-19, I told my dad to brace himself -- with Gary Pinkel's history with the two-point conversion, there was absolutely a 100% chance that we were going for two, even though it was still early, and there were obviously a ton more points yet to be scored. It's not right, but it's what he does. And being that it's a consistent mind-set, I can more-or-less accept it even though I disagree with the strategy. But man oh man, that one point could have made a huge difference.

(And if you insist on going for two, and you've had to blow a timeout early in the half to figure out what play to call, at least make sure to not call the single most predictable play of the game after the timeout. Those five minutes, which included the decision to go for two, the blown timeout, and the awful play call, were the worst-coached five minutes of the game for Mizzou.)

Three Keys Revisited

Seen here.

Passing Downs

KU's offense will likely be relatively efficient on Saturday, meaning Mizzou must make stops on passing downs when given the opportunity. They have a pass-rush advantage in those situations, but if they don't make the sack or force a poor throw from Reesing, their propensity for breakdowns makes them extremely vulnerable. If they're giving up the dink-and-dunk stuff and allowing big plays on Passing Downs, they probably cannot win.

In the end, KU's 40% success rate on passing downs was neither great nor terrible. But the plays they did make on passing downs were gigantic. The 3rd-and-11 dump-off to Sharp that set up the game's first touchdown. The 33-yard pass to Tim Biere on 3rd-and-18 that set up the second touchdown. The 33-yard pass to Briscoe on 3rd-and-9 that set up the third touchdown. And of course, the 74-yard TD bomb to Briscoe on 3rd-and-12 in the fourth quarter. On almost every KU scoring drive, Mizzou had the Jayhawks on the ropes and let them off the hook, and while Reesing deserves quite a bit of credit for the role he played in those passes, that many breakdowns is still inexcusable, and it almost cost Missouri the game.

Danario Alexander vs Dez Briscoe

Alexander has been the best receiver in the country over the last month, and if he performs to that level again, Mizzou could score at will. Primarily because of Domino, Mizzou's offense has a significant advantage over KU's defense in terms of The Big Play, and if KU successfully takes that away (lord knows they've got the talent and experience to do so), they take away the biggest weapon in the Mizzou arsenal. Meanwhile, the other scariest guy on the field is Briscoe. While Meier gives Mizzou fans nightmares after last year's heroics, Briscoe is still the more dangerous guy. The winner of the Alexander/Briscoe battle will go a long way in determining the winner of the game.

Rarely will I nail a game key this tremendously, but for the first 55 minutes, this game was absolutely decided by these two players. Back and forth they went, with Briscoe winning the first two quarters, Alexander almost scoring a TKO in the third quarter, and Briscoe bouncing back in the fourth. For the game, Alexander had more catches (15 to 14) and Briscoe had more yards (242 to 233), but Briscoe's two fumbles and the two miscues to Briscoe on KU's final drive give Danario the edge here. But what a freaking battle it was.

MU's Running Game

[I]f Mizzou's slowly improving run game can eat away chunks of yards and Mizzou is able to both overpower KU and beat them with the big play, then they can both run up points and dominate the flow of the game. Potentially the most underrated facet of the last two games at Arrowhead was MU's running game. In 2007, Tony Temple racked up 98 yards in 22 carries. In 2008, Derrick Washington ended up with a respectable 54 yards in 11 carries but averaged under four yards per carry for the first three quarters, when Mizzou's offense was struggling and the defense was unable to get off the field. If Mizzou is running well from the start, their passing game will open up like a Venus Flytrap.

Again, nailed it. While Briscoe and Alexander more or less canceled each other out, thanks to Meier and Sharp, KU won the battle of the passing games. But Mizzou won the war because of Derrick Washington and Blaine Gabbert. Gabbert took advantage of openings in the first half and ended up with 94 yards rushing for the game; meanwhile, Washington was the finisher, closing with 111 yards and setting up Grant Ressel's game-winner with a wonderful 27-yard run on 3rd-and-2. Throw in Jerrell Jackson's 37-yard end around for a TD, and Mizzou's running game came up bigger than it had all year. Just in time to give us extreme optimism for 2010, huh?

Summary

While at home yesterday, I watched the replay of the game on ESPNU, and it really is amazing how many times the momentum turned and, over the course of the game, how many players made contributions to this win. Blaine Gabbert with his first-half rushes and great decision-making in the second half. Jacquies Smith with the forced fumble of Briscoe, and Carl Gettis for a forced fumble and two recoveries. Danario Alexander with his third quarter for the ages. Wes Kemp with his killer down-field blocking. Jerrell Jackson with his end-around (and De'Vion Moore with his amazing blocking on the play). Kip Edwards with his interception of Reesing, ensuring a one-possession deficit at halftime. Derrick Washington with his devastating second-half rushing. Andrew Gachkar with his fourth-quarter sack. Kevin Rutland with his fantastic man-to-man defense on the bomb to Briscoe on KU's final drive. Coulter and Agent Smith for their safety. Jake Harry for getting THREE punts downed inside the 3. Grant Ressel for capping off the most improbably great kicking season ever with a ride on the shoulders of his teammates. Despite all the breakdowns and all the stress the game's first 55 minutes produced, Mizzou made every play when the game was on the line, and they came away with one of the more satisfying, endearing wins of the Pinkel era. We now await the bowl announcement, knowing that a) Missouri will finish no worse than they did in 2006 (Chase Daniel's sophomore season), and b) Todd Reesing's career ended in the same endzone in which KU's national title hopes ended two seasons ago. There's poetry, and then there's poetry.

The Morning After: Links

Bill C. — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 13:55:16 -0000

by Orlin Wagner - AP

19 days ago: Missouri kicker Grant Ressel (95) is carried off the field by teammate after a last second field goal in their NCAA college football game against Kansas Saturday, Nov. 28, 2009, in Kansas City, Mo. Missouri defeated Kansas 41-39. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

View full size photo »

I'm traveling back to MO this morning, so instead of posting further thoughts on what we witnessed yesterday, here are a handful of links and, after the jump, yesterday's liveblog.

The Trib: Grant Ressel boots Tigers to victory
KC Star: Ressel mania: MU kicker connects for wild Border War victory
KC Star: Air smells sweeter for Mizzou when beating Kansas
KC Star: PHOTO GALLERY
KC Star: KU fans are torn in their allegiance to Mangino
KC Star: Todd Reesing, Dezmon Briscoe share the pain of this loss
KC Star: Border war buzz | Reesing OK with play calls
The Missourian: Ressel's field goal lifts Missouri football past Kansas
The Missourian (Robert Mays): Danario Alexander's latest performance cause for Missouri football debate
The Missourian: Kansas football fans mixed on subject of Mangino
Post-Dispatch: Tigers get their kicks
Post-Dispatch: Insight Bowl may be next for MU
Post-Dispatch (Bryan Burwell): Pinkel's big gamble hits the jackpot
When he was reminded that his defense hadn’t made an important stop for most of the darned game (KU was a staggering 9 of 15 on third-down conversions and had already given up two scoring drives that began inside the KU 2), I asked Pinkel why in the world he decided to take a chance on his struggling defense at such a critical moment like this.

"You look at percentages," he said. "And you look at odds."

And then he smiled a delicious smile that had validation written all over it.

"But mostly you have to go on a gut feeling," he said. "I trust my gut because it's done me well over the years."

And oh my goodness, his gut sure was right and we sure were wrong.
PowerMizzou: Arrowhead thriller
PowerMizzou: PHOTO GALLERY
PowerMizzou: PMTV: That's a winner
PowerMizzou: PMTV: From the locker room
PowerMizzou: Instant Analysis
Lawrence Journal-World: Ressel's last-second field goal gives MU 41-39 victory over KU
Lawrence Journal-World: Mangino 'optimistic' he'll return next season
Lawrence Journal-World (VIDEO): Highlights
Lawrence Journal-World (VIDEO): Season over, seniors done
Daily Kansan: Era ends in Border Showdown loss
Mizzourah: On Field Celebration Video

Far too long liveblog after the jump...

2:32 - Greetings from OKC...I'm at my parents' house, getting ready to watch the game from the exact same seat in which I watched last year's game. If that's not an awesome omen, I don't know what is. I'm just going for the reverse jinx here, trying to offset the effect of "coach's last game" syndrome that always seems to eat Mizzou up...you know...Dan McCarney, Bill Snyder (the first time), etc. Reverse those effects, and I love our chances today...at least, as soon as I see that we're capable of stopping a quick sideline pass for less than eight yards.

2:36 - Oh, and it's already been covered in the comments thread, but WOW are KU's jerseys hideous. Probably not as bad as Mizzou's gold jerseys last year (still haven't recovered from that), but bad.

First Quarter

2:37 - Woohoo! KU receives the kick! Mizzou will actually get the ball in the second half! And double woohoo...we didn't kick to Briscoe! Short kick, and KU will start around their 35.

2:38 - Alright, here we go...Reesing's first pass is broken up! I'll take it...quickly to second down, where the aforementioned quick pass to Kerry Meier goes for about six yards. Third-and-4 coming..

2:39 - ...and Meier gets it easily. Get used to this.

2:41 - After back-to-back quick passes to Jake Sharp, it's 3rd-and-6...an official passing down...this is where Mizzou's gotta make stops...

...and it's broken up! Mizzou must have had amazing coverage, as Reesing had about 25 seconds to find a guy and couldn't. Nice break-up by Kip Edwards on the deep ball, and KU will punt. It rolls into the endzone, and Mizzou will start at the 20. And they get the ball to start the second half! Win-win!

2:43 - First play for Mizzou...Gabbert has a ton of time, and he finds Jerrell Jackson for 16! I'll take that.

2:44 - After an eight-yard run by Gabbert, D-Wash plows through for another first down, and in three plays, Mizzou is past midfield.

2:44 - Another pass to Jackson nets about six...that's two passes to Jackson, both into the body, where it can't be dropped. And on second down, a quick pass to D-Wash gets another first down to the KU 33.

2:45 - The first pass to Danario Alexander is a quick sideline pass, and KU was ready. Gabbert has to throw the ball away on second down, and Mizzou faces their first third-down of the day...third-and-10...make that third-and-15 after a delay of game penalty...Mizzou's not good in Passing Downs...

2:47 - Reverse jinx unsuccessful. Gabbert overthrows, um, whoever he was aiming for, and it's fourth down from the 40. Mizzou will punt. They've flipped the field, but the drive was starting out pretty promising.

2:48 - OUTSTANDING punt...Harry kicks it up at the 1, and Beau Brinkley downs it there. KU to start at their 1, in the endzone in which Todd Reesing became Sod Reesing two years ago...

2:51 - Ballsy play call...Reesing goes deep on first down but goes too deep. Second down.

2:52 - After another misfired incompletion, it's third-and-10...would wager a thousand dollars that he's going short to Sharp here...

2:53 - ...but first, KU calls timeout. STUPID timeout, as a delay of game penalty would have been a loss of about six inches...

2:54 - Alright...third-and-10...and KU false starts. Sweet jesus, are the out of sorts right now...KNOCK ON WOOD...

2:55 - Third-and-11 after the penalty...and...yup...underneath to Jake Sharp. Um, if I was willing to wager a thousand dollars on that play, that means it shouldn't have worked for a first down. Come on, guys. KU to their 18.

2:56 - Quick pass to McDougald, who gets a first down and is hit late out of bounds. Mizzou now peeing themselves, and just like that, KU's to the MU 45. Awesome. MASSIVELY blown opportunity...and before I can finish typing that, it's 18 yards for Briscoe.

2:57 - Five yards to Meier...is it possible that KU's given up on the run before actually running once? I mean, it's working, but wow...12 passes, 0 runs...

2:58 - False start on KU, which is good...only they're capable of backing themselves up right now...

2:59 - Ugh. Reesing breaks free to the 11. Mizzou had them at the 1-inch line on third down, now they're going to score.

3:00 - After a short gain for Briscoe, Mizzou blitzes but doesn't get there, leaving Briscoe open in the endzone. Touchdown. Terrible dropped dagger by the Mizzou defense. 9 plays, 98 yards, 7-0.

3:03 - Oy...well...that could have been bad. Jasper Simmons drops the kickoff, but he gathers it up and gets out to the 24. Alright, boys...respond.

3:04 - After a quick six-yarder to Danario, Gabbert EXPLODES up the middle for 30 yards...wow...that was some serious strong, fast running from #11, and Mizzou's to the KU 40. KU's Caleb Blakesley is injured, so we're taking a timeout...

3:08 - First play after timeout, and a really weird double option play goes to Danario for a first down...creative. Mizzou to the 31.

3:08 - Gabbert escapes pressure on first down and picks up three...I just cannot say enough how much faster he looks right now...dude's got another gear that he very obviously didn't have in October...

3:09 - After a short run by D-Wash, it's third-and-4...KU blitzes and Gabbert lobs one a hair too far for Jackson in the endzone...fourth-and-4, and Grant Ressel will attempt a 43-yarder...

3:11 - It's perfect, despite the "He's the most accurate kicker in the country" jinx. 7-3 KU. Decent response, though we need to quit stalling out in KU territory.

3:12 - Nice kickoff coverage...kick goes to McDougald, who is wrapped up inside the 30. Alright, defense, time to atone for your sins...

3:13 - Hey hey, a KU running play...power sweep (sort of) to Sharp for a decent gain of about five...followed by a quick pass to Sharp for about 20 yards or so. Seriously, how in the hell do you lose him out of the backfield again? And before I can finish that sentence, they run the same goddamn play to the other side of the field, with similar success. They are being far too freaking predictable to fool Mizzou.

3:15 - Woohoo, another KU penalty...this time a 15-yard chop block. They're the only ones slowing themselves down. Am REALLY annoyed with the defense right now, and I'm a forgiving person.

3:16 - After a pass deflection on 1st-and-25, Reesing escapes another rush (god I hate this guy) and gains about seven. Third-and-18. You MUST NOT let them convert this. You do not deserve to win if you start giving up 3rd-and-18...

3:17 - ...and Reesing calls his second timeout.

3:18 - ...and then KU converts 3rd-and-18. No pass rush whatsoever, and Reesing finds some white guy for a huge gain to the 1. Tim Biere. This is inexcusable. You can sacrifice a pass rush for blanket coverage, and right now Mizzou's got neither. And Reesing sneaks in from the 1. Disgusting. 14-3. Last year the offense was horrific in the first half, this year it's the defense. And Kansas hasn't had to do a single thing out of their normal repertoire.

3:22 - And a block in the back on the kickoff return. Awesome. Mizzou starts at their 9.

3:23 - Fake reverse to Alexander, and Gabbert finds Jackson for a first down.

3:23 - After a seven-yard keeper by Gabbert, it's a tunnel screen to Rolandis Woodland (hey hey!) for a first down. And that's the end of the first quarter. I'd say it can only get better for the Mizzou defense in the final 45 minutes, but that's far from a certainty. And I haven't even begun to address why in the world Marcus Malbrough has been playing on almost every down. Is Aldon Smith hurt or something?

Second Quarter

3:28 - Alright, Mizzou starts the quarter from their 39...and Gabbert picks up about 3. I like that he's capable of running so well, but holy crap, we're going to him a lot. On second down, Gabbert finds Jackson for a first down to midfield.

3:29 - Reverse to Jerrell Jackson, and there's a flag. Block in the back on Wes Kemp AND personal foul on Kurtis Gregory. Sweet. First-and-25.

3:30 - Alexander picks up some of the penalty yardage, fighting for about 10 yards. Second-and-15.

3:31 - KU blitzes...Mizzou picks it up, but Gabbert throws it a little high to Kemp, and Kemp can't reel it in...third-and-long...awesome...I'm sure this will end well.

3:32- ...actually, it does end well. Gabbert goes long to Kemp, and there's a pass interference call on Chris Harris. Not sure about that one, but I'll take it. First down!

3:33 - Wildcat snap to D-Wash for no gain...I don't think we practice that enough to be good at it. 2nd-and-11. Gabbert throws high to Jackson on second down, and we've got 3rd-and-long once again! Awesome. Three trips into KU territory, three stalled drives...

3:34 - ...reverse jinx somewhat successful. Alexander gets about seven yards, and it's 4th-and-2...this would be about a 50-yard FG, so I assume we're going for it...yep...

3:35 - ...and we get it. Out route to Alexander for about eight. First down. Holding on by a string here. Five catches for Danario.

3:36 - Wow...Gabbert tries to escape the pocket but doesn't see the Onyegbule coming from the side. Fumble, KU recovers. Sigh. And Gabbert's a little roughed up.

3:37 - Six-yarder to Briscoe, then an easy first down to Meier...who fumbles...but they're saying he was down. REALLY close. They'll review, but I assume it'll remain KU's ball. Of course, the announcers are PISSING ME OFF, saying he was clearly down, as there was nothing clear about it.

3:39 - Yup, still KU ball.

3:40 - Hey hey! Mizzou was accounting for the dump-off to Sharp! No gain! Option to Sharp gets only about three, so once again it's a passing down on third down for KU...no reason to think KU won't convert this one too.

3:41 - Reverse jinx successful! Easy pass to Briscoe for a first, but he drops it. Once again, only KU can stop KU. Either way, a bullet dodged, and KU will punt.

3:42 - And after a kick-catch interference, Mizzou actually starts with good field position for once! Okay, not good, but the 34's not terrible.

3:45 - Hmm...apparently Gabbert can only throw an accurate pass to Alexander right now. Another one that's off to Jackson. Second down.

3:46 - Terrible out pass to Kemp, and just like that it's 3rd-and-10...oy...

3:46 - ...and Gabbert overthrows Alexander. Three off passes, and time to punt. Not a great sign.

3:47 - Wow, Jake Harry for MVP. A 56-yard bomb and good coverage, and KU will start at their 11. Alright, defense, KU did you a favor last time...keep stepping it up...

3:49 - Wow, Will Ebner lights up Dez Briscoe after five yards...I do enjoy that he hits hard enough that he doesn't have to form tackle...of course, I'd prefer he also form tackle, but whatever...

3:50 - Another sideline pass to Briscoe, who fights for a first down but is stripped by Jacquies Smith! The Carl Gettis Treatment recovers and returns it to the KU 5. They're reviewing it, but it was pretty clearly a fumble...my head's going to explode if this is overturned.

3:52 - Mizzou ball! First-and-goal!

3:53 - Tough Gabbert keeper gets to the 2...second down...

3:53 - Washington to the 1...third down...the color commentator is talking smack about how hard it is to score in the red zone out of the spread...despite all evidence to the contrary. Seriously, watch college football occasionally. That narrative died two years ago.

3:54 - Case in point: touchdown, D-Wash! 14-10! Under six minutes left in Q2...

3:58 - Another pooch kick, this one to Darrell Stuckey, who returns it to the 34. I hate having to do that, but it's absolutely the smart play.

3:59 - Two quick passes, one to Briscoe and one to Meier, and KU's to the 46.

4:00 - Okay, credit where it's due on the shovel pass...it looked like Mizzou had that eaten up, and Reesing threaded it to Sharp anyway.

4:01 - After Meier slips after a 1-yard gain, Reesing overthrows McDougald (KU's #1 WR in 2010), and it's third-and-9...I'm not optimistic.

4:02 - ...yup. Briscoe wide open underneath AGAIN, and he weaves inside the Mizzou 10.

4:03 - Touchdown, Meier. Sigh. Seen this before. 21-10. We're not blitzing, and Reesing is picking us apart. I realize blitzing might not work either, but hey...gotta try something...

4:07 - Nice return by Simmons, who is getting plenty of opportunities today...

4:07 - Nice, accurate pass to Jackson for a first down, and Mizzou's near midfield already. Under three minutes left in the half...

4:08 - After a short run by D-Wash, Gabbert goes deep to Jackson but is a bit too long...that's about the fifth "just too long" deep ball of the day. Disorienting, considering how accurate he's been the last couple of weeks.

4:09 - Also disorienting: Blaine Gabbert running VERY fast down the sidelines for almost a 40-yard gain...WOW...first-and-ten from the KU 11...

4:10 - No gain for D-Wash on first down, followed by a well-covered incompletion. Quickly, it's third down from the 10 with 1:09 left. Mizzou is 0-for-5 on third downs today. Just run a dump-off and make sure the clock's running if you don't get the first down...I do NOT want KU getting the ball back with a minute left.

4:10 - Ugh. Jump ball to Alexander incomplete, and the clock will stop with over a minute left.

4:12 - Ressel's field goal is good. 21-13, and KU's got a minute left. Do not want.

4:13 - Ugh again. Short kick to Stuckey, who barely steps out of bounds at midfield.

4:14 - Wow. Mizzou gets a little pressure on Reesing, who pump fakes and then throws DIRECTLY to Kip Edwards. Mizzou ball around midfield with 0:40 left.

4:15 - Nice coverage by KU on back-to-back plays, and it's quickly third down...and Gabbert throws deep and incomplete to Woodland. Mizzou to punt, but as long as it's not blocked, Mizzou will go into halftime down just eight. Could have been worse.

4:17 - Another beautiful Harry punt, and it's downed at the 5...KU will down it, and that's halftime. Could be better for Mizzou, but I guess it could be a LOT worse. And for once, we get the ball to start the second half.

Third Quarter

4:39 - Alright, here we go. Simmons with another solid return to the KU 35. Let's see if Gabbert's settled down a little. His hyped state seems to have helped his rushing and hurt his passing.

4:40 - First pass: broken up after a scramble right.

4:40 - Second pass: quickly to Danario, who runs for a first down. Love that play. Mizzou to their 45.

4:41 - Third pass: a 150-mph dart to Danario, who can't handle it.

4:42 - Fourth pass: quickly to Danario, who...is Danario. He breaks tackles, outruns guys, and gets down to the KU 26.

4:43 - D-Wash for 12 yards, then D-Wash for 14...touchdown! Brilliant blocking. And of course we're going for two...we always do...and we call timeout. Sigh.

4:45 - Keeper by Gabbert is eaten up, as everybody in the stadium knew Gabbert was keeping it, despite the fact that we blew a timeout to reconsider. 21-19.

4:48 - Woah...deep kickoff to Briscoe...was that intentional? Either way, it was well-covered, and KU will start inside their 25.

4:49 - Nice, tough run for a first down by Jake Sharp, and you know what? I'm fine with that. Let him keep running--it's when they're passing and he drifts into the open that he becomes a bigger weapon.

4:50 - After an off-target pass by Reesing, Mizzou blitzes and Reesing barely finds Briscoe, but Kevin Rutland is called for "grabbing the helmet opening"...pretty shoddy call...his hand ended up there, but there was no grabbing. Either way, KU's in Mizzou territory.

4:52 - Another tough run by Sharp. His first good MU-KU game. First down at the MU 36.

4:52 - A short pass to Meier for four yards, followed by a false start, and it'll be 2nd-and-11.

4:53 - Eight yards to Meier, and it'll be 3rd-and-3...allowing this conversion is more excusable...

4:54 - ...of course, allowing Reesing to camp out for 15 seconds and find Biere for an easy catch is not. KU to the 15.

4:54 - Hello, Brian Coulter! Stops Sharp for a gain of 1.

4:55 - Pressure on Reesing, and he fires too hard for Jonathan Wilson, incomplete. Third-and-9. HOLD THEM HERE.

4:56 - Hey hey! Kip Edwards breaks up the pass to Briscoe, and KU has to settle for a FG.

4:57 - Or not. Sean Weatherspoon is called for a personal foul on the field goal, and it's first down, KU. And ABC REFUSES to show a replay, which naturally leads me to believe it was a terrible call.

4:58 - Reesing gets to the 2 on first down, and Sharp gets nothing on second down...third-and-goal...still waiting for a replay on the 'Spoon penalty...

4:59 - Third-and-goal...and Reesing has to call timeout. And ABC STILL WON'T SHOW WHAT SPOON DID. This is unbelievable.

5:00 - Touchdown, Meier. Phantom penalty on 'Spoon hands KU four extra points. And yes, I will continue calling it a horrendous, B.S., phantom penalty until ABC decides to show me what happened. Freaking inexcusable. 28-19.

5:02 - According to s dub in comments,

Spoon "hit the center prior to being allowed to hit him" acc. to referee. Pinkel livid

Via Dave Matter's twitter.

Wow. If we lose by less than four points, I'm going to lose my mind.

5:04 - Simmons with another solid return, out past the 30. By the way, it's 5:04, and there is 7:24 left in the THIRD QUARTER.

5:05 - Quick pass to Danario for only five this time, and Jerrell Jackson limps off the field. Then, a quick four yards for Danario, and it's third-and-1. Uhh, big play here.

5:06 - KU is so paranoid about Danario that D-Wash easily scampers for a first down and then some.

5:07 - Wow...after gimping off the field, Jackson comes back, takes an end around and scores from 37 yards. Didn't see that coming. 28-26, and again, we are BARELY halfway through the third quarter. This game's going to last until 8pm.

5:08 - So Mizzou now has 21 rushes for 202 yards today. And 31 passes for 149 yards. Just as we expected, right?

5:10 - Sigh...another deep kickoff...only it goes out of bounds. Ball at the 40.

5:11 - Bradley McDougald's pretty good. Quick pass to him, and he avoids getting lit up by two guys and gets the first down. KU already to midfield.

5:12 - After a Rell Lewis drop, Reesing finds Briscoe after about 38 seconds in the pocket, and after a really nice run, The Carl Gettis Treatment strips him, and Jarrell Harrison recovers. So THAT's the gameplan. Let them catch is and run, then strip them. A surefire winner!

5:14 - D-Wash with a drop, then a 5-yard run, and it's third down...

5:15 - God I'm going to miss Danario Alexander so much. He ditches his defender on a slant, then STORMS downfield for a 68-yard touchdown. Wow. Meanwhile, Jerrell Jackson waves at a KU defender and gets flagged for 15 yards. In the first half, Todd Reesing almost headbutted a Mizzou defender after a first down. No flag. Either way, Mizzou is up 33-28, so I'll stop complaining, especially after the kickoff is only taken to the 35. Net win for Mizzou.

5:18 - Okay, Mizzou just got called for ANOTHER personal foul that ABC has no account for, and KU's at the 50. Crazy calls here, and incredibly bad coverage by ABC.

5:19 - Sharp is stuffed on first down, and The Carl Gettis Treatment breaks up a pass on second down...and it's 3rd-and-10...HUGE play here...which isn't usually a good sign for the Mizzou defense...

5:20 - ...and that's a delay of game penalty. Third-and-15. For the love of god, please stop them here...

5:21 - YES. Reesing is pressured and has to dump it off, and Kevin Rutland BLOWS UP Sharp. Fourth down, and KU will punt. It's downed at the 12, and MU will take over with 2:15 left in the longest freaking quarter in the history of the world.

5:23 - Aww...Danario just ROASTS a defender on a double move...59 yards later, Mizzou's inside the KU 35. We are so spoiled watching this. This is the best sustained WR play we will EVER see. 11 catches, 205 yards. Four straight games with 180+ yards.

5:24 - Make that 12 for 212. Sets up a 3rd-and-3...

5:25 - ...and Gabbert picks up the first down to the 22.

5:25 - And now it's D-Wash's turn to bull over four tacklers for another first down to the 12. Wow. What a way to end the third quarter.

Fourth Quarter

5:29 - Alright, here we go...final 15 minutes...Gabbert gets about two on first down.

5:30 - Second down...and Gabbert's sacked. The end of the quarter came at a terrible time, as KU got their legs back. Third-and-17 from the 19, and Mizzou will call timeout. I'm all for aggressive play-calling here, but nothing stupid, please...the field goal will put us up 8...(and of course, if we hadn't gone for two earlier, a field goal would put us up 9...as my dad has mentioned, um, a couple of times now)...

5:33 - Alright, here we go...Gabbert under pressure, and Mizzou will settle for the field goal. Huge kick here, and once again, the "most accurate kicker" jinx is in effect...

5:34 - And he's perfect. Again. 36-28. I like that score for some reason...hmm...can't figure out why...

5:35 - Deep kickoff to Briscoe, and it's stopped at the 29. I'll take it.

5:36 - Nice pass by Reesing to Briscoe for 8...he's still completing some passes, but Mizzou's making it harder on him...or has so far...no need for a jinx there...

5:37 - Reesing picks up the first down on the option, but there's a hold. Second-and-12 from the 26...and Reesing's pass is off-target. Third-and-12...

5:38 - Mizzou blitzes...and Reesing finds Briscoe for a 74-yard touchdown. Yep. For all those asking why we don't blitz more, that's why. Briscoe's really good. KU will now go for 2, and for my dad's sake, I REALLY hope they don't get it...

5:39 - They get it. Meier finally comes open after, what, 15 seconds? 30? 36-36. This game has had 124 momentum changes.

5:43 - Simmons is still shaken from being burned by Briscoe apparently, and he has to fall on the ball at the 19. Not quite the way I wanted to start this drive. Or not! Offsides on KU! Re-kick!

5:44 - Yeah, I like that one better. Simmons to the 45.

5:45 - Confusing play there...play fake by Gabbert, who looks to run, then pass, then run again, and he loses two yards. Second down.

5:46 - Ugh. Pass for no gain to Washington, and it's the always-to-be-avoided third-and-long...KU's got the momentum back...and there are STILL 11 minutes left in the game...time for another five momentum changes...

5:47 - Blitz comes, and Gabbert escapes for a four-yard gain, and on comes Jake Harry IV, the guy who WAS MVP before Danario became Danario.

5:48 - God bless you, Jake IV. Bounces at the 15 and rolls to the 1-inch line. Lovely. 9:44 left.

5:49 - After a move-the-pile run picks up about 6 yards, Will Ebner crushes Rell Lewis for no gain, and it's 3rd-and-4...

5:50 - Ugh...we drop seven into coverage and get no pressure whatsoever. EVENTUALLY he finds Briscoe for 25. Oy. We can't blitz, and we can't drop seven again.

5:51 - Nice rush by Brad Madison, getting a hand on Reesing and forcing an incompletion. Second down.

5:52 - And Carl Gettis will want to forget that this play ever happened. Dump-off to Rell Lewis, who juked him out of his shoes, and 40+ yards later, KU's in scoring position. Oy. MU-KU games cannot be any crazier.

5:52 - Hello, Aldon Smith. His first big play is an eight-yard sack...and it's negated by a 17-yard pass to Briscoe. And then Lewis plows forward for a first down. He's way fresher than the Mizzou defense. First down from the 6...

5:54 - Gachkar stops Lewis on first down, and Reesing throws a perfect fade to Meier on second down, only Meier wasn't looking...third down. Um, big play.

5:55 - Hey hey! Mizzou blitzes and it works! Intentional grounding on Reesing, and it'll be a 39-yard FG attempt...

5:56 - The kick is perfect, and it's 39-36 KU with 5:10 left. Now Mizzou not only has to score, but they have to eat up about 5:09 doing it.

5:59 - Nice return by Kemp, and Mizzou will once again start past their 30. I'm too tired to be nervous right now. Of course, that doesn't mean that the false start that just happened is okay by me. First-and-15.

6:00 - KU's ready for the quick pass to Danario now. Second-and-11.

6:01 - Wow...Danario with a catch on a slant and carries two guys for ten yards. Third-and-1.

6:01 - UGH. Washington slips in the backfield. Loss of four. GOD THAT SUCKS SO MUCH. I REALLY hate football right now. Fourth-and-4, and it's just far enough that Mizzou will go for it. And it's pretty much a given that Harry's punt will be downed at the 1, which it is. Three minutes left, Mizzou with one timeout. One first down, and it's pretty much over...unless they get the first down on the first play.

6:05 - First-and-10: deep ball? Incomplete, and it stops the clock. Ballsy call, but now that it didn't work, I get to call it stupid.

6:05 - Second-and-10: ANOTHER incomplete pass. Briscoe slipped and almost batted it straight into the air for a pick six. Oh that would have been great.

6:06 - Third-and-10: HOLY CRAP. POCKET COLLAPSES ON REESING, AND HE'S SACKED FOR A SAFETY. 39-38, 2:45 LEFT. Huge gamble by KU, and it did not work. WOW.

6:08 - Gettis returns the free kick near midfield. Flags down, probably off-setting unsportsmanlike conduct. Yup.

6:09 - Draw play by Gabbert gets about three, then D-Wash picks up the first down to the KU 40. 1:57 left.

6:10 - Wow...Gabbert throws it away after about eight seconds of needing to throw it away. Second down, 1:32 left.

6:11 - Eight yards for Danario on second down...would be a 50-yarder...1:16 left...

6:12 - Third-and-2...and...WOW...D-Wash gets the first down...keeps moving...keeps moving...breaks into the open field...and he's tackled at the 5. WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW. Injured Jayhawk on the play...

6:13 - KU calls their second timeout with :51 left on first down. Kneel it, make KU call their last timeout with :48 left, then kneel it again, kneel it again, then call timeout with :03 left. None of that "kick it on third down" crap. This is extra point length. Trust your guys to make it in one try.

6:15 - Mizzou does just that...kneels it and runs it down to :04 left. Now the announcers will remind us that Ressel is the most accurate kicker in the country at least 26 times to attempt a Wolfert-in-the-Alamo-Bowl jinx.

6:17 - Alright, here we go...come on, Ressel...

...

...it's good. Of course it is. 41-39. Final. I'm almost dripping sweat right now. Wow.

Mizzou-Iowa State: Beyond the Box Score PREVIEW

Bill C. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:00:13 -0000

With basketball and the Mark Mangino Soap Opera for Dudes, it's been easy to become distracted from the fact that Mizzou has another home football game to play! I'm figuring Mizzou hasn't forgotten...at least I hope they haven't, as ISU's good enough to pop you in the chin if you let your guard down. Just ask Nebraska.

With his postgame celebration after Iowa State's win over Nebraska, I think it's safe to say that Paul Rhoads became most Big 12 North fans' second-favorite coach (or in the case of Colorado fans, maybe even their favorite). He is a passionate guy who, as we talked about this summer, seems to consider Iowa State a destination job, and in Year One of the Rhoads tenure, Iowa State is 6-5 and staring a bowl bid in the face. While their rankings below (and the fact that they've only beaten one team with a winning record, and it took eight turnovers to do so) suggest a relatively easy win for Missouri, it is certainly worth noting that they beat both Baylor and Nebraska this year, something Mizzou was unable to do. If Missouri plays well, as well as they did against Kansas State last week, they will win this game. But if they don't, Iowa State has proven quite capable of taking advantage of the opportunities given them and sneaking out with a seventh win.

Offense

Iowa State: 2009 Beyond the Box Score Preseason Offensive Preview

If fans have seen any one game Iowa State has played this year, it was probably the Nebraska game, which would give you the impression of a team light on offense but heavy on defensive playmakers. For the season, that really has not been the case. Statistically, they are much more successful on offense than defense; the key for the Cyclones, in both wins and losses, has been turnovers.

Iowa State's 6 wins: 22 takeaways (3.7 per game), 9 turnovers (1.5 per game), +13 turnover margin
Iowa State's 5 losses: 7 takeaways (1.4 per game), 13 turnovers (2.6 per game), -6 turnover margin

If stripping the ball is a skill, Paul Rhoads has taught it well. ISU has forced 29 fumbles this year (2.6 per game), almost three per game, and it has served them well against careless teams. Missouri has done well in only fumbling 14 times on the season (1.4 per game), but caution will be infinitely better than stretching for the extra yard on Saturday. Even taking the Nebraska game (and its +8 margin) out of the equation, ISU has still been good at taking the ball away, and it has still mattered a ridiculous amount toward whether they win or lose.

Anyway, to the offense. The numbers are, for the most part, pretty decent, though the after-the-jump conference figures tell you an interesting story.

Iowa State Offense vs Missouri Defense
Category	ISU Offense	MU Defense
Close S&P+ (Rk)	107.3 (51)	105.1 (47)
Close Success Rate+ (Rk)	109.6 (31)	100.5 (60)
Close PPP+ (Rk)	105.9 (64)	111.8 (43)

Rushing S&P+	106.5 (52)	113.5 (38)
Passing S&P+	109.4 (49)	97.2 (63)

Standard Downs S&P+	106.5 (51)	115.4 (24)
Passing Downs S&P+	103.9 (59)	96.7 (69)

Red Zone S&P+	115.8 (39)	117.4 (31)

Q1 S&P+	96.3 (84)	92.2 (80)
Q2 S&P+	101.1 (65)	132.1 (13)
Q3 S&P+	130.2 (16)	105.5 (51)
Q4 S&P+	104.7 (63)	114.3 (33)

1st Down S&P+	110.8 (39)	109.6 (44)
2nd Down S&P+	100.7 (72)	105.4 (52)
3rd Down S&P+	103.2 (70)	110.2 (43)

Line Yards+	113.9 (23)	102.3 (52)
Close Sack Rate+	232.2 (6)	82.1 (88)
Standard Downs / Passing Downs Sack Rate+	125.8 (44) / 200.9 (18)	114.8 (44) / 104.4 (58)

I listed 19 categories above, and in half of them, ISU ranks between 30th and 60th. That's pretty much the definition of "decent." They are outstanding on the offensive line -- by far the strongest in the North division according to these statistics -- but their skill position players are, well, somewhat lacking in skill. They are, however, extremely efficient, which is a nice quality to have against a Missouri defense that sacrifices efficiency for limited big plays. I will be interested to see how much Missouri adjusts its defensive gameplan to account for short passes, though I personally doubt they will tinker much. I'm pretty sure they will be perfectly content with doing what they did against K-State: allowing all the yardage they want between the 30s, then cracking down in the red zone.

These numbers, however, do not tell the entire story. For that, we need to go to their "Non-Conference vs Conference Play" numbers after the jump.

ISU Offense "+" Game Scores: Non-Con vs Conference Play
Category	Non-Con	Conference
Close S&P+	107.3	94.1
Close SR+	106.2	103.9
Close PPP+	106.5	81.0

Rushing S&P+	115.6	98.5
Passing S&P+	97.1	94.4

Standard Downs S&P+	112.2	84.9
Passing Downs S&P+	95.5	97.2

Red Zone S&P+	105.4	95.0

Q1 S&P+	98.7	84.7
Q2 S&P+	107.1	95.8
Q3 S&P+	107.6	111.0
Q4 S&P+	100.6	97.2

Note: you'll see that some of the conference/non-conference averages do not really match up with the season averages above. This is because I was looking at per-game data for the conference breakout, and one really good or really bad game can skew those numbers pretty considerably. For the full-season data, I look at every play (a sample size of, well a lot of plays) instead of "+" scores from a sample size of ten games. If this disclaimer didn't make any sense, don't worry about it. It's not that important, and I'm not really feeling like an A+ wordsmith at the moment.

Here is a game-by-game look at Iowa State's scoring progression this year: 34, 3, 34, 31, 23, 36, 24, 9, 10, 8, 17. After averaging 26.4 points over their first six games, the Cyclones have managed just 11.0 points in their last four. Thanks in part to turnovers and improving defense, they have gone 2-2 in that span, but this does start to take the look of a "Score 24 points and you'll probably win" game. We know that Baylor wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire before they came to Faurot Field two weeks ago, but the matchups in this game are not the same. Baylor doesn't have a lot of skill at wide receiver, but they have pure speed, and they burned Missouri with it. Iowa State quite frankly just doesn't have that speed. Their offense resembles K-State's without Brandon Banks--solid, strong running back, good tight end play (not that KSU showed any of that against Mizzou), and a big bunch of possession receivers.

The passing game has remained rather consistent throughout the season, but consistency isn't a great trait when you're just consistently being slightly below average. The running game, meanwhile, has regressed considerably, from rock solid in September to distinctly average in October and November. Consequently, they have remained about the same on passing downs, but they have fallen off on standard downs, which has resulted in a lot more passing downs.

When ISU Has the Ball...
ISU Rushing	Advantage: Mizzou
ISU Passing	Advantage: Push
Best Time for ISU:	Q3
Best Time for Missouri:	later in halves

Mizzou Advantages:

Points Per Play+ (explosiveness)
Rushing
Standard Downs
Red Zone (slightly)
Q2, Q4
2nd, 3rd Down

And for ISU...

Success Rate+ (efficiency)
Passing (slightly)
Q3
Line Yards, Sack Rates

It doesn't speak kindly of Alexander Robinson that Iowa State's run blocking numbers are so good, yet their actual rushing numbers are so average. In all, you can kind of see where both teams might succeed. Iowa State will succeed by playing well in the trenches and pulling off as many short, quick passes as they can manage. Missouri will succeed by using their superior linebackers to limit the running game, by tackling well, and by making stops on standard downs to force passing downs.

Quarterback

In glimpses, Austen Arnaud has size, a strong arm, and at least decent running ability. He completed 61.6% of his passes in 2008 for a solid 2,792 yards, 15 TDs and 10 INTs. He also mixed in 401 rushing yards and 5 TDs. In normal times, those would be considered numbers worthy of all-conference consideration. But in the Big 12, these aren't normal times. Arnaud's numbers put him at just 9th in the conference yardage, 11th in passer efficiency. And once again, when you factor in what was expected given the defenses Arnaud was facing, a decent quarterback probably would have produced more.

Austen Arnaud: 131-for-237 passing, 1,550 yards, 12 TDs, 9 INT (119.3 efficiency); 479 rushing yards, 7 TD
Jerome Tiller: 41-for-73 passing, 376 yards, 1 TD, 4 INT (93.0 efficiency); 216 rushing yards, 2 TD

For the second straight season, Austen Arnaud has put together numbers that are ... perfectly average. ISU has been decent in the passing game (with little help from the receiving corps), and Arnaud has become more of a threat with his legs this year, and he is by all means a solid quarterback. He will never threaten for all-conference honors, and honestly he seems like he should be scarier than he is -- strong arm, good legs, etc. --but he is competent. I mean this entire paragraph as neither a bad thing nor a particularly bad thing.

Running Back

Though the unit ranked just 90th in the country last year, I'm thinking the running backs have the biggest ceiling of any offensive unit Iowa State has. In his first year as a primary ball-carrier, Alexander Robinson fared...alright. His 703 yards, 6 TDs and 4.6 yards per carry were certainly respectable, and Missouri fans know he's capable of pretty solid play after his 2007 performance against them, but again...in a conference full of explosive weapons, Robinson gets lost in the shuffle. Using the POE measure discussed here, Robinson ranked 187th in the country (of about 270 eligible) with a POE of -4.4. Taking into account his relatively weak offensive line, he moved to 126th in Adjusted POE with a -0.4, meaning when blocking was taken into account, he was almost a precisely average running back last year. Average running backs are capable of a big game or two each year, but that's about it.

Alexander Robinson: 196 carries, 1,002 yards (5.1 per carry), 6 TD; 10 receptions, 200 yards (20.0 per catch), 3 TD
Jeremiah Schwartz: 71 carries, 264 yards (3.7 per carry)

Again, Robinson's numbers look strong, and he was huge against Missouri at Faurot Field two years ago, but once you factor line play into the equation, he starts to look very average, very quickly. He is a workhorse, however, and there is value in that. In the last five games that he has played (he missed the Nebraska game with a groin injury), he has averaged 22.4 carries per game, and like KSU's Daniel Thomas, ISU will absolutely lean on him as much as they can. It's just that, in those five games, he's only averaged over 5.0 yards per carry once. The injury has clearly affected his explosiveness.

In the nine games he's played (he only got 4 carries against KSU, so we're not counting that one here), here are his yards per carry:

5.2, 5.3, 6.2, 5.9, 5.6, 4.4, 3.8, 3.2, 4.6

Even last week against Colorado, when he went for 138 yards (plus 20 yards receiving), he still averaged less than five yards. The trick with Robinson is, the longer ISU stays in the game, the more they can pound away at you with him. But if you get a lead, then they don't know where to go with the ball. He still averaged 18 carries a game in blowout losses against OSU and ATM, but it didn't help much, as ISU scored only 18 points combined.

Wide Receivers / Tight Ends

As nice as it might be having a couple of good running backs, Iowa State desperately needs some rejuvenation in the receiving corps. No returning wide receiver averaged more than 12 yards per catch, though there's at least some hope in the fact that two of ISU's leaders last year were true freshmen, former 4-star recruit Sedrick Johnson and 3-star Darius Darks. Neither did a whole lot--Johnson caught just 18 passes for 188 yards (albeit with three TDs) and Darks caught a ton of passes (49) for not a ton of yards (9.7 per catch, very Thomson Omboga-esque)--but they were young and there's obviously plenty of playing time available in Ames. If they can continue to develop, this unit could be pretty decent, especially if another newcomer or two turns out well.

WR Marquis Hamilton (Sr.): 41 receptions, 542 yards (13.2 per catch), 4 TD
WR Jake Williams (Jr.): 26 receptions, 297 yards (11.4 per catch), 3 TD
WR Josh Lenz (Fr.): 20 receptions, 186 yards (9.3 per catch)
WR Darius Darks (So.): 17 receptions, 158 yards (9.3 per catch), 1 TD
WR Darius Reynolds (Jr.): 13 receptions, 72 yards (5.5 per catch!)

TE Derrick Catlett (Sr.): 25 receptions, 277 yards (11.1 per catch), 2 TD
TE Collin Franklin (Jr.): 14 receptions, 149 yards (10.6 per catch)

If a wide receiver is making a big play, it is almost certainly coming from Marquis Hamilton, who seems to be in his 19th year in Ames. Otherwise, this is as nondescript a WR corps as you will find. The good news for ISU is, they have a pair of rock solid tight ends, and they will use them a lot if given the opportunity. Of ISU's 12 complete passes last week, five went to the tight ends. Derrick Catlett very much impressed me in last year's Mizzou-ISU game, and Mizzou very much needs to account for him. Still, though, having good tight ends only helps with efficiency, not so much explosiveness. If Mizzou tackles well and plays smart, this unit simply will not have much of a day.

Offensive Line

Their 61 returning career starts is fourth-most in conference. Another thing they have going for them: size. The average weight of their projected starters: 329 pounds. These guys have a lot of nice, corn-fed Iowa names like Lamaak, Klerekoper, Baysinger, Tuftee, and...uhh, Osmele. They should be able to do at least reasonably well against lighter defensive lines.
Really, their size is a potential wildcard. If 220-pound Bo Williams turns out to be a solid running back, they could have a nice, big rushing attack to wear defenses out a little bit.

Consider this the best test of the month for Mizzou's improving, and almost awesome, defensive line. As mentioned in the above excerpt, this is a big, strong offensive line, and they have the potential to wear you down if you are allowing too many first downs. They are good in pass protection, but their strength is in the running game. With an elite back, the run blocking really could have made the difference between six wins and a North title. This is Iowa State's single strongest unit.

---

Defense

Iowa State: 2009 Beyond the Box Score Preseason Defensive Preview

ISU Defense vs Missouri Offense
Category	ISU Defense	MU Offense
Close S&P+ (Rk)	86.5 (100)	116.2 (28)
Close Success Rate+	83.1 (117)	106.7 (41)
Close PPP+	91.9 (73)	133.1 (22)

Rushing S&P+	97.5 (74)	102.5 (67)
Passing S&P+	78.2 (111)	126.7 (17)

Standard Downs S&P+	90.7 (95)	113.3 (37)
Passing Downs S&P+	91.5 (87)	115.4 (43)

Red Zone S&P+	98.9 (69)	79.3 (108)

Q1 S&P+	79.2 (106)	120.9 (38)
Q2 S&P+	94.8 (75)	114.9 (43)
Q3 S&P+	90.6 (84)	118.1 (32)
Q4 S&P+	92.9 (79)	107.0 (56)

1st Down S&P+	97.2 (70)	114.1 (34)
2nd Down S&P+	82.3 (107)	112.0 (48)
3rd Down S&P+	87.4 (95)	118.5 (35)

Line Yards+	89.6 (100)	99.1 (71)
Close Sack Rate+	44.9 (119)	140.4 (29)
Standard Downs / Passing Downs Sack Rate+	51.7 (114) / 76.9 (94)	228.7 (11) / 110.9 (53)

When they are not forcing turnovers, they are not getting the job done.

ISU Defense "+" Game Scores: Non-Con vs Conference Play
Category	Non-Con	Conference
Close S&P+	98.8	96.7
Close SR+	99.6	86.9
Close PPP+	98.7	120.5

Rushing S&P+	131.4	113.4
Passing S&P+	81.7	91.5

Standard Downs S&P+	96.7	98.6
Passing Downs S&P+	107.1	119.1

Red Zone S&P+	115.1	129.5

Q1 S&P+	100.0	102.0
Q2 S&P+	125.8	124.0
Q3 S&P+	83.9	111.7
Q4 S&P+	132.5	104.4

So as the season has progressed, Iowa State has gotten better defending the pass and worse defending the rush. Against Missouri, that might not necessarily be a bad thing for them. You have to account for Mizzou's pass before you worry about the run.

When Missouri Has the Ball...
Missouri Rushing	Advantage: Push
Missouri Passing	Big Advantage: Mizzou
Best Time for ISU:	Q3
Best Time for Missouri:	The rest of the game

MU's advantages:

Close S&P+, Success Rate+, Points Per Play+
Rushing (slight)
Passing (huge)
Standard Downs, Passing Downs
Q1-Q4
1st-3rd Down
Line Yards
Sack Rates (HUGE)

ISU's advantages:

Red Zone

Two quick notes:

ANY sack Mizzou gives up is a huge failure. ISU has generated one of the worst pass rushes in the country.
Each of the last two games, a key factor has been Touchdowns vs Field Goals. ISU's only significant advantage is in the Red Zone, but if they can hold Mizzou to three points instead of seven, they will stay in the game for longer and longer. And as mentioned above, the longer they stay in this game, the longer they can pound away at Mizzou with their big linemen in run blocking.

Defensive Line

As mentioned above, I consider the line a relative strength of the defense even though only two starters return. There's good experience at tackle, with 9th-year senior Nate Frere (9.5 sacks/TFL) leading the way and upperclassmen Austin Alburtis and Bailey Johnson filling in. I like Stephen Ruempolhamer quite a bit, though that's either because a) his name is awesome, or b) he somehow managed two fumble recoveries and eight tackles. Needless to say, a 1-to-4 FR-to-tackle ratio is...rare. For Sean Weatherspoon to have pulled that off last year, he'd have recovered about 40 fumbles. Which would have been awesome.

DE Christopher Lyle: 41.0 tackles, 9.5 TFL/sacks, 1 FF, 2 FR, 3 QBH, 3 PBU
DT Nate Frere: 17.5 tackles, 4.5 TFL/sacks, 1 INT, 1 FF, 1 QBH
DT Bailey Johnson: 15.0 tackles, 3.0 TFL/sacks
DE Patrick Neal: 14.5 tackles, 2.5 TFL/sacks, 4 QBH
DT Stephen Ruempolhamer: 12.5 tackles, 2.0 TFL/sacks, 1 FR
DT Austin Alburtis: 11.0 tackles, 1.0 TFL/sacks, 1 QBH

I called this unit a relative strength in the offseason, but it has been absolutely brutal this year. Chris Lyle has put together some nice numbers, but the rest of the line has been, to put it kindly, iffy. Mizzou's decent-not-great offensive line should be able to impose its will on this unit, which ranks 100th or worse in both line yards and sack rates.

Linebackers

Another unit that wasn't done any favors by the BTBS numbers, ISU's LBs have K-State's problem--lots of experience, little known talent. They have their prototypical 'tackling machine' in Jesse Smith and another decent playmaker in Fred Garrin--the two combined for 12 sacks/TFL, 4 forced fumbles, 3 recoveries, and a handful of other disruptive stats--but they were eclipsed in total tackles by safety James Smith, which is almost never a good thing. Other guys like Josh Raven and Derec Schmidgall have seemingly been around forever, with little to show for it.

Jesse Smith: 88.5 tackles, 3.5 TFL/sacks, 2 INT, 2 FF, 3 QBH, 5 PBU
Fred Garrin: 60.5 tackles, 4.0 TFL/sacks, 2 INT, 2 FF, 4 PBU
Josh Raven: 27.5 tackles, 7.0 TFL/sacks, 1 FF, 1 FR, 1 PBU, 2 QBH
Jake Knott: 16.5 tackles, 2.0 TFL/sacks, 1 PBU
A.J. Klein: 11.0 tackles, 1.0 TFL/sacks, 1 FF, 1 FR

On the other hand, ISU's linebackers been more disruptive than expected, at least in terms of getting a hand in on turnovers. Josh Raven has been the only behind-the-line-of-scrimmage threat, and this isn't a wonderful unit by any means, but the five players above have forced six fumbles, recovered two, and picked off four passes. If Blaine Gabbert gets a little too greedy and locks in on a receiver, the back seven of ISU's defense might make him pay.

Secondary

First things first: for a redshirt freshman, Leonard Johnson was quite good in 2008. He had a hand in a ton of big plays--he intercepted two passes (he had a third against Missouri, but it was called back due to a penalty far removed from Johnson), forced two fumbles, recovered three fumbles, and broke up four passes. Not bad consiering how poor the supporting cast around him was. As mentioned before, James Smith was a tiny tackling machine, posting 85 tackles and almost no "disruptive" stats (sacks/TFL, FF, FR, INT, QBH, PBR, etc.) whatsoever. And beyond that...well, let's just say this: with the "+" stats, Big 12 defenses were cut major slack because of the strength of the offenses they were facing. For instance, Missouri ranked in the top 30 in pass defense despite their high yardage totals. If you were a Big 12 defense, you were guaranteed to give up a ton of yards. And yet Iowa State's pass defense still managed to get themselves ranked 109th in the country last year. Ouch. All the slack in the world, and they only ranked above 11 other teams.

S James Smith: 61.0 tackles, 0.5 TFL/sacks, 1 INT, 1 FF, 3 FR, 5 PBU
S David Sims: 54.5 tackles, 3.5 TFL/sacks, 4 INT, 3 FF, 1 FR
CB Leonard Johnson: 46.0 tackles, 2.5 TFL/sacks, 2 INT, 2 FF, 1 FR, 4 PBU
CB Kennard Banks: 42.0 tackles, 1.0 TFL/sacks, 1 INT, 1 FF, 1 FR, 5 PBU
S Michael O'Connell: 27.0 tackles, 1.0 TFL/sacks, 1 INT, 1 FR, 1 PBU
CB Ter'ran Benton: 26.0 tackles, 2.5 TFL/sacks, 2 QBH
CB Jeremy Reeves: 10.0 tackles

It's interesting: the Iowa State secondary has been about as disruptive a secondary as you could ask for. Eleven tackles for loss, nine interceptions, seven forced fumbles, seven recovered fumbles, a ton of broken-up passes ... and yet, when they are not making huge plays, they're leaking yardage like our old dishwasher leaked water. This is about as all-or-nothing a unit as you're going to find, and it is a must that Mizzou play smart in their passing game. If Gabbert makes the smart throw, and the receivers hold onto the ball (Jerrell Jackson, I'm looking in your general direction), then they should have no trouble moving the ball downfield. But ISU is good at turning little mistakes into large mistakes. Speaking of mistakes...

Injured Blaine Gabbert: 42-for-95 passing (44.2%), 512 yards (5.4 per pass), 1 TD (1.1% of passes), 5 INT (5.3%)
Healthy Blaine Gabbert: 159-for-246 (64.6%), 2,150 yards (8.7 per pass), 19 TD (7.7%), 2 INT (0.8%)

WOW. I realize that his injury coincided perfectly with the best threesome of pass defenses that Missouri faced this year, and I realize he wouldn't have produced his season averages in 11 quarters against Nebraska, OSU, and Texas, but ... still ... wow. Healthy Gabbert is completing 20% more of his passes than Injured Gabbert, for 3.3 more yards per pass, throwing TDs at a 7x higher rate, while throwing INTs at almost a 7x lower rate. It's an amazing question to wonder what Gabbert's already strong numbers would have looked like had Ndamukong Suh not rolled him up.

In the end, Healthy Gabbert is taking on a secondary that, while more disruptive, is really no better than Kansas State's ... and with help from Danario Alexander, he carved K-State up quite nicely. I'm curious how Mizzou will handle the loss of Jared Perry, particularly who becomes the fourth major target, assuming Jerrell Jackson is now #2 and Wes Kemp #3 (or vice versa). Does long-lost Andrew Jones join the fray again? Does somebody like Brandon Gerau, Rolandis Woodland, or T.J. Moe suddenly see a couple passes? Danario Alexander already catches a higher percentage of his team's passes than any other major receiver, so we can't really lean on him more than we already do.

Special Teams

If the offense and defense can keep Iowa State in the game, the special teams unit is just good enough to make the difference. Grant Mahoney was quite good for a freshman, and Mike Brandtner isn't a liability at punter. Leonard Johnson is a potentially explosive kick returner, and Michael O'Connell is...well, he's a punt returner. We'll see what he's capable of.

Punt Returns Rank: 104th (Josh Lenz: 19 returns, 4.7 avg)
Net Punting Rank: 24th (Mike Brandtner: 56 punts, 40.5 avg)
Kickoff Returns Rank: 56th (Leonard Johnson: 17 returns, 20.4 avg; David Sims: 15 returns, 22.9 avg)
Opponents' Kickoff Returns Rank: 7th (Grant Mahoney: 2 touchbacks in 48 kickoffs)

Field Goals: 98th (Grant Mahoney: 12-for-19, Long: 52)
PATs: 118th (Grant Mahoney: 21-for-25)

Another all-or-nothing unit, ISU's coverage teams are rock solid. They're 24th in Net Punting and 7th in Net Kickoffs, but they pretty much stink on ice at everything else. They're bad at returning punts, they're bad at place-kicking, and they're only okay at kickoff returns. (Of course, "okay at kickoff returns" could actually mean "good at kickoff returns" against Missouri. We'll see.) Mizzou has a solid advantage here if Jake Harry is getting good bounces and there are no complete debacles at kickoff return.

---

Three Keys to the Game

Turnovers. More than any other game, turnovers.

It's pretty obvious that Iowa State is well above average in terms of forcing fumbles and intercepting passes. If it is a technique that can be learned, they've learned it. Meanwhile, Missouri is actually somewhat due a turnover -- their last one was in the third quarter against Colorado, meaning they've gone nine quarters without a lost turnover. Even the best teams in the world throw a pick or bobble a ball every now and then, so expect 1-2 from Mizzou tomorrow. But if they stop it at 1-2, while maybe forcing 1-2 themselves, then ISU's odds of winning go down exponentially. Turnovers are always important, but ISU lives and dies off of them.

Touchdowns instead of field goals.

Mizzou had to settle for three field goals against Baylor, and even though The Amazing Grant Ressel made them all, settling for them in the first place cost them quite a bit in an eight-point win. Meanwhile, Missouri held K-State to four field goals last Saturday, and while their final winning margin suggests it probably wouldn't have made a difference, it did.

Defenses are slowly starting to catch up to offenses again, especially in the red zone, and it seems touchdowns have been much harder to come by for a lot of teams this year. If Mizzou is able to punch the ball into the endzone instead of settling for three points, an Iowa State offense that has been far from en fuego recently will find it quite difficult to score enough points to keep up. But if Mizzou gets, say, three scoring opportunities in the first half and only comes away with 9 points instead of 17 or 21, look out. Meanwhile, if they're holding ISU to field goals, ISU has no chance. Red zone execution is ISU's only major defensive advantage, and it could be a big one.

Tackle.

Expect ISU to run plenty of short, quick passes, and expect them to work at least a bit considering Mizzou's typically soft coverage cushions. It's annoying, but we saw last week why they do it. If they tackle well and force an only-decent offense like Iowa State's to drive the length of the field consistently, the Cyclones will falter more often than not. But if they do ISU some favors, and the Cyclones are able to generate some bigger plays, then ... well, we saw what happens in that scenario two weeks ago against Baylor. Play disciplined on defense, do your job, and Iowa State will need another +8 turnover margin to win the game.

Prediction

Not surprisingly, the numbers like Mizzou quite a bit in this one. I don't believe too heavily in things like Senior Day emotion playing a big role or anything -- to me, it could almost be a detriment as much as an asset -- but in the end, emotion should even out, and Mizzou should move to 7-4. I cannot commend enough the job that Paul Rhoads has done this season, taking a group that had no idea how to win, and teaching them how to seize every opportunity and win some ball games. Still, though, if Missouri doesn't turn the ball over and give ISU extra opportunities, they should be able to handle Iowa State relatively easily. Make mistakes, however, and you will pay. The numbers say Mizzou by 18, so we'll go with Mizzou 31, Iowa State 13.

Mizzou-KSU: Beyond the Box Score

Bill C. — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:00:14 -0000

Confused? Catch up with the BTBS Primer.

As always, it is much more fun to analyze a win, isn't it?

	Mizzou (38)	K-State (12)
Close %	81.2%
Field Position %	36.0%	57.5%
Leverage %	72.0%	69.9%

TOTAL
EqPts	30.9	13.5
Close Success Rate	55.6%	41.8%
Close PPP	0.61	0.18
Close S&P	1.167	0.601

RUSHING
EqPts	10.0	4.4
Close Success Rate	50.0%	29.4%
Close PPP	0.37	0.13
Close S&P	0.870	0.425
Line Yards/carry	3.94	2.75

PASSING
EqPts	20.8	9.1
Close Success Rate	59.3%	61.9%
Close PPP	0.77	0.27
Close S&P	1.364	0.885
SD/PD Sack Rate	0.0% / 0.0%	5.3% / 0.0%

STANDARD DOWNS
Success Rate	66.7%	45.1%
PPP	0.76	0.12
S&P	1.430	0.567

PASSING DOWNS
Success Rate	28.6%	40.9%
PPP	0.24	0.35
S&P	0.528	0.755

TURNOVERS
Number	0	3
Turnover Pts	0.0	16.9
Turnover Pts Margin	+16.9	-16.9

Q1 S&P	0.957	0.493
Q2 S&P	1.197	0.573
Q3 S&P	1.756	0.742
Q4 S&P	1.190	0.598

1st Down S&P	1.639	0.574
2nd Down S&P	0.692	0.622
3rd Down S&P	0.757	0.506

Projected Pt. Margin	+34.3	-34.3
Actual Pt. Margin	+26	-26

Quick reactions...

Kansas State can thank special teams for keeping this game at a smaller margin (26 instead of the projected 34). With solid kick returns and only decent Mizzou punting, they ran well over half of their plays from Mizzou's side of the field, which put a lot of pressure on Missouri's defense not to break down, especially considering how KSU thrives on the "geology" style of offense (pressure + time). Eventually, Mizzou could have worn down, given in, and allowed a couple of killer touchdowns, but they did not. Meanwhile, barely over one-third of Mizzou's plays were run from KSU's side of the field, but thanks to Danario Alexander, that didn't really matter. With #81, Mizzou was more capable of scoring touchdowns from their own side of the field than KSU was in Mizzou territory, and that clearly made the difference in the game.
This game really was decided by explosiveness. Missouri had it, K-State didn't. Mizzou was content to allow a ridiculously high passing success rate to KSU in exchange for not giving up any big plays and making KSU drive the length of the field. How many times did KSU convert a 3rd-and-6 with exactly a 6-yard pass? Plenty. And how many touchdowns did KSU score? Zero. Watching Mizzou allow huge cushions on opposing wide receivers, especially on third down, is amazingly frustrating to watch. But in the last two weeks, we've seen why they do it. Without two long bombs, Baylor doesn't beat Missouri no matter how many short passes they complete. If Missouri can make you drive the length of the field without bombs or missed tackles, their run defense will make it very hard for you to convert those drives into touchdowns instead of field goals.
Missouri's 1.639 S&P on first downs really tells you all you need to know about how well David Yost and company did in their offensive game-planning last week. They nailed it. Mizzou was only decent on second and third downs, but first downs are the most likely "straight from the script" down, and Mizzou was wonderfully successful there. Meanwhile, they completely stuffed KSU's offensive gameplan as well, limiting them to a 0.574 S&P on first downs. Think about that--Mizzou was almost three times more successful on first down than KSU. That's how you win road games by 26.
That, and winning the turnover battle by 17 points certainly helps, huh?

"This Team Can't Score in the Second Half"

Football's the funniest sport to analyze because we are dealing with such laughably small sample sizes. Take any team from the NBA (or Major League Baseball). With a 12-game sample I could show you a squad that is great in the first half, or terrible in the second half, or terrible on the boards, or great shooting. Then, with a different 12-game sample, I should show you a team that is terrible in the first half, great in the second half, great on the boards, or terrible shooting. Figuring out what is true and what is within the margin of error is a crap shoot when the margin of error is gigantic.

What this means is, narratives form and disintegrate in less than a month's time. The first month of the season, Missouri had a slow-starting offense that was impeccable in the second half. A month later, they were outstanding in the first half and horribly inept in the second ("HALFTIME ADJUSTMENTS!!!!"). We all saw the graphic Versus threw up in the third quarter, showing how Missouri had not yet scored a touchdown in the second half of a conference game. And then they scored three touchdowns in the second half. And like that, the narrative died. At this point in the season, Mizzou has had three major letdowns in the second half (OSU, Colorado, Baylor...Nebraska and Texas don't count, as they were no worse in the second half as in the first half) and four games in which the second half offense was as good as (Illinois, Nevada, KSU) or better than (Bowling Green) the first half offense. Rest in peace, "No Halftime Adjustments" narrative.

(Major disclaimer: I half-mock the "halftime adjustments" meme, but I don't want to pretend that there wasn't something going on to send the team into a second-half funk. Gary Pinkel was worried enough about it that he brought in Lorenzo Williams to give a Thursday pep talk and let Sean Weatherspoon do all the talking at halftime in Manhattan. He knew something needed to be done, and he deserves to be commended for trying to address the issue. Did those pep talks have anything to do with the team's better performance? Possibly, possibly not. We obviously don't really know, but it certainly didn't hurt, huh?)

So now that we're done with five-sixths of the season, we can see the true narrative for this offense: 1) they've got a sophomore quarterback whose pocket presence is improving by the week, but still has plenty to learn, 2) they've got an All-American caliber receiver who can score from any point on the field at any time, and 3) they are LOADED with youth, and therefore maddeningly inconsistent. Blaine Gabbert? Sophomore. Derrick Washington, De'Vion Moore, and Kendial Lawrence? Junior, sophomore, true freshman. Wes Kemp, Jerrell Jackson, and (yes) Andrew Jones? Sophomore, sophomore, sophomore. Elvis Fisher, Austin Wuebbels, and Dan Hoch? Sophomore, sophomore, sophomore. Heading into this season, Missouri's offense had about roughly 101 career starts (Kurtis Gregory 28, Jared Perry 20ish, Derrick Washington 14, Tim Barnes 14, Elvis Fisher 14, Danario Alexander 11, and I may be forgetting some here and there). Now? 211 career starts. They will lose Alexander, Gregory, and Perry ... and that's it. Yes, we're leaning heavily on Danario right now, and justifiably so, but it's amazing what experience can do. For no single reason, you just become more consistent (and your offensive coordinator becomes a lot smarter) over time with this little turnover.

What does this mean for the rest of the season? Who the hell knows? With three games now remaining, odds are in favor of at least one more stinker and at least one more explosion. Figuring out the games in which those will happen is impossible.

Three Positives

Danario Alexander. It's predictable, and you could have made this judgment without any statistical analysis whatsoever, but he just has to lead off this list, no? He has upped his game in the last couple of weeks, but his season-long output has just been insane. He will absolutely end up with the Mizzou single season yardage record, locking it down as soon as his first or second catch this coming Saturday, but he needs 22 catches to top Jeremy Maclin's single season record. At 7.3 per game, that's certainly within the realm of possibility, but he'll probably need one more big game to lock it down. And who's betting against him at this point?

You just have to hope and pray that the leadership-by-example that he is showing right now is rubbing off on guys like Wes Kemp, Jerrell Jackson, Rolandis Woodland, and T.J. Moe, as he will not be around to carry this offense next year.
Missouri defensive line. Lost amid Alexander's recent surge is the performance Dominique Hamilton has come up with recently. He and Jaron Baston have led what has just been a superb rushing defense over these past few weeks, and if you are ranking the North's best defensive linemen for next season, Hamilton is almost starting to make a case for the #3 slot behind Jared Crick and Aldon Smith. The future is extremely bright for the Missouri defensive line, with Hamilton and Jacquies Smith making plays as sophomores and Aldon Smith becoming an all-conference level performer as a redshirt freshman.
First Downs. I already referenced it above, but against a Bill Snyder-led coaching staff, Mizzou's staff put together virtually perfect offensive and defensive gameplans, and it shined through in the first down performance on both offense and defense. Mizzou's offensive is still only average at best on passing downs, but with such great success on first-and-10, they faced minimal awkward situations.

(And because we won, a fourth positive...)
Offensive Line. No sacks and a 3.94 line yardage average? Wow. KSU's defensive line isn't great, but that was still a dominant performance.

Three Negatives

Field Position. Iowa State doesn't have the return threats that Kansas State and Baylor had, and that will help, but Missouri has done itself no favors whatsoever in the field position battle this year. Mizzou is solid in a lot of special teams aspects, but kick coverage has not been one of them. Kick returns and ill-timed three-and-outs by the offense led to K-State's domination in this category last Saturday, and while the Mizzou defense responded time and again, you're just adding to the degree of difficulty by letting this happen, especially on the road. Thanks to Danario Alexander, Mizzou more than overcame their field position deficiencies, but even going back to the Oklahoma State game this has been a consistent issue.
Passing Downs (Offense). With experience should come improvement in this category, but it is certainly still a lingering issue on offense this year. We were very spoiled by Chase Daniel's proficiency on passing downs, and we should see the numbers improve as Blaine Gabbert gets more and more comfortable in the pocket and the coaching staff takes the reins off of the play-calling, but for now it is a well-defined weakness.
Passing Downs (Defense). KSU's 40.9% success rate on Passing Downs was very frustrating, but as I mentioned above, we know why they allowed that--the coverage cushions set up a series of easy conversions, and against KSU that was fine because they were not capable of running the ball and putting the ball in the endzone, but while it made strategic sense, it was annoying to watch.

Three Keys Revisited

Seen here.

MU Defensive Line vs KSU Offensive Line

KSU will continue to use Daniel Thomas to pound away at opponents until they absolutely have to pass. If Missouri holds Thomas to what they've been holding other opponents, Kansas State will really struggle to move the ball. As I said, Brandon Banks has been inconsistent in the passing game, and they don't have another go-to passing weapon. If the Wildcats can't run the ball, they will face a lot of passing downs; and if they face a lot of passing downs, guys like Aldon Smith are going to have another huge day, and Mizzou will likely win.

KSU indeed couldn't run, and while Aldon Smith didn't have a Colorado-esque game, Mizzou still won easily.

Standard Downs

Against the run or pass, KSU's defense has been below average in terms of defense on standard downs (i.e. first downs, 2nd-and-6 or less, 3rd-and-4 or less). As you would expect from a Bill Snyder team, they take advantage of mistakes, but if Missouri can generate consistent yardage on standard downs, run or pass, then they should be able to move the ball rather well. This goes for any game, but especially one that includes a Missouri offense that is talented and fast, but young and lacking confidence.

Mizzou had a 1.430 S&P on standard downs. 'Nuff said.

Brandon Banks

Quite simply, if KSU makes a big offensive play or scores an easy touchdown, the odds are good that Banks was behind it. Granted, he has only one receiving touchdown on the year (how does that happen??), but he is quick and fast, a lot like Baylor's Kendall Wright, only faster and smaller. If KSU is able to get him in the open field, then this offense becomes infinitely more dangerous. And, um, I think I've already covered how scared of him I am in the kicking game. Seriously, just kick it out of bounds.

It ended up being about a 50-50 proposition whether kicking it out of bounds would have been smarter than kicking it deep, and while it was a relief that he never broke a big return (at least, not without an illegal block bringing it back), he was still KSU's best threat for winning this game, and his presence still resulted in a massive field position advantage for the WIldcats. Again, fortunately for Mizzou, Iowa State has nobody this dangerous.

Summary

Winner, winner. Not much else to say at this point. This has been a bit of a frustrating season, simply because of the youth on the display and the inconsistency that comes with that, but Saturday's win was quite satsifying, not only because it was on the road or because it was against Bill Snyder, but because it signified that this team's long-term trajectory has not been damaged by the loss to Baylor or the overall poor performance against the Big 12 South. Missouri still looks beyond dangerous in 2010 and 2011, and "Don't screw up future seasons" really was one of the main goals for 2009.

ROCK M PHOTO GALLERY: Mizzou-KSU

Bill C. — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 17:42:17 -0000

I'm not going to lie: I think this is Bill Carter's best photo gallery yet. Wow. And I'm not thinking that simply because we won one for once...

Mizzou-KSU: Beyond the Box Score PREVIEW

Bill C. — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:00:36 -0000

More photos » by Charlie Riedel - AP

2 months ago: Kansas State wide receiver Brandon Banks runs into the end zone to score a touchdown during the first quarter of an NCAA college football game against Tennessee Tech on Saturday, Sept. 26, 2009, in Manhattan, Kan. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

Browse more photos »

The Big 12 North leader versus a team still scrapping for bowl eligibility. That's what we expected from this game at the beginning of the season, right?

I'm not going to lie: it is probably a complete waste of time to try to apply statistics to explain Kansas State. Stats HATE K-State. Even though my projections saw good things coming from KSU this year (damn straight I'm pounding my chest on that one), they have lived up to expectations in the most underwhelming way imaginable. Their offense has been great and atrocious. Their defense has been a sieve and a brick wall. They have won and lost games because of special teams. Based on both teams' play this season, the projections have actually moved from "K-State by 0.5" in the preseason to "Missouri by 7.2" despite K-State's current 4-2 conference record (and Missouri's 1-4 record).

In other words, neither I nor my stats have any freaking clue what is going to happen Saturday morning. It's important to be honest, no?

Offense

Kansas State: 2009 Beyond the Box Score Preseason Offensive Preview

Two good players (one of whom is a much better return man than receiver) and a quarterback whose main job is simply not to make a devastating error. That pretty much describes KSU's offense at this point. Here is the main BTBS data table, to be followed by a "Non-conference vs conference play" look at things, since it's pretty obvious that KSU has improved considerably in the last 4-6 weeks.

K-State Offense vs Missouri Defense
Category	KSU Offense	MU Defense
Close S&P+ (Rk)	91.2 (93)	104.7 (44)
Close Success Rate+ (Rk)	91.3 (99)	101.3 (53)
Close PPP+ (Rk)	92.6 (88)	109.3 (44)

Rushing S&P+	94.6 (87)	105.5 (53)
Passing S&P+	86.1 (100)	102.7 (52)

Standard Downs S&P+	100.3 (74)	111.1 (37)
Passing Downs S&P+	89.1 (95)	103.3 (58)

Red Zone S&P+	104.9 (61)	105.9 (54)

Q1 S&P+	89.9 (92)	92.2 (79)
Q2 S&P+	110.8 (50)	129.9 (18)
Q3 S&P+	111.3 (54)	105.2 (51)
Q4 S&P+	88.0 (99)	113.3 (36)

1st Down S&P+	102.5 (67)	106.6 (52)
2nd Down S&P+	96.3 (77)	106.6 (51)
3rd Down S&P+	92.9 (88)	106.8 (51)

Line Yards+	106.0 (46)	97.3 (73)
Close Sack Rate+	76.6 (94)	89.6 (79)
Standard Downs / Passing Downs Sack Rate+	91.3 (76) / 66.7 (104)	111.9 (46) / 113.3 (49)

Looking at the numbers like this, you get the impression that KSU isn't capable of scoring at all. Of course, let's break things out into non-conference vs conference play...

Analysis after the jump.

KSU Offense "+" Game Scores: Non-Con vs Conference Play
Category	Non-Con	Conference
Close S&P+	75.9	101.4
Close SR+	84.1	96.1
Close PPP+	66.2	110.2

Rushing S&P+	77.7	105.9
Passing S&P+	74.2	94.0

Standard Downs S&P+	85.0	110.5
Passing Downs S&P+	75.0	98.5

Red Zone S&P+	82.2	120.0

Q1 S&P+	65.4	106.2
Q2 S&P+	93.6	122.3
Q3 S&P+	105.6	115.1
Q4 S&P+	83.9	90.7

Strangely, KSU's offense has improved by growing even more conservative than it already was. Grant Gregory took over the majority of the snaps starting with the Iowa State game, and while he has been far from amazing, he has played it safe, giving KSU's defense and special teams a chance to win the game. Aside from a false start against Texas Tech (he was sacked three times and replaced), Gregory has been a stabilizing influence that Carson Coffman was not, and that has made the biggest difference for KSU. Gregory's passer rating is almost exactly the same as Coffman's, but while he averages a yard fewer in terms of yards per attempt, he has also been less INT-prone. Plus, he's provided just enough of a rushing threat to take some heat off of Daniel Thomas.

When KSU Has the Ball...
KSU Rushing	Advantage: Push
KSU Passing	Slight Advantage: Mizzou
Best Time for KSU:	Beginning of the half
Best Time for Missouri:	Later in the half

We'll once again start with the individual categories where Missouri has the rankings advantage. For the most part, we'll compare Mizzou's season averages to KSU's conference averages, though there are some pretty blurred lines here.

Close SR+
Passing S&P+
Passing Downs S&P+
Q2, Q4 S&P+
2nd, 3rd Down S&P+
Sack Rate+

And for KSU...

Red Zone S&P+
Q1, Q3 S&P+
Line Yards+

Looking at things in this way, you can see a path for success for both teams--Missouri's defense could succeed by being aggressive, sending the house on passing downs, and wearing KSU down as each half progresses. Meanwhile, if KSU's offensive line can get a good push and they can take advantage of their scoring opportunities, and if their offensive gameplan early on results in some points, they could easily score enough to win the game.

Quarterback

The candidates are plentiful. You've got a South Florida transfer in Grant Gregory, who has spent his entire South Florida career backing up Matt "Homeless Man's Brett Favre" Grothe. He's completed 27 of 50 passes in his career, mostly in scrub time, for 384 yards, 3 TDs and 3 sacks. You've also got Junior college transfer Daniel Thomas and a pair of big, 3-star youngsters in Joseph Kassanavoid, pride of Lawson, MO, and Collin Klein of Loveland, CO, who came across as decent running weapon in the spring game.

Grant Gregory: 68-for-114 passing (59.6%), 731 yards (6.4 per pass), 4 TD, 2 INT; 77 carries, 254 yards, 3 TD
Carson Coffman: 71-for-117 passing (60.7%), 860 yards (7.4 per pass), 2 TD, 4 INT; 54 carries, 64 yards, 2 TD

As mentioned above, looking at basic passing stats, you really can't discern that big a difference between Gregory and Coffman. But with Gregory making fewer mistakes and showing the ability to scramble for first downs, there is simply no question that the KSU offense has been better with Gregory at the helm. Here's where people who hate stats will say that stats don't tell the story about who's the better quarterback, and it's all about leadership and intangibles. Well guess what: leadership and intangibles will still show up if you're looking at the right stats, and seeing that KSU's S&P+ ratings have increased across the board with Gregory behind center tells you what you need to know.

Running Back

Yeah, I completely whiffed on this part in the preseason preview. I wasn't sure if Daniel Thomas was going to be a quarterback or running back, so I managed to forget to mention him at either position.

Daniel Thomas: 205 carries, 1087 yards (5.3 per carry), 11 TD; 19 catches, 205 yards (10.8 per catch)
Keithen Valentine: 53 carries, 364 yards (6.9 per carry), 6 TD; 6 catches for 5 yards (0.8 per catch)
Jarell Childs: 13 carries, 79 yards (6.1 per carry)

If there is a true star on KSU's roster, it is very clearly Daniel Thomas, who has posted at least 90 rushing yards in each of KSU's six wins. In low-scoring wins over Colorado and Kansas, the Wildcats rode Thomas to 330 rushing yards on just 44 carries. It is pretty clear that when KSU gets a lead, they place the burden on Thomas to keep it. Of course, when they're behind, he's still carrying a large load. The only time he's gotten fewer than 19 touches in a game this year were in the blowout loss to Texas Tech and what started out as a blowout loss to Oklahoma (before KSU cut the gap considerably).

Wide Receivers / Tight Ends

So it's safe to say that Brandon Banks produced more per pound than just about everybody else in the country. Generously listed at 150 pounds (ESPN has him at 142), Banks was huge (so to speak) in non-conference play, with 22 catches for 463 yards and six touchdowns. He had his moments in conference play (77-yard touchdown against OU, five catches for 95 yards against Colorado, seven for 116 against Iowa State, complete torching of Mizzou's backups...screwyouronprince), though he was less consistent (which makes sense considering most corner's covering him had 50 pounds on him); regardless, he still ended up with an impressive 67 catches for 1,049 yards. Nothing could help him more in 2009 than a couple of other decent targets, including at least one big, possession-style receiver. Bill Snyder's probably hoping that Aubrey Quarles (34 catches, 407 yards) and converted RB LaMark Brown fit the bill. Brown is certainly a big guy and a decent athlete, and though he didn't really work out at RB, he might (might) have a shot to be a decent WR.

WR Brandon Banks: 43 catches, 529 yards (12.3 per catch), 1 TD (?)
WR Attrail Snipes: 22 catches, 339 yards (15.4 per catch), 2 TD
WR Lamark Brown: 13 catches, 171 yards (13.2 per catch), 2 TD

TE Jeron Mastrud: 21 catches, 233 yards (11.1 per catch), 1 TD

If KSU has any offensive acumen whatsoever on their coaching staff (and there's no reason to think they don't), and they have watched any film whatsoever from Mizzou's two bad defensive performances this year (Texas and Baylor), they will be throwing a bevy of sideline passes Brandon Banks' way. Banks has been rather inconsistent as a receiver this year. Here are his reception totals from Big 12 games: 4, 1, 6, 3, 9, 1. You have to figure, though, that he will be utilized as much as possible on Saturday, taking advantage of Missouri's apparent problem in tackling quick receivers like Baylor's Kendall Wright and Texas' Jordan Shipley. If they don't go to Banks on the short routes, it's hard to be too scared of the KSU passing attack. It has improved since Grant Gregory took over at QB, but it has still been below average overall, Banks' explosion against OU (9 catches, 156 yards) notwithstanding. It seems that defenses are going out of their way to deny Banks the ball whenever possible, and even though that has apparently led to better rushing lanes for Daniel Thomas, no other receiver has really stepped up to accept a large burden. Snipes, Brown, and Mastrud have all had their moments, but we'll just say that you can take your chances covering them one-on-one as long as you're accounting for Banks.

Offensive Line

By far the highest-rated unit on K-State's offense, the offensive line carved out a Top 15 finish thanks to their outstanding sack rate. Guess we'll find out how much of that was due to Josh Freeman's elusiveness and sack avoidance skills, huh? If there is a decent line in this mix, it gives Snyder something to work with--Nick Stringer could be very good at one tackle position, though losing Brock Unruh for the year will hurt. Stringer will combine with a young but relatively talented supporting cast, and if Clyde Aufner and Colten Freeze can continue to thrive after serving as part-time freshman starters, then this becomes a downright good line. Lord knows it needs to be good, what with an inexperienced QB (whoever wins the job) and little discernible talent in the backfield.

The K-State offensive line has been decent in run blocking and average in pass blocking on Standard Downs, but it appears that they are vulnerable to blitzes, as they are one of the nation's worst at avoiding Passing Downs sacks. This opens up an opportunity for Mizzou to employ their Colorado strategy, sending a ton of guys (from a ton of different directions) on second- and third-and-long to try to get to Gregory.

We all know how Mizzou was torched against the pass last week, but one of the key matchups of the game could be who wins the run blocking battle. If Thomas is running through pretty big holes and Mizzou has to bring guys up to account for the run, then suddenly the pass becomes a viable weapon. But even though Nick Florence torched Missouri, on standard downs and passing downs alike, last week, KSU does not have the overall speed in the receiving corps that Baylor does, and if Mizzou is stopping the run, they will likely stop the pass too.

---

Defense

Kansas State: 2009 Beyond the Box Score Preseason Defensive Preview

K-State Defense vs Missouri Offense
Category	KSU Defense	MU Offense
Close S&P+ (Rk)	92.0 (84)	112.4 (41)
Close Success Rate+	93.2 (85)	106.1 (44)
Close PPP+	90.5 (77)	124.5 (35)

Rushing S&P+	99.7 (67)	98.1 (80)
Passing S&P+	85.8 (95)	124.8 (21)

Standard Downs S&P+	92.3 (92)	108.8 (48)
Passing Downs S&P+	95.9 (73)	115.2 (44)

Red Zone S&P+	77.0 (112)	76.4 (111)

Q1 S&P+	90.2 (84)	122.0 (40)
Q2 S&P+	85.5 (104)	109.9 (54)
Q3 S&P+	94.9 (76)	111.2 (55)
Q4 S&P+	103.7 (56)	102.1 (66)

1st Down S&P+	94.6 (77)	105.6 (53)
2nd Down S&P+	85.9 (104)	113.6 (44)
3rd Down S&P+	95.6 (80)	118.9 (35)

Line Yards+	93.7 (86)	94.8 (87)
Close Sack Rate+	68.3 (102)	136.8 (33)
Standard Downs / Passing Downs Sack Rate+	97.6 (60) / 82.0 (87)	210.9 (14) / 108.3 (57)

When Missouri Has the Ball...
Missouri Rushing	Advantage: KSU
Missouri Passing	Advantage: Mizzou
Best Time for KSU:	Second Half
Best Time for Missouri:	First Half

Once again, the first month of the season was a complete disaster statistically, and KSU has turned things around a bit in conference play. They have been great at times, holding Colorado and Kansas to a combined 16 points, while they've still struggled occasionally, giving up a combined 108 points to Texas Tech and Oklahoma...the same Texas Tech and Oklahoma held to a combined 34 points by Nebraska. It appears that gameplan is everything with KSU--if it works, it really works; if not, it really doesn't. That, or this is simply a speed thing. Fast offenses can move the ball, while more plodding attacks (and at this point, KU qualifies as plodding, strangely enough) cannot. In other words, Mizzou may yet again be relying on Danario Alexander to stretch the field like no other Mizzou player can.

KSU Defense "+" Game Scores: Non-Con vs Conference Play
Category	Non-Con	Conference
Close S&P+	77.8	101.5
Close SR+	82.9	100.0
Close PPP+	79.7	97.7

Rushing S&P+	100.8	99.0
Passing S&P+	80.4	89.4

Standard Downs S&P+	90.4	93.6
Passing Downs S&P+	86.8	101.9

Red Zone S&P+	62.8	86.5

Q1 S&P+	77.7	98.5
Q2 S&P+	63.4	100.2
Q3 S&P+	129.5	71.8
Q4 S&P+	134.2	83.3

MU's advantages:

Close S&P+, SR+, PPP+
Passing S&P+
Standard Downs, Passing Downs S&P+
Q1, Q2, Q3, Q4 S&P+
2nd, 3rd Down S&P+
Sack Rate+

KSU's advantages:

Red Zone S&P+
Line Yards+

The phrase "Bill Snyder defense" strikes fear in the heart of most fans of other Big 12 North schools, but even with improvement in conference play, the Wildcats' defense is still quite vulnerable. Mizzou holds the advantage in most categories, though KSU's two major advantages--in run blocking and the red zone--could work tremendously to their favor.

Defensive Line

Despite Brandon Harold's performance, clearly this line was only average. Whatever success they had rushing the quarterback was negated by not standing up well to the run. The line gets a reinforcement this year in the form of Virginia transfer Jeffrey Fitzgerald. At 280 pounds, he's far from a giant, but his athleticism was on display his two years in Charlottesville. His freshman year in 2006, he was third on the team in tackles (as a DT!), racking up 16.5 TFL/sacks, intercepting two passes (!), and recovering two fumbles. In 2007, he was even better--while falling to fourth (gasp) on the team in tackles, he managed 18.5 TFL/sacks, picked off two more passes, forced two fumbles, and recovered one. At his size, it wouldn't surprise me to see him struggling on a down-to-down basis against good offensive lines (like Missouri's), but he's a playmaker, and he lines up next to another potential playmaker in Harold.

DE Jeffrey Fitzgerald (Sr.): 24.0 tackles, 8.5 TFL/sacks, 1 INT, 3 FF, 2 FR, 3 PBU
DT Daniel Calvin (Sr.): 19.5 tackles, 5.0 TFL/sacks, 2 PBU
DE Antonio Felder (Jr.): 18.5 tackles, 5.0 TFL/sacks, 1 PBU, 1 QBH
DT Raphael Guidry (So.): 14.0 tackles, 1.5 TFL/sacks, 1 FR

Due to injury, Brandon Harold has had something of a lost season. He's played in one game and registered just one tackle. Lucky for him, Jeffrey Fitzgerald has been as good as advertised. He is far from an every-down attacker like Ndamukong Suh or Aldon Smith, but he picks his spots, averaging about one tackle-for-loss per game and showing the ability to be a strong, disruptive force once or twice a game as well. Basically, he's a bigger, more disruptive Brian Coulter (Coulter has 23.0 tackles in one fewer game).

Up front, Fitzgerald is more or less alone in terms of play-making. KSU's d-line hasn't been particularly adept at either stopping the run or rushing the passer even with Fitzgerald. And unfortunately for them, their two most productive players are seniors. There is plenty about which opposing fans can be wary regarding the K-State defense, but the line really is not much of a concern (knock on wood).

Linebackers

If there's immediate hope to be derived from this unit, look at Alex Hrebec. As a freshman last year, he racked up 49.0 tackles, 6.5 TFL/sacks, a forced fumble, and a long interception return. Having Hrebec for another three years has to excite Snyder at least a little. And really, I probably shouldn't sell Ulla Pomele short either. He's a senior, and he's probably already peaked, but he did manage 47.5 tackles and 8.5 TFL/sacks last year, plus two forced fumbles and two fumble recoveries. The two of them should provide the base for a decent LB corps, though you'll notice the same problem as with other units--too much of the wrong kind of experience. Of the six LBs (and Rovers, in the case of maybe Boswell and Tigner) listed above, four are seniors. In 2010, Snyder will be working with Hrebec, Tigner and a host of newcomers. As I mentioned yesterday...how long does Snyder plan to stay this time around? He'll need quite a few years to get a team full of experienced Snyder recruits.

John Houlik (Sr.): 35.5 tackles, 6.5 TFL/sacks, 1 INT, 2 FF, 2 FR, 2 PBU
Ulla Pomele (Sr.): 34.0 tackles, 2.0 TFL/sacks, 1 FR
Troy Butler (Jr.): 33.5 tackles, 2.0 TFL/sacks, 1 FR, 2 PBU
Alex Hrebec (So.): 25.5 tackles, 4.0 TFL/sacks, 1 PBU
Kevin Rohleder (Jr.): 22.5 tackles

Four KSU linebackers have registered more tackles than their leading D-line tackler, Fitzgerald, showing that a) the main purpose of KSU's D-line is probably to free up the LBs, and b) the LB corps really is pretty solid. They are not tremendously disruptive, having only forced two fumbles and intercepted one pass (all of which came from John Houlik), but they make tackles. Plus, looking at the unit-by-unit breakdown here, it does appear that one of their major functions is a bit of bend-don't-break, making tackles and forcing teams to run as many plays as possible in the hopes that the secondary will eventually make a play. It has worked somewhat--just look at how many INTs the secondary has--but this front seven is not nearly as aggressive as what we're used to from a KSU defense. That is probably by necessity, of course; there is obviously not a ton of talent here (Ron Prince did recruit most of these players, after all), and credit goes to KSU's coaching staff for figuring out how best to utilize the talent on hand.

Secondary

At 62nd in the country, the secondary represented the strength of the K-State defense in 2008. The biggest reason for that: Joshua Moore. From the cornerback position, he led the team in tackles (not always a good thing for a cornerback to be doing) and racked up a pretty nicely disruptive stat line: 5.5 TFL/sacks, 3 INTs, 12 passes broken up, 15 passes defended, and a fumble recovery. He displayed enough skill that I'm going to say that the high tackle level was a good thing--that he wasn't just adding the tackles up by giving up a lot of receptions.
Consider me a big fan of Joshua Moore. Everybody else? Um...well, Courtney Herndon (6.0 TFL/sacks, 2 INTs) is really not too bad. Tysyn Hartman is young and relatively athletic.

CB Joshua Moore (Jr.): 42.5 tackles, 3.0 TFL/sacks, 2 INT, 1 FF, 10 PBU
SS Tysyn Hartman (So.): 41.5 tackles, 4 INT, 1 FF, 1 FR, 6 PBU
FS Emmanuel Lamur (So.): 41.0 tackles, 1.0 TFL/sacks, 3 INT, 2 FR, 2 PBU, 2 Blkd Kicks
CB David Garrett (Jr.): 21.0 tackles, 1 FF
CB Stephen Harrison (Jr.): 16.0 tackles, 8 PBU
CB Courtney Herndon (Sr.): 10.5 tackles, 2.5 TFL/sacks, 2 PBU

The secondary doesn't appear to me to be a tremendously deep unit, and it should be noted that a cornerback leading the secondary in tackles isn't the most encouraging thing in the world, but there's no question that Joshua Moore and the two sophomore safeties, Hartman and Lamur, are the best players on this defense. They are disruptive and active, and with a crafty coaching staff, this is a bit of a concern. If they can pick off a couple of Gabbert passes like Colorado did, that will buy their offense that much more time of possession and that many more Daniel Thomas carries. I'd say Mizzou's secondary receivers like Jared Perry, Jarrell Jackson and Wes Kemp could be huge factors against the cornerbacks not named Moore (assuming he'll be on Danario quite a bit), but I'm still miffed with them over last week's drops, so I'm not even going to hint that they could be an asset. They have to prove it to me again. I'm bitchy like that.

Special Teams

If it is determined that Brandon Banks can handle a monster load of touches--60-80 catches, plus both kick and punt returns, he's definitely the best option returning kicks/punts. If not, I would assume that Aubrey Quarles will resume his kickoff return duties. He only averaged 21.0 yards per return over 26 kicks last year, and he's not as explosive an option as Banks, but again...Banks is so freaking little!! How many hits can he take? Maybe I'm making too big a deal about his size, but...150 pounds!! And that's a kind estimate!!

Punt Returns Rank: 44th (Brandon Banks: 14 returns, 9.3 avg)
Net Punting Rank: 77th (Ryan Doerr: 35 punts, 40.7 avg)
Kickoff Returns Rank: 4th (Brandon Banks: 31 returns, 31.4 avg, 4 TD)
Opponents' Kickoff Returns Rank: 41st

Field Goals: 113th (Josh Cherry: 7-for-13, long: 47)
PATs: 100th (29-for-32)

For the love of all that is holy, DO NOT KICK THE BALL TO BRANDON BANKS. Employ the Marcus Herford strategy from the 2007 MU-KU game. Pop the ball up and give it to them at the 35-40 every time. I mean, a) that would still make them drive 60-65 yards to score (it's not a given that they can consistently do that), and b) it's better than seven easy points. Banks has just been insanely good in the return game this year. He is a decent punt return and just about the country's best kick returner. Last week we joked that kick returns would be Baylor's best offensive play (that ended up biting us, of course, when Baylor's offense provided plenty of great offensive plays), but this week it could actually be true. Do. Not. Kick. To. Brandon. Banks. Especially with the way Mizzou's kick coverage team played last week.

Beyond Banks, the special teams unit is...okay. Josh Cherry has rebounded from a disastrous start of the season. He missed five of his first six field goals on the season but has come around to make six of his last seven. He hasn't necessarily made a game-changing difference in any one game, but his two chip-shot field goals kept Colorado at arm's length, and the fact that he's made two 45+ yarders (against Texas A&M and Kansas) show that he is an infinitely more confident kicker than he was a couple of months ago.

Meanwhile, it is a shame that Missouri will likely be incapable of taking advantage of another KSU weakness, punt coverage. KSU is average in the punting game, but word is that Brandon Gerau will be returning punts instead of Carl Gettis, who has been dinged up for most of Big 12 play. Gerau is obviously reliable in cleanly fielding the kick, and obviously that's the most important thing, but he has yet to prove he is any sort of return weapon.

Special teams cost KSU the UCLA game and won them the Iowa State game. Their single most dangerous weapon is the kickoff return. If Mizzou can at least force a draw in the special teams battle, they put themselves in much better position to win.

---

Three Keys to the Game

MU Defensive Line vs KSU Offensive Line

In conference play, Missouri has given up just 77 rushing yards per game and 2.4 yards per carry. Looking at only running back stats (since typical college football stats stupidly include sacks), opposing running backs are averaging just 3.46 yards per carry in conference play, and if you take out Roy Helu's 41-yarder as time ran down at the end of the Nebraska game, it's 3.11 yards per carry. Baylor and Colorado running backs combined for 48 yards on 30 carries. Of all the problems Missouri has had in conference play, run defense has absolutely not been one of them.

But now Missouri's vastly improving front four will face an offense more dedicated to running the ball than anybody on the schedule since Nebraska. KSU will continue to use Daniel Thomas to pound away at opponents until they absolutely have to pass. If Missouri holds Thomas to what they've been holding other opponents, Kansas State will really struggle to move the ball. As I said, Brandon Banks has been inconsistent in the passing game, and they don't have another go-to passing weapon. If the Wildcats can't run the ball, they will face a lot of passing downs; and if they face a lot of passing downs, guys like Aldon Smith are going to have another huge day, and Mizzou will likely win.

Standard Downs

Against the run or pass, KSU's defense has been below average in terms of defense on standard downs (i.e. first downs, 2nd-and-6 or less, 3rd-and-4 or less). As you would expect from a Bill Snyder team, they take advantage of mistakes, but if Missouri can generate consistent yardage on standard downs, run or pass, then they should be able to move the ball rather well. This goes for any game, but especially one that includes a Missouri offense that is talented and fast, but young and lacking confidence.

Meanwhile, for the MU defense, they must succeed just the same. If KSU tries to implement the same type of short passing that worked for Baylor and Texas, that's fine, as long as Mizzou is playing sound and tackling well. As Sean Weatherspoon said a couple of days ago, the young players on defense apparently needed to learn that you have to prepare well to play well, and hopefully they got that message last week. If they do, and Mizzou's defense simply plays more fundamentally sound, then they've got the defensive weapons necessary to slow or completely stop KSU's offensive attack on standard downs (and, therefore, on passing downs as well).

Brandon Banks

Quite simply, if KSU makes a big offensive play or scores an easy touchdown, the odds are good that Banks was behind it. Granted, he has only one receiving touchdown on the year (how does that happen??), but he is quick and fast, a lot like Baylor's Kendall Wright, only faster and smaller. If KSU is able to get him in the open field, then this offense becomes infinitely more dangerous. And, um, I think I've already covered how scared of him I am in the kicking game. Seriously, just kick it out of bounds. I'd much prefer them getting the ball at the 40 than Banks getting a chance to go 100 yards.

Prediction

As always, I let my numbers make the predictions. The numbers say Mizzou by 7, so we'll go Mizzou 28, Kansas State 21. That said, I have been scared of this game since the offseason, even before I saw the kind of slump Mizzou would be in hitting town. I don't have to tell you that Bill Snyder has never lost to Gary Pinkel, and before the season I hinted that Missouri would probably lose the following games: Texas, Oklahoma State, maybe Nebraska or Kansas, and an upset. Most of that has come true, but I figured the most likely upset was at KSU, obviously not at home to Baylor.

Young, talented teams go from good to bad (and vice versa) at random times, which makes it damn near impossible to predict what will happen on Saturday. All I know is that, strangely enough, Mizzou has played very well away from home this year. They whipped Illinois in St. Louis. They put away Nevada when they had the chance. They were two drops away from taking OSU to the wire in Stillwater (which was impressive considering the kind of bad shape Blaine Gabbert was in at that point), and they performed a devastating first-half throat stomp on Colorado two weeks ago. Whatever mental blocks this team suffers, it is apparently as or more likely to happen at home than on the road. And maybe that also has something to do with what Weatherspoon told Dave Matter--on the road, the young players buy into the focus and preparation, but they're more easily distracted at home.

Or not. Who knows.

Mizzou still has every opportunity to bounce back, get to 8-4, and have a shot at a nine-win season in the bowl. But they must bounce back immediately. Outside of Banks, KSU is not a particularly fast, athletic team; but they are tremendously well-coached and know how to take advantage of opportunities. If Mizzou plays like they did against Colorado, even with the second half offensive problems, they will probably win (though it will be closer than the 19-point margin against Colorado). But if they make the same "young team" type of mistakes they've randomly made this year--missing tackles, dropping passes, etc.--then they will absolutely lose this game. That's really all I can say at this point. Play well, win. Play poorly, lose. Play just okay, probably lose because KSU is so well-coached.

Mizzou-Baylor: Beyond the Box Score

Bill C. — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:15:17 -0000

Confused? Catch up with the BTBS Primer.

Sometimes no matter how closely we look at the data, the simplest explanations still end up making the most sense. I think that's the case in explaining Missouri's defensive struggles on Saturday. The offense, however, gets more baffling with more thought. That said, if you are ever inclined to spend the time it takes to read one of these posts, I recommend doing it this time. Lots to discuss, lots to explain. And if the numbers make you go blind, just skip to the words.

	Baylor (40)	Mizzou (32)
Close %	100.0%
Field Position %	52.9%	51.3%
Leverage %	61.4%	65.8%

TOTAL
EqPts	37.8	33.0
Close Success Rate	44.3%	48.7%
Close PPP	0.54	0.43
Close S&P	0.540	0.434

RUSHING
EqPts	7.6	4.2
Close Success Rate	33.3%	38.1%
Close PPP	0.31	0.20
Close S&P	0.648	0.583
Line Yards/carry	3.08	2.62

PASSING
EqPts	30.2	28.7
Close Success Rate	50.0%	52.7%
Close PPP	0.66	0.52
Close S&P	1.157	1.050
SD/PD Sack Rate	8.7% / 4.4%	3.0% / 13.6%

STANDARD DOWNS
Success Rate	41.9%	56.0%
PPP	0.42	0.47
S&P	0.841	1.030

PASSING DOWNS
Success Rate	48.2%	34.6%
PPP	0.73	0.36
S&P	1.208	0.711

TURNOVERS
Number	0	0
Turnover Pts	0.0	0.0
Turnover Pts Margin	0.0	0.0

Q1 S&P	0.953	1.222
Q2 S&P	0.856	1.244
Q3 S&P	1.063	0.543
Q4 S&P	1.057	0.649

1st Down S&P	0.783	0.890
2nd Down S&P	1.048	1.144
3rd Down S&P	0.265	0.611

Projected Pt. Margin	+4.8	-4.8
Actual Pt. Margin	+8	-8

"Halftime Adjustments"

We all enjoy simple explanations, and because of that the whole theory of halftime adjustments has become very prevalent. It's how we explained the entire 1998 Missouri season (in which Mizzou led every game at halftime, yet went 8-4). However, as Smart Football and related sites have explained quite well, the concept doesn't really hold water.

The other coaching bogeyman is the aura surrounding "in-game adjustments" or "halftime adjustments," both of which are supposed to be the "hallmarks of good coaching." This is another thing where there’s a kernel of truth surrounding by a lot of speculation. Yes, a good coach will not do the same thing over and over again if it isn’t working, or if the other team has figured it out. And yes, coaching a game involves an ongoing process of what the other team is doing (this is one reason why I think, even if adjustments are part of the game, "halftime adjustments" are very much overrated). But if you want to see a bad coach then I’ll show you one who tries to "adjust" to everything the other team is doing with new schemes and ideas built-in midgame. Instead, teams with good coaching pretty much run only things within their plan — i.e. stuff they had practiced during the week. Indeed, much of what fans or commentators will pick out as an "adjustment" was something in the original gameplan that just didn’t get called until the second half because of the flow of the game.

So if this is true, then what the hell could be the cause of Missouri's very obvious second half offensive troubles? Part of the answer may lie in the next paragraph from that link:

While playcalling is definitely overhyped (hey, the talking heads get paid to talk about something), preparation is extremely important, and much of a gameplan involves contingency planning. It also means that the "base stuff" should have the counters built in, the constraint plays are already there, and the defensive adjustments are easy to make because they are a part of the system.

This offseason, we heard a lot about how the coaching staff had stripped things down in the playbook a bit, allowing Blaine Gabbert to grow into his role and not giving him everything they gave Chase Daniel last year. Is it possible that Missouri's offense is a bit too stripped down and not enough "counters" are built into the system? I honestly don't know. When I'm watching the game from the stands (and from the sideline view, no less, so it's hard to glean too much about any given play), I'm likely to only take into account whether a play was successful or not and who was directly involved. With only that level of understanding about this game and Mizzou's general second-half struggles, I shot Chris from Smart Football a quick e-mail yesterday to see what feedback he may have for the cause of second-half struggles in the absence of "halftime adjustments." Here were his general ideas:

My first guess is that a lot of this is variance. It's just when the touchdowns are happening.

My second guess is that it's tempo related. Mizzou runs a pretty proficient no-huddle, with lots of calls at the line at the line. It can take a good half to adjust to that fast tempo. If you buy that analysis then it's the first halves that are aberrations, not the second.

My third guess is that you're right other teams are adjusting throughout the game and that Mizzou is struggling with keeping up. Some of this is not called lacking counters, it's being exposed. It's clear Mizzou has an issue with the run game -- take away big days against Colorado, Furman, and Bowling Green and the team averages well under 100 yards a game. Once a team tries to take away Alexander and the like it's evident that Mizzou can't get much else going. I remember the Nebraska game Suh and the others just dominated the line of scrimmage.

After that...I don't know. I still think the wide disparity probably has a lot to do with variance as much as anything else. Mizzou's attack is clearly one dimensional this year, and Gabbert has played like a talented but injured first-year starter.

We all lean on the "halftime adjustments" concept because it's easy to understand, but it's a little too simple to blame Missouri's failures on the ten minutes that coaches have to talk things over at halftime. The offense is making adjustments every time the defense is on the field, and vice versa. But whatever the situation, Missouri is laying giant eggs in the third quarter, and it is killing them.

Here are Mizzou's per-game S&P+ numbers by quarter for conference play. Remember, 100 = average.

Mizzou Offense: "+" Performance by Quarter
Opponent	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Nebraska	65.8	80.9	66.8	64.6
at Oklahoma State	163.2	123.3	10.9	62.9
Texas	76.0	134.3	18.8	103.3
at Colorado	145.0	82.8	38.2	46.9
Baylor	145.7	153.8	82.8	95.7
AVERAGE	119.2	115.0	43.5	74.7
AVERAGE after NU	132.5	123.6	37.7	77.2

37.7!! For the season, Washington State's offense is the worst in the country in 3rd Quarter S&P+ at 51.1. That's how bad 37.7 is. Meanwhile, the 132.5 in Q1 would rank in the country's top ten. That's too extreme a difference for there to NOT be at least a little bit of, as Chris put it, variance. In a follow-up e-mail, he also said this:

Only other counterpoint is that during the early stretch of wins wasn't Mizzou basically a second half team? Being down to the likes of Nevada, etc before pulling away?

Also curious how much Alexander's big plays skew the data. He's been awesome, but has obviously been more bottled up in the second half?

Otherwise I dunno. I'll just end with a semi related anecdote. Someone asked the Colts great OC Tom Moore if he was going to install any new plays for the playoffs. He said hell no, if he had such good plays for the playoffs he would have installed them during training camp.

It is absolutely correct that Alexander's big plays have come mostly in the first half, and that would certainly skew the PPP figures. It wouldn't skew success rates, and the success rates are falling in the second half too, but that does explain some of the potential variance in numbers.

But "it's just variance--let's not think too much about it" isn't really very satisfying an answer, is it?

Here's what we know for sure: two years ago, with an experienced quarterback and four future NFL targets in the WR/TE corps (including two tight ends...probably cannot overstate that point enough), Missouri ranked 10th in 3rd Quarter S&P+ and 2nd in 3rd Down S&P+. This year, they're 55th in 3rd Quarter S&P+ and 35th in 3rd Down S&P+. All things considered, those aren't terrible numbers, but they represent a couple of the biggest drop-offs between 2007 and 2009. Is it as easy to explain as "the gameplan is good, but the receiving corps isn't good enough to continue to succeed for 60 minutes, and the quarterback is still learning"? We treated the receiving corps as the team's biggest weakness heading into the season, and that was before we found out we were going to get absolutely nothing from the tight end position. With Danario basically lining up as the tight end in the slot (and making plenty of nice plays), we've still needed production from the other receivers, and while all three--Jared Perry, Wes Kemp, and Jerrell Jackson--have made plays here and there, all have suffered absolutely crippling drops at one point or another. While the running game has come and gone at times this year, we've needed other receivers to step up at key times, and nobody really has.

Of course, we can talk about offense all we want, but we're at least slightly missing the point since, in the end, they generated 478 yards on Saturday. The defense that gave up 427 yards was infinitely more responsible for the loss, so let's talk about them.

Cripes, Get Back to Fundamentals!

(Header title in honor of a rather enjoyable football blog.)

The more I think about Missouri's defensive performance on Saturday, the less I start to believe that Baylor's success had much to do with any Missouri adjustments, or lack thereof. Let's break the game up into chunks to show what I mean.

Baylor's First Two Drives: 21 plays, 130 yards (6.2 per play), 9 points
Baylor's Next Three Drives (and first two plays of the fourth drive): 18 plays, 61 yards (3.4 per play), 7 points

After the first two drives, Missouri did, in fact, adjust to Baylor's gameplan. And really, this shouldn't be a surprise--as Kevin Rutland mentioned after the game, Missouri knew Baylor would throw a lot of sideline-to-sideline passes, and Baylor knew they knew, because that's simply what Baylor does. It's part of their current offensive philosophy. It worked early, as Baylor blocked well on the outside and Mizzou missed some tackles, and those quick passes got 8-12 yards instead of 3-5. But Missouri did, in fact, adjust and slow Baylor down considerably. Baylor scored on their final possession of the first half, primarily because of a long kickoff return and two (two!) Missouri personal foul penalties, but the Bears' offense was slowing down.

And then two things happened: 1) Late in the second quarter, Carl Gettis knocked Kendall Wright down using mostly his neck and missed the rest of the game, and 2) Wright pulled off what was potentially the biggest play of the game on Baylor's first third-down attempt of the second half, bouncing around, dodging about 26 tackles, reversing field, and picking up 21 yards on 3rd-and-7.

Baylor's Next Four Drives: 19 plays, 175 yards, 17 points

The stretch from Wright's third-down catch-and-run (-and-run-and-run) to Nick Florence's 59-yard bomb to Wright, in which Gettis' replacement Robert Steeples once again got burned, made the difference in the game.

The fact is, trying to dink and dunk all game long is damn near impossible--eventually you're going to have to go deep successfully, otherwise you're only going to move the ball for so long. Even though Gettis himself got burned for a 30-yard gain early in the game, he is still clearly Mizzou's best cornerback, and while Steeples is likely a better athlete than Gettis, he just isn't experienced enough to be getting the playing time he's gotten in close games. I still have hope for him in the future, and he's shown signs of great potential, but the times he's had to step in for an injured Gettis this year--Q4 against Nebraska, Q3 and Q4 against Baylor--have ended up disastrous for Missouri.

I should stop there, however, because I don't want it to even remotely sound like I'm blaming Mizzou's defensive struggles on one player. I'm not; just about everybody on Missouri's defense (including Rutland and Gettis) got burned at one point or another. The simple fact is, if you can burn a team deep, and they know it, you can go back to the short passes for 4-10 yards all game long. By the third quarter (one-play safety drive aside), Baylor had Mizzou's secondary on a string, and with good play-calling, there's not a lot a defense can do if their secondary is getting beaten short and long. Try to blitz? As long as they have a quarterback making good decisions (and Nick Florence was amazingly mistake-free for a freshman), they'll find a quick pass to make. Play tight to take away the short pass? They'll beat you deep. Give a big cushion to avoid getting beaten deep again? Sideline passes again. There's really nothing you can do from a defensive play-calling perspective at that point. Missouri's struggles came down to plain old tackling, covering, and (cripes) fundamentals, and with so many options at their disposal, it's no wonder that Baylor was able to put up an insanely high 1.208 Passing Downs S&P.

And not to give anybody any excuses to make--in the end, there is still no excuse for giving up 427 passing yards to a redshirt freshman no matter how well he was playing--but I guess it really should be noted just how unlucky Missouri has been with injuries in the secondary this year. Jarrell Harrison missed the first month of the season, Gettis got dinged up just long enough for his replacement to get bombed in two extremely winnable games, Jasper Simmons barely played against Baylor because of an injured thigh (Remember his deep break-ups against OSU? He might have been able to make a difference on at least one of the bombs...or maybe not), Munir Prince has missed most of the last month to a hamstring injury, and now Hardy Ricks is lost for the season. Ricks has never been my favorite defensive back, but he was still a better option than others. In all, Mizzou has not had a healthy, complete secondary all year, and with so much necessary rhythm and communication needed among the safeties and corners, getting burned at some point was probably inevitable. One would have hoped that the Texas disaster would have made the unit congeal a bit better, and it didn't, but losing Gettis and Simmons, our two best overall DBs in 2009, on Saturday was probably every bit as important as anything Baylor did.

Three Positives

Danario Alexander. Mizzou lost track of him in the second half, probably because Baylor was doubling him (I wouldn't know for sure because, again, when I'm watching from the stands, I miss a lot), and until the final drive of the game he only had one catch for seven yards in the second half, but as I mentioned Saturday night, 13 catches for 214 yards was just ridiculous. Again, he's on pace for 103 catches, 1,499 yards, and 12 touchdowns. With a second solid option, or with a running game that didn't come and go from Saturday to Saturday, this offense would be extremely potent because of the job #81 has done, and it goes without saying that we are going to miss the crap out of him next year.
Blaine Gabbert in the fourth quarter. I'm copping from Ross on Sunday's podcast, but there was an assertiveness to Gabbert in the fourth quarter that we hadn't really seen before. He's not the type of sideline leader that Chase Daniel was, but he's growing on the field before our eyes, and he made all throws necessary to come back and win on Saturday. It's not his fault that, nine games into the season, his receivers can't consistently catch his passes.
The defensive ends. Mizzou's three-headed monster at end had turned into a one-man show in recent weeks, with Aldon Smith's impact dwarfing that of Jacquies Smith and Brian Coulter. But all three played well on Saturday, equally (more-or-less) splitting 10 solo tackles, 6 assists, and 4 tackles for loss. Of all the troubles Mizzou had on Saturday, getting to the quarterback really wasn't one of them. Of course, that brings two other things to light: 1) Mizzou's poor tackling in the secondary, and 2) seriously, how great was Nick Florence? He got hit a lot and still made tough throw after tough throw. Even some of his sideline passes were thrown just past the reach of Aldon Smith and perfectly on-target to the outside shoulder of the Baylor receiver, where the Mizzou DB couldn't break it up. This is going to piss me off all the more when he makes about 15 mistakes a game for the rest of the season, but he was virtually mistake-free on Saturday despite a decent pass rush, and he deserves commendation for that.

Three Negatives

Tackling. Duh. From Dave Matter on Twitter.
Pinkel: #Mizzou had 18 missed tackles vs. Baylor. Yikes
Ouch. With all of the analysis we do on this site and in these BTBS posts, sometimes the answer is quite simple. If Mizzou tackles well, then the short passes don't work. And if the short passes don't work, Mizzou's cornerbacks possibly don't end up getting sucked up closer to the line of scrimmage and burned deep, particularly in the second half. And without those deep balls, Baylor does not win. We know they can tackle well--they obviously have in the past--but they didn't. Fundamentals!
What the hell happened to the running game? As Beef pointed out on the aforementioned podcast (you're all listening to these, right?), Mizzou's lack of success (and, really, lack of attempts) was quite baffling. Baylor entered the game with a solid pass defense and nonexistent rush defense. Well, despite second half struggles, Mizzou passed for 9.0 yards per pass...and Mizzou's tailbacks averaged 3.0 yards per carry. You can't blame Mizzou for passing more when the run failed so badly, but it makes me very curious about the overall gameplan itself. We hear a lot about how Mizzou scripts seemingly all of their plays for certain situations, and I love this strategy--if nothing else, it tells you they believe in some of the general concepts discussed above from Smart Football Chris. In theory, scripting a ton ensures that you are incorporating enough randomness into the gameplan that it's harder to adjust. But did the script actually call for that much passing? In the first half, on Standard Downs (looking only at those, because Passing Downs are obviously more likely to make you stray from the script), Mizzou threw 16 passes and ran just 8 times. Maybe this was a "pass to set up the run" thing? Or as Beef put it, were we so successful at the pass that the run became too much of an afterthought?
Kickoff coverage. Don't think I forgot about you, kick coverage team. Baylor entered the game a pretty solid return team, and they should have been expected to have some success there, but here was Baylor's starting field position after Mizzou kickoffs (excluding the end-of-half kickoff and the squib after Mizzou's last score): Baylor 36, Baylor 31, Baylor 20, Mizzou 42, Baylor 33. That's an average start at the 36-yard line, about 10 yards further than it should have been, and it particularly hurt Mizzou in the second quarter, when the return to Mizzou's 42 gave Baylor scoring position despite Mizzou's (at the time) defensive improvement.

Three Keys Revisited

Seen here. Rarely have the three keys been so prescient.

Passing Downs

When Missouri has the ball, one of Baylor's biggest advantages come in Passing Downs. Meanwhile, the fight is about even when Baylor has the ball. Overall, this is a tossup that could go in the Bears' favor, but that's not a huge deal unless Missouri is turning the ball over.

Mizzou's 0.711 S&P on Passing Downs actually wasn't that bad, but it was almost 50% worse than Baylor's. This really could have been the single biggest deciding factor in the game. Baylor was allowed to extend too many drives. Against a freshman quarterback facing a decent pass rush, this should have never, ever happened.

Touchdowns over Field Goals

Let's face it: Missouri's offense has been simply horrible in the red zone this year. ... Meanwhile, Baylor's red zone defense has been downright solid. If Missouri has to settle for field goals instead of touchdowns, then Baylor gets to stick around a little longer. BU does not have a lot of confidence, and the key to a game like this is stomping on the throat. Field goals are good, but they don't get the job done as quickly.

Thanks to Mizzou's struggles in opposing territory, Grant Ressel is a Groza Award semifinalist. That's great and all, but how much of a difference could it have made if a couple of Ressel's field goals had actually been touchdowns? Early in the second quarter, Mizzou had first-and-10 from Baylor's 15, got stuffed on the run, and kicked a field goal. Then they advanced to the Baylor 28 before Gabbert very much overthrew Michael Egnew on third down. Then, in the fourth quarter, Gabbert took a terrible sack (I don't want to absolve Gabbert from all blame here--he has to get better at throwing the ball away) on first down, and Danario Alexander dropped a potentially huge pass on 3rd-and-22, and Mizzou had to settle for another field goal. Mistakes have plagued Mizzou in this regard, and it continues to cost them, even with one of the most automatic kickers in the country.

Special Teams

Many an upset was kick-started by a special teams disaster. Baylor's got a good enough return game to make Missouri pay for shoddy coverage, but as long as Missouri plays disciplined and doesn't allow any major returns, Baylor's kicking/punting game and place-kicking aren't good enough to make Missouri pay.

We've covered Mizzou's struggles on kickoff returns, but we should also give a major shout out to Baylor's Derek Epperson and, more importantly, Baylor's punt coverage team. Epperson has made huge kicks all year, but he's pretty consistently out-kicked his coverage (just like I did with my wife, ahem), and it has led to some big returns. Losing Carl Gettis hurt Mizzou quite a bit, but even with Gettis Mizzou probably wouldn't have improved much on Epperson's insane 46.0 net yards per kick. Baylor's kick returns cost Mizzou about 10 yards of real estate, and so did Baylor's punting. In a game so close in terms of yardage and EqPts, every yard counts, and even with Ressel being automatic, special teams cost Mizzou dearly.

Summary

As I mentioned back in December, from 2005 to 2008, Mizzou went 15-2 against teams that finished with between a 0.251 and 0.500 win percentage, better than any four-year span in even the Dan Devine era. Fact is, Mizzou was probably due a loss like this, their first since the 2006 loss to Iowa State. I realize that any loss to a team like that is in one way or another inexcusable, but quite frankly it happens to everybody, even the Pete Carroll's of the world. That's not what certain fans (or Maneater writers) want to hear, but it's true.

We can be as dismayed and annoyed by the loss as we want, but let's not pretend it says anything particularly bad overall about Gary Pinkel and his staff. If you're looking for a coach who doesn't lose games like this periodically, be prepared to a) pay that man about $5 million a year (double what Pinkel makes), b) risk losing him to a bigger school that will pay more money than you ever could, and c) risk losing games like this anyway, because s*** happens. Even great coaches get outcoached. Bear Bryant got outfoxed by Al Onofrio. So did Tom Osborne. And John Robinson. Hell, Nick Saban (one of those aforementioned $5 million+ coaches) got outcoached by Charlie Weatherbie two years ago. The trick to long-term success is ensuring that losses like these don't happen often. Can Mizzou recover against K-State (a team that still has at least a chance of falling into the aforementioned 0.251-0.500 bracket)? Can they take care of business against Iowa State and make sure they still get a bowl out of this season?

A good response to a loss like this is what brings you long-term success, and it's time to turn the page and look to the rest of the season. The next three games will tell us more about this team than anything that happened last Saturday.

SB Nation - Wes Kemp

Mizzou Links, 12-18-09

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

The Border War: Beyond the Box Score

Kansas(39)

Mizzou(41)

What to make of Mizzou's pass defense

Three Positives

Three Negatives

Three Keys Revisited

Summary

The Morning After: Links

Mizzou-Iowa State: Beyond the Box Score PREVIEW

Offense

Quarterback

Running Back

Wide Receivers / Tight Ends

Offensive Line

---

Defense

Defensive Line

Linebackers

Secondary

Special Teams

---

Three Keys to the Game

Prediction

Mizzou-KSU: Beyond the Box Score

Mizzou(38)

K-State(12)

"This Team Can't Score in the Second Half"

Three Positives

Three Negatives

Three Keys Revisited

Summary

ROCK M PHOTO GALLERY: Mizzou-KSU

Mizzou-KSU: Beyond the Box Score PREVIEW

Offense

Quarterback

Running Back

Wide Receivers / Tight Ends

Offensive Line

---

Defense

Defensive Line

Linebackers

Secondary

Special Teams

---

Three Keys to the Game

Prediction

Mizzou-Baylor: Beyond the Box Score

Baylor(40)

Mizzou(32)

"Halftime Adjustments"

Cripes, Get Back to Fundamentals!

Three Positives

Three Negatives

Three Keys Revisited

Summary

Kansas
(39)

Mizzou
(41)

Mizzou
(38)

K-State
(12)

Baylor
(40)

Mizzou
(32)