SB Nation - Chase Daniel

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.

Morning Border War Links and Discussion

Bill C. — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 13:00:25 -0000

More photos » by L.G. Patterson - AP

about 1 month ago: Missouri's Danario Alexander, left, flies through the air after he is tripped up by Baylor's Jeremy Williams, right, during the second quarter of an NCAA college football game Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009, in Columbia, Mo. (AP Photo/L.G. Patterson)

Browse more photos »

Consider this your pre-game discussion thread. Below are some gameday links and a discussion I had with the sports editor of the Lawrence Journal-World and a closeted stat-nerd, Jesse Newell.

First, the links:

The Trib: Bowl options remain wide open
The Trib (Dave Matter): Emptying the Bowl Notebook
The Missourian: Mangino could be coaching final game for Kansas
The Missourian: Senior Missouri football players pass down meaning of Kansas rivalry
The Missourian: Missouri's bowl possibilities still confusing
The Missourian: 10 things you didn't know about Kansas
10. Since 1912 the KU campus power plant steam whistle has announced the end of each hour's classes. The whistle has become a part of the eternal end of class struggle between long-winded professors and eager-to-leave students. Our favorite part? They call it the "Big Tooter." Hey, we said we were above jokes about boxed wine and street fights over girls. We said nothing about kindergarten toilet humor.
KC Star: Border War preview
KC Star: Parking information for Saturday's Border War game
KC Star: The old Blaine Gabbert is back for MU
KC Star: Danario Alexander towers over Big 12's other receivers
KC Star: KU has a lot on the line in Border War battle
KC Star: Todd Reesing era is nearly over, so who'll be KU's next QB?
KC Star: Kerry Meier and Dezmon Briscoe ran different routes to success
KC Star: Gwinn Henry saw both sides of the Border War
KC Star (Jason Whitlock): There's no defense for Mangino's offense
KC Star (Campus Corner): Caring When Few Others Do
Post-Dispatch: Missouri, Kansas 'hate each other'
Post-Dispatch (Bryan Burwell): Mizzou has plenty to gain by beating KU
Post-Dispatch: MU is uniform in its focus on beating KU
Post-Dispatch: Mark Mangino a bully or motivator?
Post-Dispatch: Career year for Tiger
PowerMizzou: Tiger line leading the way back
PowerMizzou: Secondary concerns
PowerMizzou: Zo Knows Kansas
PowerMizzou: Jayhawk Insider: Five questions for Saturday
Daily Kansan: Kansas vs. Missouri game day
Lawrence Journal-World: Jayhawks: We are focused on Tigers
Lawrence Journal-World (Jesse Newell): Six wins might not be enough to get KU into a bowl
Topeka Capital-Journal: KU fans rally for football

---

Between Denverjhawk, KU Doug from the Roundtable, and Jesse Newell, we've had all sort of mostly cordial conversation with Jayhawks this week, and honestly, I feel rather dirty.

Bill C.:
1 - I mentioned in my BTBS preview that I can't take the loss of Toben Opurum too seriously because I think he and Jake Sharp are basically the same quality of back (Opurum a bit bigger, Sharp a bit faster). If Sharp is 100% healthy, is there any drop-off from Opurum to Sharp?

2 - Last year, Kansas absolutely assassinated Missouri with the dink-and-dunk pass and, when Mizzou's defense finally got tired in the second half (as much a factor Mizzou's offense not being able to stay on the field in the first half as much as anything, I think), KU burned them downfield too. I would have to figure the same type of offensive strategy will be on display this year, especially since that's the exact strategy that Baylor used to burn Mizzou late. Do you have any reason to believe KU won't try as many quick sideline-to-sideline passes this year?

3 - There have been all sorts of personnel shifts throughout the season in the KU secondary, leading to nine guys registering double-digit tackles. Where do you feel the secondary stands coming into the game? Playing its best? Less so?

Jesse Newell:
1. If Sharp is 100-percent healthy, then the two are about equal. The question to answer, though, is whether Sharp is healthy or not.

KU coach Mark Mangino has admitted that Sharp hasn't shown the same burst since Sharp's calf injury suffered in Week 3, and the numbers reflect that. In Sharp's carries before the injury he had 42 carries for 240 yards (5.7 average). In his carries since the injury, he has 53 carries for 168 yards (3.2 average). Obviously, KU playing tougher competition in the Big 12 also should be factored in, but that's still a steep drop-off.

I think Opurum was the better of the two backs recently, and where KU will miss him most is in third-and-short situations. He became a Marcus Allen of sorts for them over the past few weeks, as nearly every third-and-one, he came in to move the pile forward two yards for a first down. That kind of player is especially valuable against Missouri, as you have already talked about the importance of KU sustaining drives in the first half to tire MU's defense in the second half. The Jayhawks used that gameplan in 2008, and it certainly paid dividends for them late.

The simple fact is this, though: This year, KU has never committed to the run. I don't know why it is, but KU usually abandons its running game early whether it's working or not. If MU's defense shuts down KU's runs early, most likely KU will abandon the running game completely just a few possessions in.

2. I think you're right on with your assessment. Consider this as well: In KU's loss to MU in 2007, the Tigers held the ball for 37 minutes, 25 seconds. In KU's win last year, the Jayhawks held the ball 34 minutes exactly. The MU game notes also show that since 2005, when the Tigers have the ball 31 minutes or longer in a game, they are 14-0.

I think KU's only chance of winning this game will be to try to control the football to wear out MU's defense. KU hasn't been able to do much to stop MU's offense in the last two years (other than forcing turnovers), so limiting possessions might not be a bad idea, either. KU's biggest disadvantage to playing this strategy is what I listed above: Not only has KU been ineffective running the football lately, the Jayhawks also have shown no interest in committing themselves to try to run the football.

The short answer to your question is this: Yes, I would expect lots of dinking and dunking to happen in this year's game as well. When those MU corners start to roll up a bit, though, look for KU to start to take some shots down the field, especially with big-play specialist Dezmon Briscoe.

3. KU's defense as a whole peaked about three weeks ago when it put together solid performances against Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Kansas State. Some of the scores don't reflect it, mostly because KU's offense went through a stretch of 10 turnovers in 10 quarters and started giving away points to the opposition. The defense has fallen hard back to earth in the last two weeks with horrible efforts against Nebraska (bad offense) and Texas (good offense).

The KU secondary merry-go-round has been interesting to say the least. Just when I thought KU had something good going for it a few weeks ago, the carousel started up again and more players were moved in and out of the mix.

I'd say at this point, the secondary is actually playing some of its worst football of the year. NU has just three passes of 35 or more yards in their first five Big 12 games, and KU allowed four, 35-plus yard passes from Zac Lee to Niles Paul alone. KU's corners couldn't do much of anything right against UT last week, either, as a huge cushion allowed some big gains underneath, while the Longhorns also hit the Jayhawks deep for 68- and 38-yard TD passes. Anthony Davis, in his return to the lineup, has been burnt deep consistently, and Chris Harris, though he's had a nice year, was playing way too far off receivers last week. Darrell Stuckey has had a good — but not great — year, and KU's corners aren't particularly tall, either. I'd say it's a pretty good time for MU's pass-happy offense to be taking on the KU secondary.

Here are a few questions for you.

1. I haven't been able to watch Danario Alexander much in the last few weeks. What has been the main reason for his unbelievable success in the last month? KU's corners aren't the tallest, but they've also given up their share of big plays. Alexander seems to have a rare blend of size and speed, so would you say KU should be more concerned with him going above the corners in jump-ball situations or beating KU's corners down the field?

2. Derrick Washington should be able to play against KU after suffering a concussion. Is this significant for MU? Or do you believe the Tigers will mostly stick to their passing game against the Jayhawks?

3. Again, I haven't seen much of the Tigers lately, so what is the scouting report on Blaine Gabbert? What are his greatest strengths? What have other defenses done to slow him down? In what situations is he least effective?

4. I expect KU to pass quite a bit in this game, so can you evaluate how MU's pass defense has performed lately? Who are a couple MU defensive players that have emerged as of late?

Bill C.:
1. The thing about Danario is, he's been so good over the past few weeks that he has ended up replacing both Jeremy Maclin AND Chase Coffman. He can beat defenders on the long routes, and he can take a swing pass 70 yards. His yards after catch have been staggering. His 63-yard TD against Iowa State came on about a 2-yard sideline route. His 80-yarder against K-State was on about a 10-yard route. Meanwhile, his 54-yarder against K-State was caught at the 5. I try to avoid hyperbole, but he has started to look more and more like Randy Moss in recent weeks, with great all-around ability and ridiculously long strides. Knowing what he has fought through (a broken wrist early in 2007, followed by a torn-up knee in the Big 12 title game, which required three surgeries and about 18 months of recovery time to get back to 100%), it has been extremely heart-warming to see him come this far. And if he can duplicate what he did against KU in 2007, he could send KU home a loser.

2. Derrick Washington is easily MU's most physical back. He really hasn't shown the top-end speed that he showed in the first half of last season, but if it's 3rd-and-2, I'd much rather D-Wash be getting the handoff instead of De'Vion Moore or Kendial Lawrence, both of whom are relatively capable speed backs but aren't bangers. As I mentioned in the preview, Tony Temple's success against KU in 2007 was a very underrated facet of MU's win, and since MU's running game was all but nonexistent for three quarters in last year's game, having Washington is certainly a good thing. KU's D-line has been statistically unimpressive, and if MU can run the ball well, they up their chances of winning considerably.

3. Gabbert's pocket presence is still a work in progress, but he has shown massive improvement in the recent weeks. And for the season, taking the sprained ankle into account (he was not even half the QB against NU, OSU, and Texas), his numbers have potentially been as or more impressive than Chase Daniel's were in 2006. I think KU's best strategy against him will be to confuse him. Mix coverages, mix how many you rush, etc. He has improved by leaps and bounds since the Bowling Green game, when BGSU dropped seven into coverage and he started rushing his throws, feeling a pass rush when there was none, but that's still his biggest weakness. He's got the prettiest deep ball you'll ever see, and if KU's secondary suffers lapses, they'll pay.

4. MU's secondary is extremely matchup- and injury-dependent. They handle bigger, more physical WRs pretty well (the first two quarters against OSU's Hubert Anyiam aside), but they are vulnerable to pure speed. Baylor's Kendall Wright and David Gettis are only decent in terms of route-running and hands, but they are burners, and they burned Mizzou both short and deep. Iowa State had some early luck with the dink-and-dunk passes (Mizzou's defensive philosophy has always been to give large cushions to WRs and allow the short pass, but avoid getting burned deep), but the success only lasted a while because their WRs weren't fast enough to burn Mizzou deep when the Tigers adjusted. This is why Dez Briscoe scares me much more than Kerry Meier does, despite what Meier did at the end of last year's game. Briscoe can get behind them.

Regarding injuries, Mizzou's two biggest breakdowns of the season, in the fourth quarter against Nebraska and the second half against Baylor, both happened when Carl Gettis was injured and on the bench. Gettis is not quite the all-conference caliber CB we thought we had a couple of years ago, but he is by far Mizzou's most steady DB, and with him on the field, Mizzou's secondary is much less vulnerable to breakdowns. Plus, safety Jasper Simmons was injured against Baylor too, which didn't help, as he's been by far Mizzou's best safety. Mizzou's secondary isn't great, and the Briscoe-Meier combo still scares the daylights out of me, but as with most teams, if they are full-strength, they are much, much better.

My turn!

1. You've outlined how KU might not even make a bowl if they win on Saturday ... with that in mind, where do you think they're head is at heading into the game? Or maybe here's the better question: I expect to see KU's A-game on display ... but what exactly is their A-game? Top 15 caliber? Top 25?

2. From what you do know about Mizzou, what scares you the most compared to what you know about KU's strengths and weaknesses?

Jesse Newell:
1. I think KU's players believe that if they win Saturday, they will go to a bowl game. With that mind-set, I would expect to see KU's four senior captains (Reesing, Sharp, Meier, Stuckey) literally playing for their careers (and also remember, this is most likely Dezmon Briscoe's last game, too). Those guys have been a part of the greatest stretch in KU football's history, and I think they know that their previous reputation might be hurt a bit if they can't get to six wins and a bowl game this season. Whether they like Mangino or not, I would expect these guys to be playing for themselves on Saturday. I'm with you: I don't see this as a game where KU's players come out uninspired or unmotivated.

You pose a good question about how good KU's "A" game is. I will say this: KU has been a bit unfortunate in that when its offense has played well, its defense has stunk, and when its defense has played well, its offense has stunk. If KU put its best two units together this season, I would say that a top-20 team wouldn't be a stretch, but once again, that hasn't happened in the last nine games, so I'm certainly not expecting it now.

Todd Reesing went through a tough spell mid-season, but he actually looked pretty good last week against Texas. KU's defense looked solid three weeks ago, but it hasn't played well in the Jayhawks' two games since. For the third straight year, I'd expect a high-scoring game. Even if the Jayhawks have an "A" game defensively, they still probably will struggle to keep the Tigers under four touchdowns.

2. This one's easy: Danario Alexander's ability to break off big plays.

The last three weeks, KU's defense has allowed 17 plays of 20-plus yard plays to opponents. The last two weeks, KU has given up seven, 20-yard-or-more passing plays to opponents.

As I mentioned before, both NU and UT made a habit of picking on KU's cornerbacks the last two weeks. KU's cornerbacks have been routinely beaten deep, but they've also struggled when taller receivers have simply gone over the top of them to bring in receptions. Looks like Alexander can do either. Unless KU's defense tries something exotic to shut down Alexander, I'd say he's a lock for 100 yards and has a decent shot at another 200-yard receiving game.

One more ...

1. I've heard a lot of people say KU has more to play for in this game. However, how would MU's view of its season change if the Tigers were to lose to KU? How would the MU fans' perception of the season change?

Bill C.:
I'm probably not the best Mizzou fan to ask about that, as I try to never let one game impact how I view the season as a whole. Last year's loss to KU was really annoying, but Mizzou still won ten games and the North division, so it didn't really impact me much beyond the annoyance at the moment.

This season, I had three main goals for Mizzou: win the North again, go to a bowl, and with so much youth playing key roles (there have been between 25 and 35 freshmen and sophs on the two-deep all season), the final goal was to simply not mess up the program's trajectory for 2010 and 2011. The first goal went out of the window with the fourth quarter collapse (sans Carl Gettis) in the monsoon against Nebraska, but the other two goals have been accomplished no matter what happens at Arrowhead.

That said, I fully accept that I'm not the typical Mizzou fan. I saw last night on other message boards where some fans think this is easily the biggest game in the series in quite a while (no memory of 2007 apparently) and they would take a loss to Illinois next year for a win over KU this year...which, to me, is absolutely, positively insane.

I guess what matters most, however, is that the players and coaches very much remember last year and have brought it up multiple times. KU has more to play for, but I do think Mizzou shows up ready to roll.

My final question: I have a friend from Independence who constantly mourns the fact that Paul Rudd went to KU because "he seems like such a perfect Mizzou guy". Discuss.

(Subquestion: what Mizzou alum would have made the best KU alum?)

Jesse Newell:
I just hope Paul being a KU alum doesn't ruin the hilarious parts he has in movies. KU also can claim Mandy Patinkin! (My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!)

Subquestion: As a KU alum, I would have to say that ridiculously good-looking men attend KU, thus making Brad Pitt the obvious choice (I'm not sure he graduated, but I'm still counting him anyways).

Bill C.:
I must say, one of the most entertaining parts of the MU-KU Gameday in 2007 was the "Famous Alums" section...they had Don Johnson versus Brad Pitt, I believe...but hey, you've got Jason Sudeikis repping KU every Saturday night, so that's something...and yeah, Rudd must be all sorts of funny if we enjoy him despite his, um, obvious flaws...

Mizzou-Iowa State: Beyond the Box Score

Bill C. — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:00:14 -0000

Confused? Catch up with the BTBS Primer.

Be sure to check out the Healthy Blaine vs Gimpy Blaine comparison after the jump.

	Iowa St. (24)	Mizzou (34)
Close %	100.0%
Field Position %	44.1%	52.5%
Leverage %	69.1%	82.5%

TOTAL
EqPts	20.7	31.7
Close Success Rate	48.5%	57.5%
Close PPP	0.30	0.40
Close S&P	0.790	0.971

RUSHING
EqPts	6.6	13.2
Close Success Rate	50.0%	56.3%
Close PPP	0.28	0.28
Close S&P	0.776	0.838
Line Yards/carry	3.14	3.07

PASSING
EqPts	14.1	18.4
Close Success Rate	47.7%	59.4%
Close PPP	0.32	0.58
Close S&P	0.797	1.170
SD/PD Sack Rate	0.0% / 15.8%	0.0% / 0.0%

STANDARD DOWNS
Success Rate	55.3%	60.6%
PPP	0.29	0.46
S&P	0.842	1.064

PASSING DOWNS
Success Rate	33.3%	42.9%
PPP	0.34	0.11
S&P	0.673	0.534

TURNOVERS
Number	2	1
Turnover Pts	6.7	3.6
Turnover Pts Margin	-3.1	+3.1

Q1 S&P	1.002	0.924
Q2 S&P	0.887	0.682
Q3 S&P	0.725	1.515
Q4 S&P	0.348	0.819

1st Down S&P	0.782	1.262
2nd Down S&P	1.042	0.810
3rd Down S&P	0.294	0.565

Projected Pt. Margin	-14.1	+14.1
Actual Pt. Margin	-10	+10

Quick reactions...

Obviously very nice offensive output for Mizzou, though with an 82.5% Leverage Rate (which means that 82.5% of Mizzou's offensive plays were run on Standard Downs and only 17.5% on Passing Downs) you'd have almost expected more success. Then again, Mizzou was quite unsuccessful on those Passing Downs, as they have been all year. Which, really, is pretty healthy. Passing Downs success comes with experience, and while Mizzou has shown on Standard Downs that they are plenty talented and athletic, they don't yet have the chops for Passing Downs. It'll come.
That said, Mizzou did have a 42.9% success rate on Passing Downs, which was pretty good; in fact, I'd say that while PPP is probably more important on Standard Downs, success rate is more important on Passing Downs, and Mizzou showed some nice progress in that regard.
Gotta say, ISU's rushing success rate was higher than I expected. It really didn't feel like the Cyclones ever really got going on the ground, as evidenced by Alexander Robinson's 14 carries for 56 yards (4.0 per carry), but they were just efficient enough to keep them moving forward, and they were able to utilize the shorter passes because they had fewer yards to go to move the chains. Of course, ISU's offensive output got worse with every passing quarter, so it only worked for so long.
As demonstrated in last week's preview, Iowa State potentially has the best offensive line in the North division, and Mizzou held up relatively well. ISU did average a strong 3.14 line yards per carry, and Austen Arnaud was never sacked on Standard Downs, but Mizzou's three Passing Downs sacks were drive-killers and potentially made the difference in the game.
I also said in last week's preview that ISU's pass rush was so weak that any sack allowed would be too many. Well...0 is a pretty good number, no? That's two straight weeks where Mizzou faced a weaker pass rush but didn't slip up even once.

Healthy Blaine vs Gimpy Blaine

The difference between Blaine Gabbert's one-legged production and two-legged production is simply staggering at this point.

Healthy Blaine
Stats: 182-for-278 passing, 2,487 yards, 21 TD, 2 INT; 63 carries, 156 yards, 2 TD
Rates: 65.5% completion rate, 8.9 yards per pass, 7.6% TD rate, 0.7% INT rate; 2.5 yards per carry

Injured Blaine:
Stats: 42-for-95 passing, 512 yards, 1 TD, 5 INT; 14 carries, -22 yards, 1 TD
Rates: 44.2% completion rate, 5.4 yards per pass, 1.1% TD rate, 5.3% INT rate; -1.6 yards per carry

Just a simply insane difference, even in the rushing stats.

But there's an obvious disclaimer here: Mizzou faced the Nebraska and Texas defenses while injured, and his stats wouldn't have been as good in those games even if healthy. So the question for today is, what would he have produced against Nebraska, Oklahoma State and Texas if healthy?

Thanks to the "+" measures, we can create a pretty good estimate. To do so, we're going to look at one specific measure: Passing PPP+, or EqPts per Pass. As you know, EqPts create an estimated point value for every play (and the "+" is the schedule adjustment), so if we can determine what Mizzou's PPP+ was for Healthy Blaine and Injured Blaine, we can estimate what Missouri may have produced if Injured Blaine never happened. (And we're keeping rushing stats out of the equation to keep things simple.)

Passing PPP+, Healthy Blaine: 149.4
Passing PPP+, Injured Blaine: 92.1

So even taking opponent strength into account, Injured Blaine produced 62% of what Healthy Blaine produced, which is just a tremendous drop-off. So if we take the Healthy Blaine PPP+ and apply it to the passes thrown by Injured Blaine, you get the following added production (assuming the exact same number of passes were thrown against NU/OSU/UT, which of course is a faulty premise, but it's what we've got):

vs Nebraska: +2.0 Passing EqPts (the rain was going to wipe out a good portion of the passing attack regardless)
vs Oklahoma State: +7.7 Passing EqPts
vs Texas: +2.6 Passing EqPts

That's an addition of 12.3 EqPts, or almost two touchdowns. Who knows if the timing of those points would have changed the outcome of either the NU or OSU games, but that's not the point of this exercise. Taking some super-rough estimates into account, here's a guess at what Gabbert might have produced in the 95 Injured Blaine passes if healthy:

58-for-95 passing, 810 yards, 3 TD, 3 INT

Which means we'd be looking at a season line of this:

Blaine Gabbert, New 2009
Stats: 240-for-373 passing, 3,307 yards, 24 TD, 4 INT
Rates: 64.3% completion rate, 8.9 yards per pass, 6.4% TD rate, 1.1% INT rate

And this doesn't even take into account that he barely played in the second half of the Texas game.

Just as means of comparison...

Chase Daniel, 2006
Stats: 287-for-452, 3,527 yards, 28 TD, 10 INT
Rates: 63.5% completion rate, 7.8 yards per pass, 6.2% TD rate, 2.2% INT rate

Gabbert would be slightly better across the board. You would expect him to have better yards per pass figures just because of his strong arm, but better completion, TD, and INT rates? Yikes.

Now think about this: what would Danario Alexander's numbers look like right now with no Gimpy Blaine? Of the 16 extra completions and 298 extra yards, he'd have probably snagged about 7 and 125 of them, giving him about 99 catches for 1,536 yards. That would bump him from third to second in the country in receptions per game, and from third to first in the country in receiving yards per game.

(And he still wouldn't be a Biletnikoff finalist.)

Three Positives

Diminishing Returns. Iowa State's offense proved what I always say about the dink-and-dunk attack: you can get away with it for a while, but unless you're able to go deep, you can't get away with it forever. Darius Darks' end-of-first-half 38-yard touchdown catch was really the only deeper pass the Cyclones completed, and thanks to their lack of a deep threat, Mizzou was able to play closer to the line than normal and get away with it. Eventually, the yards and points dried up, as ISU managed just 105 yards and 7 points after halftime, and just 8 yards in the fourth quarter.

This is at least somewhat good news, as there is no doubt that KU will be utilizing as many short passes as they can get away with on Saturday. They tried it last year, and it eventually wore down Mizzou's defense since Mizzou's offense performed so terribly for most of the first half. If Mizzou's offense does its job and puts some points on the board early, it will be harder for KU to take shots downfield against a tired defense, and even though KU still has Dezmon Briscoe and Kerry Meier, if Mizzou stays fresh, they can defend KU's offense at least relatively well as the game progresses.
Dave Yost. Missouri still has some work to do to get Blaine Gabbert up into the Chase Daniel Department when it comes to performance on passing downs, but Mizzou's standard downs performance Saturday was simply fantastic, and some credit for that has to go to the puppet master in the press box, Dave Yost. He was crushed by Mizzou fans a few games ago for not knowing what plays to call to get an offense led by an injured quarterback to score points against some great defenses, but ... well, no offensive coordinator in the country would have engineered much in that situation. Yes, Mizzou could have tried to run the ball more, but it simply would not have made much of a difference. But if he gets crushed when Mizzou struggles, he deserves a ton of credit when Mizzou is operating smoothly, and without their #1 RB in the second half and their #2 WR all game, Mizzou's offense was the definition of smooth against Iowa State.
Jerrell Jackson. We all know what Danario Alexander can do, but Mizzou needed another weapon on Saturday to compensate for the loss of Jared Perry and to prevent Iowa State from quintuple-teaming Alexander, and Jackson stepped up, to the tune of 142 receiving yards (just 31 behind Alexander) and 12 rushing yards, his second straight game combining for over 100 yards. He is a tremendous athlete, and if he can get that whole "hands" thing under control, he could be a lovely weapon for Mizzou in 2010-11. But speaking of the hands...

Three Negatives

Jerrell Jackson. As I posted on Twitter during the game, I'm really developing quite the love-hate relationship with this guy. If not for his drops, we might have won the OSU game even with a gimpy Gabbert. And if not for his drops and fumble, ISU probably would not have led at halftime. But without his catches, Mizzou might not have caught up to ISU. Still, though, while Gabbert probably needs to do a better job of throwing into Jackson's body to avoid the possibility of a drop, Jackson needs to do whatever he can to become a more reliable receiving weapon this offseason--catching 1,000,000 of Gabbert's fastballs, getting contacts, whatever. He might be the default #1 WR next year, and if he can't consistently catch the ball ... well ... that's not good.
ISU's Passing Success Rate. For the game, ISU's passing success rate of 47.7% wasn't too great, but in the first half it was far too high. As I mentioned above, it's hard to make the dink-and-dunk work all game, but it was working a lot early on, even with Mizzou giving smaller cushions than normal. In Q1, ISU's passing success rate was 72.7% (8-for-11), and after misfiring on the first three passes of Q2, ISU finished the half on a 55.6% clip (5-for-9). As we know, that resulted in 17 points, and then the spigot went dry. However, against KU, a rate like that might result in about 21-24 points, so even though this ended up a positive for MU, it's a reason to be at least slightly nervous about what KU might do.
Kickoff Coverage. Here are ISU's starting field positions following Mizzou kickoffs:

ISU 27, ISU 46, ISU 36, ISU 31, ISU 32, ISU 20, ISU 34

Seven kickoffs with only one stop inside the 25 yard line. Five of seven times, ISU started past the 30. And ISU is only an average kick-returning team. Kansas, meanwhile, has Dez Briscoe. There is no question that Gary Pinkel and staff have figured things out in terms of the best way to coach kicking and punting...and, for that matter, punt coverage has been pretty good recently too. But there's something about kickoffs that is harder to coach, and Mizzou has not been a very good coverage team any time recently. In the six years of data recorded at CFB Stats, Mizzou has ranked 87th (2009), 94th (2008), 53rd (2007), 73rd (2006), 103rd (2005), and 91st (2004) in opponents' kick returns. Ouch. And that's just the returns, that doesn't even take into account the overall good starting field position when Mizzou has to pooch it to avoid a big return.

Anyway, of all my concerns for KU, the two biggest ones are KU's dink-and-dunk ability and their likely fantastic starting field position, and the ISU game only highlighted both of these concerns.

Three Keys Revisited

Seen here.

Turnovers. More than any other game, turnovers.

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.

Mizzou was +3 points in the turnover game, and they won by 10. One more strip by Iowa State, and it could have turned the game.

Touchdowns instead of field goals.

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.

Mizzou advanced inside ISU's 35 five times and came away with 20 points -- two touchdowns, two field goals, and a turnover on downs. Meanwhile, ISU advanced inside Mizzou's 35 four times and came away with 17 points -- two touchdowns (both on trick plays), a field goal and a turnover on downs. In other words, this was just about a wash. Mizzou's two long touchdowns trumped ISU's one, and that made the difference in the game.

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.

Consider this one a FAIL in Q1, a slight fail in Q2, a wash in Q3, and a WIN in Q4. Like I said, Mizzou might not want to wait as long to really play the short passes well this Saturday, but in all this was still an overall net win for Mizzou.

Summary

Despite the fact that their own mistakes allowed for a little more adversity than you'd like to see (particularly the late-Q2 fumble and some first-half issues defending the short pass), you always like seeing your team overcome adversity, and for the second game in a row, Mizzou dominated the second half. They sent Sean Weatherspoon and Danario Alexander out as winners, and their young players (particularly #11) continued to show significant growth. One of the major goals for 2009 was just to not screw up our hopes for the future, and their late-game surges the last couple of weeks have assured that this goal was rather successful, no matter what happens from here on out (though it's obvious that optimism could be starkly diminished with a couple of losses to finish the season). In all, it was a lovely Saturday to watch a Mizzou win, and like the Mizzou team did immediately after the game, we now turn the page and look to Kansas.

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.

Mizzou Links, 11-18-09

Bill C. — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:55:30 -0000

More photos » by L.G. Patterson - AP

Yeah, I like this guy quite a bit.

Browse more photos »

BASKETBALL!

MUtigers.com: Missouri Rolls Past Tennessee-Martin, 83-68
MUtigers.com: Post Game Notes

The Trib: Tigers top Tennessee-Martin in season opener

The Missourian: Bowers puts on show in Missouri's season-opening win
The Missourian: Bench leads Missouri
The Missourian: PHOTO GALLERY

KC Star (Campus Corner): Foot Injury Takes Tiller Out of Second Half of MU Opener

Post-Dispatch: Mizzou rolls in season opener

PowerMizzou: PHOTO GALLERY
PowerMizzou: PMTV: Locker Room report
PowerMizzou: Instant Analysis: Tigers open up

The Trib (Steve Walentik): Mitchell officially in fold
MUtigers.com: Mitchell Adds to Mizzou Recruiting Haul

ESPN: Kansas 57, Memphis 55
ESPN: Oklahoma 72, UL-Monroe 61
ESPN: Iowa State 90, Drake 70

Mizzou-Iowa State Links

MUtigers.com: OFFICIAL RELEASE

Iowa State proved to be a nemesis on a regular basis during one stretch for Mizzou, as the Cyclones posted a 4-0-2 record in Columbia in six appearances from 1982 through 1991.

The last three visits to Columbia have resulted in Tiger victories, but one was a memorable nailbiter in 2005 that saw an unproven rookie quarterback come off the bench to replace an injured Brad Smith in the 4th quarter and lead Mizzou back from a 10-point deficit to post a 27-24 overtime win that essentially began the legend of Chase Daniel.

Mizzou Head Coach Gary Pinkel stands 5-3 overall against Iowa State. Five of the eight contests between MU and ISU since Pinkel took over in 2001 have been decided by seven points or fewer.

The Trib: Pinkel seeks different methods to motivate Missouri football team

The Missourian: Iowa State defense key to football team's success

KC Star: Mizzou won't be fooled into another poor showing

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.

Mizzou Links, 11-5-09

Bill C. — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:45:54 -0000

First of all, if you haven't been following this strange incident at Mizzourah, it might be worth your while to do so (Part II, Part III...each progressive part gets stranger). Needless to say, the Mizzou blogosphere has Chase Daniel's back, to say the least, huh? Anyhoo...

Baylor Links!

The Trib (Dave Matter): Behind the Numbers: Missouri-Baylor

Missouri has gradually revived its running game the last few weeks, peaking with an 184-yard day at Colorado. The increased use of two-back formations has gotten some play lately, including here, but let’s look at how the Tigers are producing their rushing yards based on formations. Here’s a general breakdown of the formations MU used on its 45 rushing attempts at Colorado. (Keep in mind, MU runs various personnel sets and dozens of formations out of these looks. This is just a general glance)

One-back, shotgun: 26 carries – 139 yards; 5.3 yards per carry; 1-yard touchdown; long runs of 23, 31, 15 and 16 yards

Two-backs, shotgun: 11 – 36; 3.3 ypc; long runs of 10, 18 yards

Empty-set, shotgun: 2 – 13; 6.5 ypc

Jumbo, shotgun (fullback, direct snap to tailback, second back in motion): 2 – 5; 2.5 ypc
KC Star (Campus Corner): Hey Baylor: Something You Shouldn't Have Said

Not that the words were mucho inflammatory, but Baylor defensive end Jason Lamb probably would have been better off not saying the following about the Bears' game Saturday at Missouri:

"Watching tape on them, it is a winnable game. We just got to come out from a defensive standpoint and just play like we did the whole second half against Nebraska."
The Trib: Behind the Stripes Webcast: Episode 13, Pt. 1

Mizzou-Colorado: Beyond the Box Score Preview

Bill C. — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:00:26 -0000

More photos » by David Zalubowski - AP

Marquez Herrod: part of a surprisingly successful CU d-line.

Browse more photos »

Last year at this time, Missouri was coming off of a tough loss to OSU and a blowout loss to Texas, and they turned their season around with a ridiculously easy 58-0 win over Colorado. This season, a younger, hobbled, even-more-reeling Mizzou team makes the trip to Boulder, hungry for even a 1-point win, much less a 58-pointer. Will they get the job done?

Are you an optimist or a pessimist? Because whatever your inclinations, the stats below have something to feed them. An optimist looks at the matchups below and sees a Missouri team with significant defensive advantages, a Colorado team with no major skill-position threat, run-blocking advantages for both the Mizzou offensive and defensive lines, and such a pronounced speed advantage in the last two years that it simply cannot have all gone away now that Jeremy Maclin is catching passes from Donovan McNabb.

If you're a pessimist, however, you've got plenty of ammo as well. You've got an immobile, inaccurate quarterback facing a solid pass rush (and a backup who has not inspired a boatload of confidence), a Mizzou secondary that suffered flashback-inducing communication breakdowns a week ago, and a rushing offense that has still underachieved significantly this season. (Oh, and of course TERRIBLE COACHING PINKEL'S TOO STUBBORN OUR PASS COVERAGE IS TOO SOFT YOST AND STECKEL SUCK!!!!!1!!!!!!!!! Can't forget that.) The projections for this game have gotten tighter as Mizzou has begun to struggle, but let's be honest--without knowing how Gabbert's ankle will respond to another week of treatment, and how such a young team (did you see where Mizzou now has 36 freshmen and sophs on the two-deep????) will respond to a three-game losing streak, projections here are rather worthless. Not that that's going to stop me from diving ahead, of course...

Offense

Colorado: 2009 Beyond the Box Score Preseason Offensive Preview

In the last three years against Missouri, Colorado has scored a total of 23 points. After a decent 373-yard output in 2006, the Buffs have not managed even 200 yards in either of the past two meetings. Missouri's defense is actually quite a bit better statistically than in 2008, while Colorado's offense has only incrementally improved. Plus, Missouri holds the ratings advantage in a vast majority of major "+" categories.

Colorado Offense vs Missouri Defense
Category	CU Offense	MU Defense
Close S&P+ (Rk)	90.3 (92)	112.4 (31)
Close Success Rate+ (Rk)	98.9 (70)	104.6 (43)
Close PPP+ (Rk)	78.2 (103)	124.0 (30)

Rushing S&P+	121.5 (25)	101.9 (64)
Passing S&P+	72.5 (108)	120.8 (25)

Standard Downs S&P+	95.4 (83)	114.1 (27)
Passing Downs S&P+	94.3 (85)	117.4 (32)

Red Zone S&P+	106.5 (60)	100.0 (68)

Q1 S&P+	105.5 (69)	96.1 (73)
Q2 S&P+	107.1 (57)	136.1 (18)
Q3 S&P+	83.0 (103)	120.9 (24)
Q4 S&P+	91.8 (93)	113.9 (40)

1st Down S&P+	95.8 (82)	110.9 (42)
2nd Down S&P+	89.9 (97)	114.1 (35)
3rd Down S&P+	98.3 (78)	115.5 (33)

Line Yards+	126.8 (5)	99.5 (64)
Close Sack Rate+	77.3 (97)	89.2 (75)
Standard Downs / Passing Downs Sack Rate+	61.8 (107) / 108.4 (61)	78.4 (87) / 96.0 (70)

When Colorado Has the Ball...
Colorado Rushing	Advantage: Colorado
Colorado Passing	Big Advantage: Missouri
Best Time for Colorado:	1st Quarter
Best Time for Missouri:	Anything after 1st Quarter

Analysis after the jump.

We'll once again start with where Missouri has the rankings advantage:

Close S&P+, Success Rate+, PPP+
Passing S&P+
Standard Downs S&P+, Passing Downs S&P+
Q2, Q3, Q4 S&P+
1st, 2nd, 3rd Down S&P+
Close, Standard Downs Sack Rate+

And for Colorado...

Rushing S&P+
Red Zone S&P+
Q1 S&P+
Line Yards+
Passing Downs S&P+

Obviously Missouri has significant advantages in most categories, but you do see where Colorado has a sliver of opportunity. They will likely try to establish the run in the first quarter, and even though Missouri has been improving quite a bit against the run, CU does still have the overall advantage there. If Rodney Stewart gets going and Missouri has to focus a bit more on the run, then CU might be able to exploit a Missouri pass defense that might or might not now be shaky. Until the Texas game, Missouri had been playing great pass defense--more than good enough to completely shut CU down. But some breakdowns against the Longhorns have caused some serious consternation, and until we see that everything's alright--that the sudden miscommunication is alleviated, that Carl Gettis' head is on straight--we don't know for sure that it will be.

Though Colorado does obviously have a road map to success, you could see things pretty quickly turn in Missouri's favor if Stewart isn't finding running lanes and Colorado isn't moving the ball early. The per-quarter advantage quickly turns in Mizzou's favor after the first 15 minutes, when CU's scripted plays have likely run their course and the game turns to adjustments, counters to counters, and athleticism. If Mizzou leads after Q1, they are in very good shape. As with Blaine Gabbert's ankle, we should pretty quickly be able to discern how the secondary is going to play, and if Missouri's speed advantage is going to be enough to shut Colorado down for the fourth straight year.

Quarterback

If the cast of characters surrounding Cody Hawkins and Tyler Hansen improves considerably, can one or both of them turn into a competent guide for the offense? Cody Hawkins earned a lot of goodwill during his redshirt freshman season in 2007, primarily because of the win over OU. Beyond that game, he didn't show a whole lot, but he was a freshman. Unfortunately, he regressed considerably in 2008, just like everybody else on the Colorado offense. Hansen was able to very briefly breathe new life into the CU offense just by offering a different style of threat--he was able to generate some offense with his legs, something Hawkins is not capable of doing.

In the end, they were both not very good, but they are still young. For better or worse, CU still has two more years of Hawkins and three of Hansen. It really wouldn't surprise me if Clark Evans were given a look if Hawkins/Hansen prove early on that they still can't get the job done, or if one or the other gets injured.

Cody Hawkins: 114-for-228 passing (50.0%), 1,208 yards (5.3 per pass), 9 TD, 11 INT
Tyler Hansen: 24-for-44 passing (54.5%), 281 yards (6.4 per pass), 1 TD, 1 INT

Last year, CU came to Columbia with uncertainty at quarterback. Cody Hawkins simply wasn't performing well at all, and Dan Hawkins tore the redshirt off of Tyler Hansen to provide some competition. This year...almost exactly the same story. Hawkins has been mostly awful once again, and after an early decision to redshirt Hansen, Dan Hawkins decided against it, bringing Don't Call Me Taylor into the Texas game and starting him against Kansas.

Hansen provided enough of a change in style that it gave CU a momentary boost. The Buffs managed just 322 yards of offense against Kansas in Hansen's first start, but they took advantage of opportunities (twice, KU handed them the ball deep in their own territory) and came away with a win. Predictably, though, the Hansen magic quickly wore off, just like it did last year. CU gained just 244 yards against K-State, with Hansen and Hawkins combining to go 17-for-37 for 184 yards (a disgusting 5.0 per pass), 0 TDs, 2 INTs and 4 sacks. Ouch.

(And that's right, Hansen's redshirt came off halfway through the season, but he's still only splitting time with Cody Hawkins.)

Hansen is elusive enough that he really might be a better option than Nolte-Hawkins (I'm not completely sure I'm not a better option than Hawkins). He is not necessarily a threat to gain a bunch of yards on the ground (he ripped off a 20-yarder against KU, but that's it), but he is constantly escaping the pocket and trying to buy time for his receivers. Of course, his receivers are terrible, so that doesn't really work. But that's not his fault.

Running Back

Beyond Darrell Scott are two guys built on misconceptions. It seems like Rodney Stewart was pretty good in 2008. Wrong. Yardage-wise, he turned out to be CU's most successful freshman last year, posting 632 yards in 132 carries before getting injured himself. Problem was, as shown by POE, most of his yards came against iffy defenses. He did well against an okay Florida State run defense (21 carries, 107 yards), but otherwise most of his yards came against West Virginia (28-for-166) and Kansas State (29-for-141), two rather awful run defenses. Against Missouri and Texas, the two best run defenses on the schedule, Stewart managed just 36 yards on 18 carries.

Rodney Stewart: 120 carries, 467 yards (3.9/carry), 6 TD; 5 catches, 28 yards (5.6/catch)
Demetrius Sumler: 29 carries, 114 yards (3.9/carry); 10 catches, 58 yards (5.8/catch)
Darrell Scott: 23 carries, 95 yards (4.1/carry), 1 TD; 4 catches, 35 yards (8.8/catch)

For the second straight year, Scott has spent a majority of the season either dinged up or out. He had arthroscopic surgery on his knee early last week and is out for another week or two. Not that his game log was fear-inducing in the first place, of course.

The main threat in the backfield, I guess, is Rodney Stewart. Stewart is once again riding a nice performance against West Virginia (21 carries, 105 yards) to prop up his numbers. In conference play, he is averaging just 3.2 yards per carry (197 yards on 61 carries), and while CU's overall rushing stats are better than last year (and therefore so are Stewart's), I want to see him do something against a fast front seven before I claim to be scared of him in any way, shape or form. He is a bit of a workhorse--until his 16-carry performance against K-State last week, he had gone over 20 carries for four straight games. Durability is a virtue, especially when you're missing your supposedly most explosive RB option (Scott), but Stewart's got to show me he can run on Missouri's defense before I believe it (last year against Mizzou: 6 carries, 9 yards). Missouri had some issues last week, but not up front.

Meanwhile, for the second straight year, I'm almost thinking that Demetrius Sumler is CU's best back.

Wide Receivers / Tight Ends

[A] bad receiving corps probably got worse in terms of proven talent, but CU fans are putting a lot of hope in Markques Simas, a big-time recruit from Hawkins' first full-year recruiting class who sat out last due to (I believe) academics. With Smith, Simas could have had a nice role as the explosive #2 guy while Scotty McKnight continued to fill the "possession receiver" role, but without Smith the pressure will be on Simas to make plays from the very beginning.
Beyond Simas and McKnight (46 catches, 519 yards, 5 TDs)...oy. The seven other names I listed on the projected WR depth chart combined for...wait for it...one catch in 2008. And that one catch (from RB-turned-WR Kevin Moyd) garnered a loss of a yard. You never know when somebody will emerge out of the blue and thrive, but you certainly don't want to have to rely on that. With the level of inexperience here, the WR corps is ripe for an infusion of energy from a true freshman or two--don't be surprised if either/both Jarrod Darden (6'5, 210) and/or Terdema Ussery (6'4, 205) see the field early.

Scotty McKnight: 41 catches, 431 yards (10.5/catch), 3 TD
Jason Espinoza: 13 catches, 136 yards (10.5/catch), 1 TD
Markques Simas: 9 catches, 107 yards (11.9/catch), 1 TD
Patrick Devenny: 8 catches, 107 yards (13.4/catch), 2 TD

Riar Geer: 28 catches, 326 yards (11.6/catch), 3 TD
Ryan Deehan: 8 catches, 77 yards (11.8/catch)

I'll say this right now: when Hansen escapes the pocket and attempts to buy time, somebody better find the tight end. Not that either Riar Geer or Ryan Deehan is a threat to take a pass 50 yards or anything, but Geer appears to be the #1 safety valve option, and if somebody is going to bail Hansen (or Hawkins) out on a third-and-long, it's Geer.

Beyond that? Blech. Scotty McKnight is performing admirably in his "possession receiver" role, for seemingly the 13th consecutive year, and being that Missouri let Nebraska's possession receiver (Niles Paul, admittedly better than McKnight) go deep on them once, he's at least a bit of a threat. But McKnight and Geer are the only two players averaging more than two receptions a game. Markques Simas is the homeless man's Malcolm Williams--we've heard hype about him for a while, and he looks good in a uniform, but he just hasn't lived up to the hype yet. That said, all nine of his receptions have come in the last four games, so he's at least working his way into the offense a bit.

Offensive Line

If there truly is hope for the Colorado offense in 2009, it probably comes from the potential of the offensive line. Ryan Miller was another big-time recruit who got thrown into the deep end last year and actually acquitted himself pretty well. Blake Behrens got a lot of early experience as well. These two, combined with incoming redshirts Bryce Givens and Ryan Dannewitz, not to mention a host of sophomores (sans guard Max Tuioti-Mariner, who has suffered approximately 26 knee injuries in his brief CU career and is out at least for 2009, if not forever), should bring very solid line play to Colorado in the future.

I can't say for sure that this will happen in 2009, mind you--the line may not congeal until 2010--but there is hope here. Injuries and extreme youth decimated the line last year, so it's impossible to say exactly how much potential is here just yet (sounds like the running back corps, no?), but again, we're just talking about hope. This will still be one of the conference's younger lines in 2009, but if things click soon, the entire offense starts to look a lot better.

Possibly the most intriguing unit-vs-unit matchup in Saturday's game comes here--CU's offensive line versus MU's defensive line. I have been very impressed with Mizzou's front seven overall in conference play. Nevada gashed them up the middle, and since then nobody's gashed them at all, aside from a long Roy Helu run after the Nebraska game had been salted away. They have overachieved their rushing rankings the last 2-3 games, and that's an encouraging trend, but the pass rush still needs to improve. They have been all-pros at almost getting to the QB, but that doesn't count for a lot.

Meanwhile, the Colorado OL has seen the same type of encouraging results. Their line yardage figures have been surprisingly great (which brings about even more question marks regarding CU's actual running backs--their line yardage is great, yet they still don't have a back averaging more than 4.1 yards per carry??), but their sack rates leave something to be desired (again, this could be why Hansen is a better QB option...then again, he was sacked four times last week, so nevermind). Strength vs strength, weakness vs weakness. No matter what happens when Missouri has the ball, the game could be determined by who wins this matchup. If Missouri wins it, how exactly is Colorado supposed to score?

---

Defense

Colorado: 2009 Beyond the Box Score Preseason Defensive Preview

Colorado Defense vs Missouri Offense
Category	CU Defense	MU Offense
Close S&P+ (Rk)	114.9 (29)	106.9 (55)
Close Success Rate+	120.4 (13)	104.4 (52)
Close PPP+	108.7 (43)	113.4 (56)

Rushing S&P+	117.7 (26)	103.4 (66)
Passing S&P+	110.9 (37)	112.5 (49)

Standard Downs S&P+	117.5 (22)	105.7 (59)
Passing Downs S&P+	97.1 (71)	115.9 (46)

Red Zone S&P+	118.3 (27)	74.4 (112)

Q1 S&P+	101.6 (58)	113.1 (58)
Q2 S&P+	120.3 (32)	99.5 (76)
Q3 S&P+	132.0 (15)	119.7 (32)
Q4 S&P+	105.9 (48)	112.4 (37)

1st Down S&P+	112.5 (34)	104.1 (64)
2nd Down S&P+	112.7 (37)	113.5 (49)
3rd Down S&P+	114.7 (36)	117.9 (35)

Line Yards+	106.4 (45)	109.5 (41)
Close Sack Rate+	168.1 (5)	161.7 (20)
Standard Downs / Passing Downs Sack Rate+	190.5 (4) / 122.1 (38)	189.8 (13) / 118.4 (51)

When Missouri Has the Ball...
Missouri Rushing	Advantage: Colorado
Missouri Passing	Advantage: Push
Best Time for Colorado:	2nd Quarter
Best Time for Missouri:	4th Quarter

Missouri's advantages:

Passing Downs S&P+
Q4 S&P+
3rd Down S&P+
Line Yards+

Colorado's advantages:

Close S&P+, Success Rate+, PPP+
Rushing, Passing S&P+
Standard Downs S&P+
Red Zone S&P+
Q2, Q3 S&P+
1st, 2nd Down S&P+
Close, Standard Downs, Passing Downs Sack Rate+

Pretty jarring to see a Missouri offense with that many disadvantages, huh? This is the world we live in. This is also why Blaine Gabbert's ankle is such a huge wildcard for the rest of this season. If Gabbert can get back to actually throwing accurate passes, then Missouri goes back to having a dangerous offense--most of the statistical regression has come in the last three games, since Donkey Kong Suh's Gabbert roll-up. Before that, Missouri had a Top 30 offense (only Top 30 instead of Top 15 because of the weakness of the non-con defenses, but better than 55th, no?). But as it stands now, CU has a majority of the advantages.

With these numbers, we can see a pretty clear picture for how both teams will succeed, if they succeed, when Missouri has the ball.

If Missouri succeeds, it will be through the improving running game (Mizzou's got the advantage in the trenches) and 3rd down passing. Anecdotally speaking, CU's safeties have been by far their weakest link, and that has led to numerous breakdowns on 3rd downs and Passing Downs. With experienced, fast route-runners like Danario Alexander and Jared Perry running around, they could wreak havoc in these situations if Gabbert can get the ball anywhere close to them.

If Colorado succeeds, you will know it quickly. Derrick Washington is stuffed on the first carry of the game, and Gabbert launches a third-down pass 17 yards over Jared Perry's head. The same thing played out in the second half of the Oklahoma State game and pretty much from the opening snap of the Texas game. If Gabbert's first pass is far off-target, it will likely be another grind-it-out performance. The good news is, Colorado's defense simply isn't as good as OSU's or Texas', but it's good enough to make stops if the running game regresses and Gabbert can't throw. Oh yeah, and CU has a solid pass rush, and they'll happily tee off if given the opportunity.

Defensive Line

Remember how I pointed out yesterday that the CU receiving corps has next to no experience whatsoever? Well they've got nothing on the CU D-line. The eight names on the [projected depth chart] combined for 27.0 tackles, 4 sacks, and 2 TFL. As a reference point, Mizzou's Jacquies Smith alone had 34.0 tackles, 1 sack and 3 TFL in 2008, and he didn't really start seeing a ton of playing time until a few games into the season.

Half of the 27.0 tackles listed above (and all of the sacks) came from Herrod, who by default becomes the unquestioned veteran leader of the line. CU fans seem pretty excited about Conrad Obi, but it's all potential right now--he had exactly one tackle in 2008. If he can stay healthy, I think good things could be in store for Curtis Cunningham, but we'll see. The 7.5 tackles on his resume leave something to be desired. As we'll see, the CU LB corps and secondary have quite a bit of potential in 2009, but if the line is a sieve, it won't matter. CU had a mediocre D-line at best in 2008, and unless at least two of the people on the above list (or star recruit DE Nick Kasa) become studs, I don't see how the ranking won't fall in 2009.

DT Curtis Cunningham: 22.0 tackles, 2.0 TFL/sacks, 2 PBU, 2 3DS (3rd-Down Stop*)
DE Marquez Herrod: 18.5 tackles, 7.0 TFL/sacks, 6 QBH, 5 3DS
DT Will Pericak: 11.5 tackles, 2.0 TFL/sacks, 1 FR, 1 PBU, 4 3DS
DE Forrest West: 6.0 tackles, 1.0 TFL/sacks, 1 FF, 2 PBU, 1 QBH, 1 3DS

* I really wish other schools recorded defensive stats like CU does.

The Colorado defensive line isn't asked to do a ton, but Curtis Cunningham's tackle total is impressive for a DT. He seems like the type who is rather agile for his position but can be pushed around a bit. In all, you see these individual stats and start to conclude that most of CU's solid sack rates come from blitzing linebackers. Marquez Herrod, the aforementioned "unquestioned veteran leader of the line," has performed pretty well at end, but beyond that, this isn't a highly productive line. Nick Kasa has been slowed by injuries and has managed just 2.0 tackles (1.0 TFL) thus far.

So that brings up an interesting question. Texas aside, no team has blitzed Blaine Gabbert effectively, and even they picked and chose their spots quite well. Gabbert's instincts are not at the same level as Chase Daniel's, but he's been quite effective in seeing blitzes coming and knowing where to go with the ball. Teams who have effectively defended Missouri (without Texas' overall talent advantage) have done so by dropping as many as possible into coverage, and that doesn't appear to be Colorado's style. That could work in Missouri's favor.

Linebackers

Last year, Jeff Smart, Shaun Mohler and Brad Jones combined to make up a solid-not-spectacular LB corps; this year Jones is gone, but a host of potentially capable replacements lie in wait. Jones was the big-time playmaker in the bunch (7 sacks, 7 TFL, 2 forced fumbles), and he will be missed. While Smart and Mohler aren't big-time playmakers (they combined for just six sacks/TFLs) and Jones was (7 sacks, 7 TFL, 2 forced fumbles), every team needs a tackling machine or two, right? The trick will be getting some good blitzing from one of the potential Jones replacements.

There really is a nice mix here between experience (Smart, Mohler, Burton) and guys with high ceilings (Beatty, Rippy, Major), but while I think the high-ceiling guys could be quite strong in 2010, I'm not sure where they lie for 2009. I'm going to say that this unit has a pretty good chance to remain ranked somewhere in the 30s, but I'm not going to call for significant improvement until next year.

Jeff Smart: 59.0 tackles, 3.0 TFL, 1 INT, 1 FF, 2 FR, 3 PBU, 2 QBH, 6 3DS
Marcus Burton: 28.5 tackles, 6.0 TFL, 1 FF, 1 PBU, 2 QBH, 4 3DS
Shaun Mohler: 15.0 tackles, 1 PBU, 1 QBH, 2 3DS
B.J. Beatty: 14.0 tackles, 5.0 TFL, 1 FF, 1 FR, 1 PBU, 3 QBH, 2 3DS
Tyler Ahles: 10.5 tackles, 4.0 TFL, 1 QBH, 1 3DS
Michael Sipili: 10.0 tackles, 1.0 TFL, 2 QBH, 1 3DS
Bryan Stengal: 5.0 tackles, 1 3DS

So far in 2009, it's been a mix of the experienced and high-ceiling guys getting the job done. Jeff Smart has pretty much collected one of everything--INT, FF, FR, TFL, etc.--but is mostly the prototypical tackling machine. The worrisome guys to me are Burton (experienced) and Beatty (high-upside). They are more disruptive types than Smart is, and even though I encourage teams to blitz Gabbert--it usually works out well for Mizzou--if Colorado is going to make a game-turning play on defense, it's as likely to be from Burton and Beatty as anybody else on the team. Also look out for Ahles, who had a pretty good game against K-State. Overall, this is likely CU's best overall defensive unit.

As a whole, CU's tackle-splits (by that, I mean how many tackles each unit has made, and what kind of tackles) point to a defense similar to Nevada's--lots of tackles for loss, lots of big pass plays allowed. Granted, Gabbert had two healthy ankles against Nevada, but I'd much prefer to see that type of defense again, especially if Mizzou's running game has started to improve.

Secondary

The strength of Colorado's defense in 2008, the Buffalo secondary returns a wealth of experience at cornerback...and a wealth of unknowns at safety. If Anthony Perkins and Patrick Mahnke (or anybody else) can do well in the "last line of defense" role, the depth at corner should serve them well. Cha'pelle Brown (71.5 tackles, 1 sack, 5 TFL, 10 pass breakups, 1 FF) was quietly strong last year, and either Jimmy Smith, Benjamin Burney or Jalil Brown should serve as a solid #2 CB. But really, the performance of this unit will come down to the safeties. I wasn't just amazed by the now-graduated Ryan Walters last year, and I think he is replaceable. This isn't the biggest secondary, but it should still remain the strength of the defense and remain ranked somewhere in the teens, if not a smidge higher.

CB Cha'pelle Brown: 40.5 tackles, 6.0 TFL, 1 PBU, 2 QBH, 8 3DS
CB Jimmy Smith: 39.5 tackles, 2.0 TFL, 1 FR, 6 PBU, 4 3DS
S Anthony Perkins: 28.0 tackles, 1 PBU
CB Jalil Brown: 26.5 tackles, 2 INT, 2 FR, 6 PBU, 6 3DS
CB Benjamin Burney: 25.5 tackles, 2.0 TFL, 1 INT, 2 FF, 3 PBU, 1 QBH, 3 3DS
S Ray Polk: 22.0 tackles, 1.0 TFL, 2 QBH, 2 3DS
S Patrick Mahnke: 9.0 tackles, 1 PBU

Last year Colorado had a Top 20 Passing S&P+ defense, and they returned pretty much all cornerbacks who contributed to that unit. They also, however, lost both starting safeties. Against Toledo, this cost them dearly. Colorado simply didn't have the secondary speed to cope when Toledo's skill position players got to the second level of the defense. Since then, things have improved a bit, but this unit is still a big question mark. If Gabbert is throwing reasonably accurate passes, then a hungry Mizzou receiving corps should be just fast enough to give the CU pass defense fits.

Of course, if he's spraying the ball like he has been recently, the secondary is more than good enough to thank him for the charity and make some plays.

Special Teams

I didn't even know Colorado was allowed to have a bad place-kicker. I just assumed that when Mason Crosby left, his replacement would be just as good. Nope. Last year, Aric Goodman was...well, we'll politely call him "iffy." I mean, 5-for-14? Really? ... He MUST improve if Colorado wants to duplicate its strong close-game record from a year ago. They got lucky that he wasn't more of a liability last year. Meanwhile, punting was only a hair better. Matt DiLallo returns, and like Goodman, he must improve. Seriously, how did Colorado not find somebody better than at least Goodman, if not Goodman and DiLallo?

Punt Returns Rank: 115th (Jason Espinoza: 19 returns, 3.2 average)
Net Punting Rank: 109th (Matt DiLallo: 34.6 Net Avg)
Kickoff Returns Rank: 21st (Darrell Scott: 21 returns, 26.9 average; Brian Lockridge: 13 returns, 24.9 average)
Opponents' Kickoff Returns Rank: 12th

Field Goals: 6-for-10 (Long: 54)
PATs: 19-for-20

Well, the good news is, there have been improvements in some areas. Scott (who is out) and Lockridge (who is not) have combined for solid kick returning, and they have covered very well on their own kickoffs. Plus, while Colorado is still one of the worst in the country at field goals (60% is tied for 101st in the country), 60% is certainly an improvement over last year's 36%, right?

Of course, there's also the matter of the atrocious punting and non-existent punt returns threat (I guess Espinoza is the only player on the team who can reliably catch a punt?). Without a series of terrible bounces, Jake Harry should have little trouble flipping the field on punts, and assuming Carl Gettis' ankle is good to go, he could get a couple of decent return opportunities against a team that has already allowed two punt return touchdowns this year.

---

Three Keys to the Game

Field Position

For three quarters against Kansas, Colorado was almost completely listless. They were outscored in Q's 1, 3, and 4 by a combined 23-10. But in Q2, they exploded for 24 points, in part because Todd Reesing almost literally handed them the ball at the KU 3 on one possession (leading to a one-play TD drive), then later was picked off by Jalil Brown, who returned the pick to the 1 (leading to a two-play TD drive). Two drives, three plays, four yards...14 points. That's how you give a desperate team confidence. That's also how a team that manages just 322 yards for the entire game managed to score 34 points. Without easy scoring drives, this team does not score big points. They just don't.

Colorado's Scoring Drives and Sustained Drives

vs Colorado State

Sustained drives of 40 yards or more: 3
Scoring drives of 30 yards or less: 1

vs Toledo

Sustained drives of 40 yards or more: 6
Scoring drives of 30 yards or less: 1

vs Wyoming

Sustained drives of 40 yards or more: 4
Scoring drives of 30 yards or less: 1

vs West Virginia

Sustained drives of 40 yards or more: 4
Scoring drives of 30 yards or less: 1

vs Texas

Sustained drives of 40 yards or more: 1
Scoring drives of 30 yards or less: 1

vs Kansas

Sustained drives of 40 yards or more: 3
Scoring drives of 30 yards or less: 2

vs Kansas State

Sustained drives of 40 yards or more: 2
Scoring drives of 30 yards or less: 0

In conference play, they have averaged just two sustained drives per game, but they have been handed three scores on short fields. Get rid of the short fields, caused mostly by turnovers and special teams mishaps, and you only have to score about 17 points to beat them. Of course, that's easier said than done for Missouri. Coinciding perfectly with Gabbert's injury, Missouri has averaged a -9.8 turnover points differential per game in conference play. Plus, Mizzou has gotten murdered in the field position battle the last two weeks (partially due to turnovers). Hand Colorado 10 points and good field position, and they can absolutely beat you. Turnovers are always key, but never more than against Colorado.

Missouri's defensive line

Simply put, a) Colorado's running backs aren't good enough to create good rushes on their own, and b) Colorado's quarterbacks aren't good enough to make big plays with under pressure. If the Missouri defensive line wins its battles versus the Colorado offensive line, Colorado simply cannot score enough to win, even with a handicapped Missouri offense.

Derrick Washington, Kendial Lawrence, De'Vion Moore

I listed them as keys to the Oklahoma State game as well, and while they performed relatively well, they didn't make enough of a difference to swing the game in Missouri's favor. This one is also quite cut-and-dried: if Missouri can move the ball on the ground and give Blaine Gabbert as little to do as possible, Missouri will score enough points to win the game, barring major mishaps in Key #1 above. If Gabbert is throwing an accurate ball, Mizzou could kill Colorado. If he's not, Mizzou could still win if these three keys are clicking.

Prediction

As I've mentioned time and time again, I always go with what my numbers project here (even last week, when I had the distinct impression that the numbers were full of hooey). The projections say Mizzou by 3.4, so we'll go with Mizzou 24, Colorado 21. That said, I think the best odds are on one of two scenarios: Mizzou's offense finds a rhythm against a much less fast defense, and they win by 17-20 (at least), or Mizzou turns the ball over too much and loses by about 7-10.

I realize I just spent a couple of thousand words talking about Colorado above, but really this game is about Missouri. Colorado is good enough to beat a team playing poorly and bad enough to get killed by a team playing well; therefore it's up to Missouri to play well and move to 5-3. As Gary Pinkel said earlier this week, Mizzou's out of time. It's time for the senior leaders--Sean Weatherspoon, Danario Alexander, Jaron Baston, Jared Perry, Kurtis Gregory--to take over, and it's time for the younger guys--Aldon Smith, De'Vion Moore, Wes Kemp, Jasper Simmons, Will Ebner, Dominique Hamilton, Dan Hoch, Elvis Fisher, Andrew Freaking Jones--to not only make some good plays here and there, but to take over a game.

This game will define Missouri's season. We knew from the start that the NU-OSU-UT swing of games represented probably three of Mizzou's four most losable games, and Mizzou lost all three. The next four games are exceedingly winnable, but it starts with Colorado. If Mizzou wins on Saturday, a 9-3 record and third straight North title is not only conceivable, but quite realistic. If they lose, however, then the rest of this season will instead be defined by scrounging around for another couple of wins and a bowl bid. The North title and a true "eff you" to critics who predicted a major downfall in 2009 will go out the window. It's a damn shame that Gabbert got hurt when he did--if he hadn't, Mizzou might be as good as 5-1 and ranked in the teens right now. But he did, and it's time for everybody else on the team to carry him to a win the way he carried them in St. Louis and Reno. Show us what you've got, Mizzou.

Mizzou Links, 10-14-09

Bill C. — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:13:43 -0000

Mizzou-OSU Links!

Post-Dispatch: Mizzou feels depleted OSU is still formidable opponent
Mizzou (4-1 overall, 0-1 Big 12) might face a less-daunting task than it first would have appeared when it plays at 8:15 p.m. Saturday at Oklahoma State (4-1, 1-0) — where the Tigers have won on their last four visits.

But MU, of course, has matters of its own to resolve, from resuscitating a running game averaging 3.6 yards a carry to adding insulation to a defense that gave up 27 points in the fourth quarter in last week's 27-12 collapse against Nebraska.

And OSU, which put the first dent in then-No. 4 MU's 2008 ambitions with a 28-23 win in Columbia, hardly is caving in — whether or not it gets reinforcements this week.
The Missourian: Oklahoma State prepares for Missouri
The Trib: Blaine Gabbert looks likely to play at Oklahoma State
Tulsa World: Know The Foe: Missouri Tigers
Palestra.net: Mizzou Learns Lessons From First Loss

Bowl Game	Opponent
Tostitos Fiesta and/or BCS National Championship Game
AT&T Cotton	SEC
Valero Alamo	Pac-10
Insight	Big Ten
Pacific Life Holiday	Pac-10
Texas	Big Ten
New York Yankees	Big East

SB Nation - Chase Daniel

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

Morning Border War Links and Discussion

Mizzou-Iowa State: Beyond the Box Score

Iowa St.(24)

Mizzou(34)

Healthy Blaine vs Gimpy Blaine

Three Positives

Three Negatives

Three Keys Revisited

Summary

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

Mizzou Links, 11-18-09

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

Mizzou Links, 11-5-09

Mizzou-Colorado: 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 Links, 10-14-09

Kansas
(39)

Mizzou
(41)

Iowa St.
(24)

Mizzou
(34)

Mizzou
(38)

K-State
(12)

Baylor
(40)

Mizzou
(32)