SB Nation - Tommy Chavis

Beyond the Box Score Preview: Illinois

Bill C. — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:00:20 -0000

It's that time of year, boys and...well, a couple girls. BTBS Preview season is back! One problem: not much has changed since the last time we looked at Illinois back in June. I'm going to quote liberally from that piece (I know you all have it memorized, ahem, but I'll do it anyway) while adding pieces here and there. And we'll start with a new feature.

Conventional Wisdom

It's funny. I expected Illinois to be favored, and I expected most people to pick the Illini over Missouri, just as I expected some people to pick Colorado over Missouri in the preseason rankings. I knew it would happen...but it still somewhat surprised me to see the complete and total assumption that not only will Illinois win, but they'll easily cover on the way to a 9-3(ish) season. Never mind Missouri's role in that outcome, let's focus on just Illinois for a second. A 9-3 season would result in a Top 25 finish. Here's a graph showing Illinois' S&P+ game score for each game in the last two seasons. The #25 team in the country has finished with an S&P+ of 224.75 and 224.59 the last two years, so let's make the baseline for "Top 25 performance" a 225.0.

Illinois has only played seven of its 25 games above a Top 25 level the last two years, and three of those performances came in a hot streak in late-2007. They have a few players who are top-end talents (Juice Williams, Arrelious Benn, Martez Wilson, maybe Jarred Fayson), but they have pretty well-defined holes in other areas, and even the above-mentioned players haven't developed much (outside of Juice) in their time in Champaign. People are drawn to the potential in guys like Juice and Benn, however, and they overestimate how much impact just two people can have on a team.

Now, this is not to say that Illinois can't finish 9-3 or so--if they survive the opening stretch of games (Missouri on Saturday, Ohio State on 9/26, Penn State on 10/3), their final eight games are all projected within seven points. They could technically win all seven of those and finish upwards of 9-3 or 10-2, depending on how Saturday goes. Or hey...Ohio State and Penn State both have deficiencies...technically they could sneak in and pull an upset there too. But that's the best-case scenario. The reality is that, if Illinois loses on Saturday (not that anybody's predicting them to), they're staring a 1-3 start in the face, meaning they'll have to go 5-3 in the aforementioned closely-projected games just to get to bowl eligibility. The projections say they'll go 6-2 in that stretch (with a 3.1-point loss to Minny and a 4.9-point loss to Cincy) and finish at 7-5. If we were creating a bell curve of likely Illinois outcomes this year, I would say that 7-5 is in the middle of the curve, not 8-4 or 9-3. The Football Outsiders projections hate Illinois (projection: 4-8), and while my numbers like them a more than that, I think the odds of them living up to the best-case projections aren't tremendously high. Possible (their upside is certainly enticing), but not probable.

Alright, to the unit previews:

---

Offense

Illinois: 2009 Beyond the Box Score Preseason Offensive Preview

Quarterback

What else is there to say about Juice Williams at this point? There is a bigger contrast of good and bad analysis with him than there was about even Brad Smith. He has a bazooka for an arm, he can buy time with his legs, he looks like a great quarterback in terms of the eyeball test, and he beat Ohio State in Columbus in 2007...but Illinois is just 16-21 in his three years in Champaign, 14-11 in the last two. Guys calling Illinois games can't help but gush about him, but while Illinois scored 42 points in a shootout with Missouri and 47 against Eastern Illinois, they only scored 20 against UL-Lafayette, and they only averaged about 21 points per game against teams with winning records last year--decent, but certainly not great.

Missouri stopped the Illinois passing game last year with sacks. Stryker Sulak had three, Brock Christopher one, and Tommy Chavis one. Well, all three of those guys are gone. Missouri will need their athletic new ends to beat the Illinois tackles and get in Juice's face if Missouri is going to win this game. He's mobile, but he does linger in the pocket looking to make a throw, and that gives the lawfirm of Smith, Smith and Coulter a chance to attack.

Running Back

Yes, Daniel Dufrene averaged a decent 5.7 yards per carry in 2008, and yes, Illinois was a not-terrible 44th in the country in Rushing S&P+. But there were two main factors attributed to that: 1) Juice Williams was a solid running threat, and he's not a RB, 2) the offensive line was quite good. The running backs themselves did not acquit themselves well. Dufrene was one of the nation's leaders in worthless yards, averaging only 0.28 PPP despite the decent yards per carry figure. Jason Ford, was just barely better, at 0.31 PPP. In limited action, Mikel Leshoure posted only a 0.21. As means of comparison, Juice Williams averaged 0.34, and Derrick Washington averaged 0.48.

As a whole, this unit was the worst in the Big Ten in terms of POE. ... For Illinois, their RBs' POE was -4.9, meaning they gained 4.9 points fewer than what the typical, average D1 unit would gain in their carries against their opponents. ...

If there's any hope for this unit, it's that three of the four listed RBs are only sophomores now. While Dufrene has likely topped out his development, Ford, Leshoure, and Pollard (particularly Ford) still might have potential. But how much improvement can you make in one year?

Illinois fans are virulent that their RBs are the real deal, and who knows...maybe an offseason did them good. But last year they were quite unimpressive. Thanks to the fact that they were usually losing the field position battle due to turnovers and brutal special teams, they had plenty of opportunities for empty yardage before stalling and not converting yards into points. That will need to change if they're going to come anywhere close to living up to some people's expectations.

Wide Receivers / Tight Ends

The single strongest unit Illinois has, the WR corps is also Illinois' most unique unit, with two burners in Arrelious Benn and Jarred Fayson, and Jeff Cumberland, who is big even for a tight end.

Benn and Cumberland return, into [Will] Judson's shoes steps Florida transfer Jarred Fayson. Fayson, a former 4-star signee from Tampa, caught 13 passes for 157 yards and 3 TDs in two years in Gainesville, while adding 33 rushes for 215 yards and a TD. He's an interesting run-catch dual threat, and he could be a nice complement. If he's more consistent than Judson, who caught one pass or fewer in seven of 12 games in 2008, this receiving corps will improve. That alone could improve Juice Williams's numbers more than any last-second development Juice could make on his own.

Meanwhile, Michael Hoomanawanui was a distinctly average tight end, producing 0.36 Points Over Expected in 2008, good for #49 in the country.

Offensive Line

The Illini O-line in 2008 was pretty good at run blocking (29th in Line Yards+) and below-average at pass blocking (68th in Adjusted Sack Rate). Now, the sack rate figure is directly tied to a quarterback's ability to avoid a sack, and maybe Juice just hung in the pocket too much, but it's the best stat we have to work with right now, and it suggests what it suggests. They return two senior starters in Jon Asamoah and Eric Block, plus a promising sophomore in Jeff Allen, who started some games as a true freshman last year. In terms of experience, they don't have a particularly high or low amount, and it does look like, alongside the two seniors, they could start three sophomores/redshirt freshmen, which isn't encouraging. Mizzou's defensive line did rather well against this line last year, and on September 5, both units will be less experienced than they were twelve months previous.

Missouri's run defense will probably regress at the first of the season as they learn to replace Ziggy Hood, and since run blocking was a relative strength for Illinois, the Illini might be able to create a few more holes through which Daniel Dufrene, et al, can run. But one of the biggest keys to this game will be Missouri's pass rush. As mentioned above, Mizzou racked up the drive-killing sacks on Juice last year, and while they should have very fast, attacking linebackers, if Missouri has to blitz to get to Juice, that could mean trouble. If (IF) Jacquies Smith, Aldon Smith, and Brian Coulter are as good as they're supposed to be, then the Illinois line is average enough that they could have some success, and it could turn the game.

---

Defense

Illinois: 2009 Beyond the Box Score Preseason Defensive Preview

Defensive Line

The highest-ranked, most athletic unit on the Illini defense in 2008, the defensive line faces having to replace starting DEs Derek Walker and Will Davis and DT David Lindquist. The athleticism is still there, but the depth is not, especially after the requested transfer of highly-rated RSFr Reggie Elis. Doug Pilcher likely returns to the starting lineup after 20 starts in 2006-07, and if Jerry Brown can stay above water academically, he should be pretty good (plus, he had two solid games against Mizzou in 2007-08). At DT Corey Liuget came on strong last year, earning a couple starts as a true freshman. This unit is still the likely strength of the defense, but there's more uncertainty here than there was last year.

The Illinois defensive line got deeper with the return of Josh Brent to the team after a DUI-related suspension. Guys like Brent, Lindquist, and Liuget are very athletic for defensive tackles, and if they suddenly learn how to put together down-to-down success, then look out. Really, it's the same with Walker, Davis, Brown, and the ends. The athleticism of the line is undeniable, but there is nothing (yet) suggesting that they can be consistent enough to carry a relatively unproven defensive back seven.

Linebackers

The bad news is, the Illini LB corps loses all-conference performer Brit Miller and two part-time starters in Rodney Pittman and Sam Carson. The good news is, the unit really wasn't that good with them, so they might not miss them that much (at least not Pittman and Carson). People are expecting big things out of former 5-star recruit Martez Wilson, and they could be right--his sophomore performance in 2008 (73 tackles, 5.5 TFL, 1 FF, 2 FR) was pretty solid. Then again, it's not Weatherspoonian ('Spoon as a sophomore: 130 tackles, 9.5 TFL, 2 FF, 1 FR), so we'll see how much improvement he can do.

As Wilson goes, so goes the Illinois LB corps. Beyond him, things get dicey, and while they are certainly athletic (sensing a trend?), they were a weak unit last year and they're far less experienced this year. If the UI defensive line isn't plugging holes, Derrick Washington could take advantage of this unit again like he did last year.

Secondary

Lots of upperclassmen here, I can say that much. No Vontae Davis, though. Bellamy and Hardeman both racked up some tackles last year, but the secondary needed to produce infinitely more turnovers and opportunities than they did in 2008, and now they lose their lockdown corner. There isn't a lot of new blood here, which would probably be a good thing; I picture this unit as a bunch of Hardy Ricks's. Athletic, pretty smart, decent hitters...and not a whole lot of play-making ability. With good decision-making from Gabbert, this is potentially a good unit for the green Missouri WR corps to start with.

Once again, if the defensive line isn't generating pressure, there's nothing to suggest that this unit will make too many positive plays. The star quality of guys like Juice, Benn, and Wilson have distracted people from the fact that the Illinois defense is relatively devoid of playmakers, and while they're experienced enough to potentially take advantage of Missouri's green quarterback...well, let's just say that I'm not too worried if Gabbert has time to make the throws he wants to make.

Special Teams

You see Benn's name atop the list of punt returners, and you think this could be a pretty good special teams unit, but...it wasn't. He did next to nothing fielding punts--Illinois was one of the worst punt returning teams in the country. A.J. Jenkins was solid returning kickoffs, and Eller was curiously a better kicker the further out the ball was placed (he was 1-for-4 on FGs from 30-39 yards...and 8-for-10 from 40+), but the net punting (and, as Jeremy Maclin can attest, net kicking in general) was atrocious. I am still tweaking my special teams unit rankings, but it's safe to say that this unit was pretty damn poor. All four starters return, but there is plenty of tweaking to be done here.

Under Ron Zook, Illinois has pretty consistently failed in the field position battle, and unless the special teams unit is improved, they will once again be running uphill most of the season. Hopefully Missouri's new-fangled return game is just good enough to take advantage and win the fight for field position.

---

Three Keys to the Game

The Line

If Illinois is smart, the focus of their entire defensive gameplan is showing as many different looks as possible and trying to confuse Blaine Gabbert and get him thinking way too much. There will be serious pressure on the Missouri offensive line to not only open holes for Derrick Washington (he doesn't need much), but also give Gabbert time to breathe and make the right decision. Aside from Derek Walker's great pick six, last year Illinois didn't get to Chase Daniel much. They probably don't need to get to Gabbert as much as Daniel to get him scatter-brained, but they still need to get to him a little. If the Missouri offensive line is as good as we think it could be, Gabbert and Washington will be able to do their thing, and the Tigers won't miss too many beats offensively. But if not...well...Missouri's not going to win this game.

On the flipside, Missouri's defensive line will need to at least put together a similar effort as they got last year against the Illinois offensive line. When Juice got time to throw last year, Missouri was in a world of pain, and while we think the world of Smith, Smith, and Coulter (and Jaron Baston), clearly we don't know what they're capable of until they prove it on Saturday.

The bottom line here is that if Missouri's offensive and defensive lines win their respective battles, it will be very hard for Illinois to win this game. Yes, Missouri is unproven in a lot of areas, but if Washington finds room to run, if Gabbert has time to pass, and if Juice is not sitting comfortably in the pocket, Missouri will almost certainly win...unless the next two keys go massively in favor of the Illini.

The Bomb

If Illinois is smart, they will go deep early and often. It worked last year, but they didn't really try it until the game was out of reach. We've heard that Mizzou's cornerbacks are better than a year ago, but they'll have to prove it very quickly. I mean, I would go deep on the first play from scrimmage. If Carl Gettis, Kevin Rutland and company really can provide Mizzou with solid coverage, and Kenji Jackson, Hardy Ricks, etc., can do better than Justin Garrett over the top, then the scariest weapon in the Illinois arsenal could be neutralized. But that's a big if, isn't it?

Meanwhile, Missouri's biggest offensive weakness could be in the same vein--the big play. At this point, I'm pretty confident in the ability of Andrew Jones, Wes Kemp, Jerrell Jackson, Jared Perry, and Michael Egnew to get open underneath and keep Mizzou moving at least somewhat efficiently. But as the stats have proven many times over, the only thing more important than efficiency is explosiveness (because it leads to easy scores), and...does Missouri have any in the passing game? Can Danario Alexander emerge as the big-play threat we've always thought he could be? Can Rolandis Woodland give us, at the very least, a "once or twice a game" deep-ball threat?

The Turnover

I almost feel like it's a cop-out for me to say turnovers are important. Of course they're important. Everybody knows that. But did you know they were this important?

Mizzou and Illinois Versus Turnover Margins, 2006-08
Turnover Margin	Illinois	Missouri
+	7-1	17-0
0	4-5	7-3
-	5-15	6-8

Missouri is undefeated in the last three years when winning the turnover battle, while Illinois is 7-1. Extrapolating from this, you could say that Missouri has an 86.5% chance of winning the game if they're on the positive side of the turnover margin, while Illinois has a 68.1% chance of winning if they win on turnovers. Yards, first downs, S&P+, whatever...you will not find another stat with that direct an impact on the overall outcome of the game than that. Last year, Missouri and Illinois split on turnovers. The year before, turnovers made all the difference in the world (hello, Pig Brown). No matter how good (or not) these two teams truly are, a poor throw or a clean strip could make the difference in the game. That is almost always the case, but it seems even more the case in this matchup.

Prediction

The more I think about Illinois, the more I believe that this game will come down to line play. Whoever wins there, wins. Naturally, because I'm a Missouri fan I like Missouri's chances, but I also know that an outsider could make the case that Missouri fans are completely underestimating their own personnel losses, and that we could be in for a very rude awakening on Saturday. So I'm leaning on the numbers for now. The projections say that Missouri isn't going to fall off nearly as much as everybody thought, or put another way, the numbers say that Missouri was high enough above most teams that a fall-off should still result in a good season. They say Mizzou wins by 10, so I'll fill in the points...we'll say 38-28 Mizzou.

Mizzou 2009, Part Ten: Defensive Line

Bill C. — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:00:10 -0000

Okay, so we've worked ourselves into an optimistic frenzy on offense (it's August--show me a fanbase that isn't excited right now). What about the defense? Buzz kill or buzzsaw?

Defensive Line

This pic was too good not to use again.

2008 Unit Ranking: #14 in the nation (#3 in the Big 12)

Projected Depth Chart
DT Jaron Baston (6'1, 305, Sr.)
DE Aldon Smith (6'5, 255, RSFr.)
DE Jacquies Smith (6'4, 250, So.)
DT Terrell Resonno (6'6, 295, So.)
DE Brian Coulter (6'4, 250, Sr.)
DT Dominique Hamilton (6'6, 300, So.)
DE Brad Madison (6'4, 260, RSFr.)
DT Jimmy Burge (6'2, 285, RSFr.)
DT George White (6'4, 280, RSFr.)
DE Marcus Malbrough (6'5, 255, RSFr.)
DT Chris Earnhardt (6'5, 270, So.)
DT Andy Maples (6'4, 310, Sr.)
DT Bart Coslet (6'5, 260, Jr.)
DT Mark Ellis (6'2, 270, Sr.)

1. What kind of every-down potential do we have in our three-headed end monster? We all know about the athletic potential of Jacquies Smith, Aldon Smith, and Brian God Coulter. We're all excited about the possibilities of these guys rushing the passer. But you can only really pin your ears back and attack on Passing Downs...you have to force Passing Downs first. Mizzou was very good against the run last year, and while a lot of that has to do with Sean Weatherspoon and the linebackers, credit too goes to Ziggy Hood, Jaron Baston, Tommy Chavis, and Stryker Sulak, last year's starting D-line.

We haven't seen the lawfirm of Smith, Coulter, and Smith in every-down action yet, nor do we know who will be starting next to Baston at DT, so we don't know how good or bad the line will be against the run. We know that at 275+ pounds, Chavis was seen as more of a run stopping end than a pass rusher, and we know that nobody in the current corps of ends is that big. But clearly pure weight doesn't tell the story. TCU, Texas, and Tennessee were #1-3 against the run (according to Rushing S&P+) last year, and while they had some reasonably big guys (Texas' Henry Melton was around 280, Tennessee's Robert Ayers 270), most DEs on these squads were within the same 250-265 range as Mizzou's.

Can stats tell us anything about run support? Maybe a little. Here are the percentages of tackles each of last year's Mizzou linemen made against the run or pass (sacks count against the pass, FYI).

Jacquies Smith: 87% of tackles came against the run
Jaron Baston: 80%
Tommy Chavis: 72%
Ziggy Hood: 71%
Brian Coulter: 68%
Stryker Sulak: 61%

So if we conclude that Jacquies Smith really is a versatile player in the passing game (that's the perception, anyway), then he must be pretty good against the run. His "against the run" totals were higher Chavis', and Coulter's were higher than Sulak's, so consider that at least a small test passed. (And yes, they could have had high "against the run" %'s because they did nothing against the pass, not because they were particularly good against the run. I think we've made it clear that there are no wonderful lineman statistics. This is what we have to work with.)

What if we just looked at "successful" tackles (i.e. tackles that prevented a successful play for the offense)?

Jacquies Smith: 90% of successful tackles came against the run
Jaron Baston: 78%
Brian Coulter: 75%
Tommy Chavis: 73%
Ziggy Hood: 69%
Stryker Sulak: 51%

Hmm. That suggests that Coulter did more against the run than Sulak did...and that most of the successful plays J. Smith made came against the run. That's at least a little comforting, right?

2. Who's winning the battle to start next to Jaron Baston? No freaking idea whatsoever. At least I'm honest, right? Here's where it's bad that we're completely reliant on the practice reports of Dave Matter and Gabe Dearmond. We haven't heard much of Terrell Resonno or Dominique Hamilton. Monday's depth chart updates show that it's still Resonno in the lead, though neither have distinguished themselves. Hamilton looked really good in the spring game, but that is, after all, just one scrimmage of many.

3. Is there a sleeper we haven't talked much about? It appears about thirteen scholarships have been spent on the defense line at the moment, yet we've only talked about six guys. Are any of the others posing serious threats for playing time or stardom? Not really. Marcus Malbrough was not practicing particularly well, but he had a nice Saturday scrimmage, lodging a TFL and a sack. At DT, it sounds like the biggest mover has been redshirt freshman Jimmy Burge, who has jumped ahead of both George White and Chris Earnhardt to second string. It sounded like freshman Marvin Foster was making a threat for playing time before injuring his knee last week, so I'm thinking for the most part we're looking at a six-man line rotation...at least as far as the playmakers go. The winner of the Brad Madison/Malbrough battle will likely see the field, as will the winner of the Burge/Earnhardt/White battle, but I'm guessing that for 2009, at least, they won't be serious threats to make plays as much as eat space. It's doubtful we'll hear too much about anyone beyond Smith/Coulter/Smith and Baston/Resonno/Hamilton.

Texas: Beyond the Box Score Preseason Defensive Preview

Bill C. — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:00:12 -0000

More photos » by Alex Brandon - AP

How much will Texas miss Brian Orakpo?

Browse more photos »

Yesterday we took a look at a Texas offense that could be described as anything between "uncertain" and "great." It all basically depends on how well Colt McCoy can duplicate his passing downs success from 2008. On the defense, it all depends on how UT replaces Brian "O-Sack-Po" Orakpo. All of the other pieces are in place, and there are plenty of super-duper, highly-recruited players at the DE position, but as I mentioned yesterday with the offense, how quickly some guys can turn potential into production will dictate whether Texas is playing for a national title in 2009, or just maybe a Big 12 title.

Defense

Overall Stats

S&P+: 146.4 (#2)
Success Rate+: 130.7 (#2)
PPP+: 167.7 (#3)

Standard Downs S&P+: 130.6 (#3)
Passing Downs S&P+: 145.0 (#4)

Red Zone S&P+: 163.0 (#1)

Q1 S&P+: 162.5 (#2)
Q2 S&P+: 126.3 (#14)
Q3 S&P+: 156.7 (#2)
Q4 S&P+: 108.3 (#37)

1st Down S&P+: 129.0 (#5)
2nd Down S&P+: 132.1 (#6)
3rd Down S&P+: 147.7 (#3)

Rushing Stats

Rushing S&P+: 147.1 (#2)
Rushing SR+: 133.7 (#2)
Rushing PPP+: 169.5 (#3)

Standard Downs: 119.3 (#20)
Passing Downs: 165.4 (#4)

Redzone: 165.8 (#3)

Line Yards+: 124.6 (#10)

Passing Stats

Passing S&P+: 148.9 (#3)
Passing SR+: 128.2 (#4)
Passing PPP+: 174.3 (#4)

Standard Downs: 144.6 (#3)
Passing Downs: 144.0 (#9)

Redzone: 174.5 (#3)

Adj. Sack Rate: 8.7% (#5)

Whereas the UT offense saw disproportionate success on Passing Downs compared to Standard Downs, the UT defense was pretty consistently great no matter the down, quarter, or type of play (run/pass).

They ranked in the top five for both SR+ and PPP+ in Rushing, Passing, and overall defense.
They had the #1 red zone defense in the country.
They were Top 10 in both Line Yards+ and Adjusted Sack Rate.
Really, there are only two sources of variance: their rushing defense was better on Passing Downs than Standard Downs, and they were much better in Q1/Q3 than Q2/Q4. Of course, if you had to choose a time to be great, you should choose Q1/Q3--without Q1/Q3 strength, Q4 may not matter.
Looking at all categories, you have to go pretty far to find a weakness. Here's one: they ranked in the nation's bottom ten in Q4 Rushing Success Rate+, Q4 Rushing Line Yards+, and Q4 Rushing S&P+. Of course, they only played four games decided by less than 20 points, so a large majority of Q4 rushes took place with UT's #1 defense off the field.
The Pass Defense rankings are the most impressive considering a) they improved from 29th in 2007 to 3rd in 2008, and b) they did so with two freshmen starting at safety.

Defensive Line

Lamarr Houston brings experience to an otherwise relatively green line.

2008 Unit Ranking: #2 in the nation (#1 in the Big 12)

Projected Depth Chart
DT Lamarr Houston (6'2, 290, Sr.)
DE Eddie Jones (6'3, 260, Jr.)
DE Sam Acho (6'3, 260, Jr.)
DT Kheeston Randall (6'5, 290, So.)
DE Alex Okafor (6'4, 240, Fr.)
DT Ben Alexander (6'0, 310, Sr.)
DE Dravannti Johnson (6'2, 232, RSFr.)
DT Kyle Kriegel (6'5, 265, Fr.)

Sophomore tackle Michael Wilcoxon left the team very recently, which hurts depth a bit. At least, it hurts experience a bit. Chances are, at least one true freshman will break into the rotation behind Lamarr Houston and Kheeston Randall. Kyle Kriegel was in for the spring, but 4-star freshmen Calvin Howell and Derek Johnson should be ready to fight it out for a spot in August. The 'Horns will miss underrated Roy Miller (11 TFL, 28 QB Hurries) at tackle, but Houston (7 TFL, 11 QBH) was solid, and Randall has a nice pedigree. The experience from Houston and Ben Alexander can't hurt either.

Whereas UT was good at DT last year, they were great at DE, thanks in part to Brian Orakpo and his 19 TFL, 11.5 sacks, four forced fumbles, and 30 QBH. Seriously, we at RMN really liked Stryker Sulak and Tommy Chavis--they combined for 21.5 TFL, 13.5 sacks, and 12 QBH. Granted, they forced a really impressive eight fumbles, but still. Orakpo was ridiculously good. Also gone: RB-turned-DE Henry Melton (10 TFL, 4 sacks). That's a lot of sacks and hurries to replace.

The main man in making sure UT's QB pressure doesn't drop in 2009 isn't even on the list above. That, of course, would be hybrid LB/DE Sergio Kindle (14 TFL, 10 sacks), listed below in the LBs list. He will be the main rush end, I think, in passing situations. Along with Kindle, it's probably time for former 5-star recruit Eddie Jones to make his move. In 13 games last year, he managed only eight tackles in backup time, though five went for loss (he also added 5 QBH, but I'm starting to think that Texas statisticians were VERY liberal in their interpretation of what constitutes a "hurry"). If he can become a reliable force alongside Kindle and Sam Acho, Texas should be just fine. If he doesn't, defensive coordinator Will Muschamp will be looking toward Dravannti Johnson and maybe stud true freshman Alex Okafor to provide the lacking pressure.

The components are certainly all here for the 'Horns to have another great D-line--it's just that it's always hard to assume such a thing when you lose somebody as great as Orakpo. The odds are in their favor, though.

Linebackers

Sergio Kindle: too much of a stud to play just one position.

2008 Unit Ranking: #3 in the nation (#1 in the Big 12)

Projected Depth Chart
Sergio Kindle (6'4, 255, Sr.)
Roddrick Muckelroy (6'2, 235, Sr.)
Jared Norton (6'3, 237, Sr.)
Keenan Robinson (6'3, 232, So.)
Tariq Allen (6'2, 245, Fr.)
Emmanuel Acho (6'2, 235, So.)

Whereas the D-line had headliners and great stats, the Texas linebackers (sans Kindle) were probably a bit overshadowed in 2008. But when a defense is equally great at stopping the run and the pass, some of that is going to be because of a good LB corps, and that reflected well in my LB rankings. Kindle and fellow 2009 seniors Roddrick Muckelroy and Jared Norton were extremely steady in 2008, and there's no reason to expect otherwise in 2009. Muckelroy only had four TFLs and didn't really play a role in forcing many turnovers, but he was UT's main tackler, racking up 112 (71 solo). There is little experience behind this trio of seniors, but Keenan Robinson and Tariq Allen were both 4-star recruits--they'll probably be alright in 2010...or at least 2011.

Secondary

Sadly, Blake Gideon is thus far remembered for the play he didn't make.

2008 Unit Ranking: #4 in the nation (#1 in the Big 12)

Projected Depth Chart
S Earl Thomas (5'10, 197, So.)
S Blake Gideon (6'1, 200, So.)
CB Chykie Brown (6'1, 187, Jr.)
CB Deon Beasley (5'10, 180, Sr.)
CB Aaron Williams (6'1, 189, So.)
CB Curtis Brown (6'1, 185, Jr.)
S Christian Scott (6'1, 209, So.)
S Nolan Brewster (6'2, 210, So.)

That such a young unit led such an impressive move up the passing rankings (from 29th to 3rd) is rather astounding. With freshman safeties Earl Thomas and Blake Gideon holding down the fort at safety, and a batch of solid (mostly young) corners, UT had the best pass defense in the Big 12, and it's hard to imagine that changing with most of the key cast of characters coming back in 2009. Of course, what is most memorable out the secondary are the two plays they didn't make--Gideon dropping the INT, then Beasley (I think) whiffing on the tackle of Crabtree at the end of the Tech game--but that's unfair since this unit made most of the rest of the plays they needed to make.

If there's an area of aimed-for improvement in this unit, it comes in the form of interceptions--they only snagged six in 2008. In landing the #3 ranking, they benefited from the fact that my rankings don't place heavy emphasis on turnovers. They covered and tackled well, but one thing that can help out the Texas offense--one that I'm still saying might struggle more than expected thanks to their disproportionate success on Passing Downs--is by setting up some short fields and easy points. These are mostly 3- and 4-star recruits with a growing amount of experience, so it wouldn't be shocking to see a secondary that was a liability just a couple of years ago, suddenly forcing quiet a few turnovers and turning into the single best unit on the team.

Special Teams

Google searching for Hunter Lawrence, I also found this pic.

2008 Unit Ranking: #3 Net Punting, #72 Punt Returns, #32 Kickoff Returns

Projected Starters
K Hunter Lawrence (6'0, 187, Sr.) - 60-for-60 PAT, 10-for-12 FG (long: 46)
P John Gold (6'3, 212, Jr.) - 39.6 Net Avg
KR Jordan Shipley (6'0, 190, Sr.) - 26.3 Avg, 1 TD
PR Jordan Shipley (6'0, 190, Sr.) - 10.7 Avg, 1 TD

Hunter Lawrence wasn't asked to do a ton last year--less than one FG attempt per game--but he did well in the limited opportunities, missing just two kicks all year. He and John Gold form a pretty damn solid kicking unit, even if neither was needed much in 2008. Jordan Shipley had a clutch kickoff return touchdown against Oklahoma, just as it looked like OU was about seize control of the game (UT had just gone down 14-3 when he broke loose), but the rest of the year he was only solid at KR's, not spectacular. Same with punt returns, where he ripped off a 45-yard touchdown in one return and managed only 19 yards in five others. It wouldn't surprise me to see Malcolm Williams become a force in kickoff returns, but overall this is a solid unit either way. Not as good as OSU's, but definitely in the upper half of the Big 12.

Summary

If the Texas defensive line can approximate last year's success, then the linebackers and secondary should be more than good enough to keep Texas in the Top 5 of the defensive S&P+ rankings. Six starters return among the back seven, and the backups were highly-touted recruits. It all hinges on line success, however. There is no way to underestimate how disruptive the D-line--particularly Orakpo, Miller, and (when he played DE) Kindle--was, and how integral it was to UT's success. Opposing quarterbacks having almost no time to throw cleanly definitely a green secondary, and while the secondary won't need quite as much help in 2009, they'll still need some. Find a solid rush end to line up opposite Kindle--be it Acho, Jones, Okafor, or whoever--and UT will have a national title-caliber defense.

---

Projections on Friday.

Monday Musings - The Big XII North Champion Edition

The Beef — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:45:06 -0000

Hmmm...I just do not see that getting old any time soon...Big XII North Champions. Not saying it is my destination, but saying it is nice to see this team accomplish it in back to back seasons when other seasons have had the same expectation.

At any rate, this was a REALLY busy weekend for Mizzou sports, as the winter sports are geared up and the fall sports are winding down. Lots of stuff to cover and some random thoughts on football and NASCAR.

Football:

Thanks to DirecTV (all the more ironic since I work for a competitor),I was only able to see that last three quarters of action. At any rate, I have not read or heard enough to know if the team knew the fate of the UT/kU game when they took the field. In all honesty, I kind of hope they did know and were able to go out there and take care of business like they did. Chase looked comfortable again, save for the two interceptions (one which did not count, and the one that did. Speaking of the one that did not count, I think it is funny that a roughing the passer can negate an INT. To me, the ball is gone, it should be change of possession and 15 yards off...but that is just me). What I hope happened this past week was that while we continued to pay lip service to the fact that Chase Coffman COULD play, we went ahead and game planned that he would not. I am not entirely sure we did that for the kSU game, and I think it showed in the offense's efficiency. This time around, Jones looked more than ready to step in and things clicked better. As it pertains to Coffman, all the more reason he is the most important cog (except for Daniel) out there and why he needs to be 100 percent for the Championship game. I will be honest, I think we can beat kU without him, but we do not likely stand a chance against any of the four from the south without him.

On defense...gosh..I wish we could just wrap up and tackle. WAY too many shoulder tackles which do not work at this level. Saw one from Willy Mo, another from Lambert and others where I do not remember the people specifically. Nice game by Chavis (even if the announcer could not say his name correctly) and nice to see Gettis further earn his rep as a lock-down corner with an interception. And I am still looking for the superior effort on D. Wash's long TD run, but the more I see it, the more it just seems to be a product of the system and Washington's really wonderful vision. He just glided around and took the correct angles which resulted in ISU guys getting naturally sealed off of him and went from there.

As for "hate" week and what-not, you will find I will probably not participate too much in it. To me, these next two weeks are just a long two weeks without Mizzou playing, with a stop-over for the OU/TTech game next Saturday. As for some perspective on the season and this accomplishment...maybe next week...we'll see. I think I am of the opinion that if I do not talk about the closing of this season, it just wont end :-)

Soccer:

Not too much left to cover on this one, as it was pretty well hashed out on the pages of Rock M over this past weekend. The ladies went right out and stomped on the throat of Evansville on a terrible Friday night with goals in the 3rd minute and the 33rd minute. A win of 2-0, along with a 2OT thriller between Memphis and Illinois (which Illinois won) figured to have the Tigers in a good spot. But, after a scoreless 1st half, Illinois got on the board early in the 2nd. The Tigers fought back on a goal from freshman Mallory Stipetech and evened it at one. They went all the way to penalty kicks (some would argue a terrible way to finish a game) and were even at 4 goals each on the 5th kick when back-up goalie and occasional field player Mallory Forst stepped up to take the kick.. She was unsuccessful, and the Tigers finished their season with another 2nd round of the NCAA tourney loss, again in 2OT (or more).

This is a disappointing finish for the Tigers, who just could not beat Illinois this season (also falling in the first game of the year). The Tigers should have advanced to the Sweet 16, but it was not to be. However, they are pretty likely to return next season, as they will return 43 of 50 goals and 32 of 40 assists, along with their fantastic keeper in junior Tasha Dittamore. The biggest loss will be on defense, where Mizzou employs only three defenders, putting a special focus on experience and ability. Senior Kat Tarr led the team in minutes played with just over 2000, while senior midfielder Janelle Cordia was just behind her. Ashley Hamblin came on the end of the year to become a nice scorer from the front and McCoy and Forst certainly contributed. However, the freshman class of Stipetech/Blincow/Crabtree/Collins/Ruff and Gayer (who did not play) provided a nice 7 goals and 4 assists. Bonnick and Andrighetto, along with Michelle Collins will have one more season all together, returning their combined 25 goals (yes...half of the team's goals) and 16 assists.

Volleyball:

About as good of a week as could be hoped for the Tigers, as they fell to highly ranked Nebraska on the road, but went out on the road and took down Colorado to move to 7-9 in the Big XII and 13-11 overall. Getting the program's 600th win, the Tigers won two close sets to start the match against CU before dropping the 3rd in similarly close fashion. However, the team regrouped an defeated the Buffaloes, marking only their 2nd conference win of the season on the road. Lei Wang continues to play better, finishing with 46 sets for the match along with 12 digs. Caitlyn Vann once again lead the Tigers in the dig category with 21, and Julianna Klein put up a double-double with 13 kills and 15 digs. Wendy Wang finished with 12 kills and Megan Wilson led the team with 15 on a solid .344 hitting.

So...what is left for the Tigers? They have four matches remaining, three of them at home in Hearnes. The schedule is not too easy though, with 12-5 (conf) k-State coming on Wednesday. The team will hit the road for the last time this season with a match at fellow 7-9 Baylor before returning home for the finales against 14-2 UT and 7-9 aTm. If the squad wins three of the last four, that would put them at 10-10 in conference and MAYBE give them an outside shot at an NCAA berth (and I only say that because 10-10 got them in last year).

Men's Basketball:

My thoughts on the actual game (was not worth rehashing the exhibition game) were mostly covered in the National Game thread from this past weekend. Basically, I like what Denmon brings to the table, as I have yet to see him really have an off night, which means he may just be the scorer we could really use. At the point, I like that Zaire Taylor is as long and tall as he is, and I am intrigued by Miguel Paul. However, Matt Lawrence seems to be more and more of a liability to me, and I just do not trust "good" Leo Lyons to show up each and every night. If he does, and if Carroll can stop reminding me of TJ Soyoye (meaning he is ridiculously athletic but not smooth at all), then I think Mizzou could be on to something. But I just have to believe "bad" Leo is going to show himself at times this season and we will be stuck when he does.

This is going to be a long and tough week for the Tigers, as they will have four games...not very common at all. They will start the week at home against UT-C in the 1st round of the Puerto Rican Tournament...that's right...the first round is at home, but it does not matter what the Tigers do, as they will take on Xavier on Thursday, followed by the winner/loser of Va Tech/STAGS OF FAIRFIELD on Friday, with a final game on Sunday. Four games...and nothing less than 3-1 is going to be acceptable to me.

Women's Basketball:

yeah...they lost to South Dakota State...at home. Not much else to say, other than SD St. only hit 4 FG's for the entire first half..and still won the game. Mizzou did not shoot 48 percent from any area on the floor...including the free throw line. They did not hit a three pointer. Only Shakara Jones hit better than 50 percent of her shots, scoring 16 on 5-8 from the floor and 6-10 from the line. (the rest of the team went 4-11). And they were outrebounded by the...well...WHO THE HELL KNOWS WHAT SOUTH DAKOTA STATE IS?!?!?!

Anyway...the ladies will be travelling east this week to take on the Illini. The game is on the Big 10 Network on Wednesday in case you are interested. The ladies will return home this coming weekend to take on Western Illinois. Winning either of these games would be a step in the right direction.

Wrestling:

More to come tomorrow in the Wrestling Wrap-Ups for the duals against Lock Haven and Bucknell. Needless to say...some very interesting results for the Tigers, who did win both.

Cross Country:

Looks like the season ended for both squads this past weekend at the NCAA Regional competition, which were run out in Stillwater. For the men, the team finished a respectable 5th place, with senior Garrett Jeffries finishing17th, which does make him eligible to be placed in the NCAA Championships. Sophomore transfer Michael Pandolpho ran a season-best and finished a solid 26th, while sophomore Phillip King finished next for the Tigers. Sophomore Dan Quigley was next, with freshman Phil Bascio was 5th for the group. That is a great future for the Tigers right there, and a solid season (likely) completed.

For the ladies, they finished 10th in the session, and their season is definitely completed. Sophomore Kinsey Farren led the charge for the team, but finished 42nd overall. Sophomore Layne Moore was next for the Tigers back in 57th with junior Emily Baker, sophomore Jessica Armstrong and freshman Laura Roxberg rounding out the scoring top 5 for the team. That's right, no seniors in that group either.

Swimming:

Mizzou travelled to Louisville this weekend where the both the men and the women participated in something of an extended meet, which took two days to complete. For the #21 ranked men, they fell to the #18 ranked Cardinals, and fell pretty hard. It was a pretty close meet after the 1st day, but L'ville poured it on in Day 2 and defeated the Tigers 218-135. That score leads me to believe there were more events swam than normal. Anyway, winners on the weekend for the Tigers included divers Greg Destephen in one event and Dante Jones in the other. In fact, these were the only winners for Mizzou on Day 2. Winning on Day 1 were junior Martin Cernasky in the 100m breast, freshman Jan Konarzewski in the 200 backstroke, already posting the 4th fastest time in MU history.

For the #20 ranked women, they fell in much closer fashion to the #23 Cardinals 185-168. Junior Colleen Gordon set a pool record in the 400 IM, and freshman diver Jordan Morcom won both events, setting the record in the 1m , with senior all-american Kendra Melnychuk right behind her in both. Senior Lori Halverson scored a win in the 200 freestyle and sophomore Francie Szostak did the same in the 500 free. Other sophomore getting wins for the squad were Lauren Lavingna in the 200 back and Melissa Jamerson in the 200 fly (we seem to love the 200 meter length events I guess).

Next up for both squads will be the three day Mizzou Invite in early December.

Random Thoughts:

Carl Edwards finished an amazing 2008 by winning his 9th race of the season. He finished in 2nd in both circuits this past season and showed tremendous growth in his ability to win at all tracks.
Got to hear Will Franklin make his 2nd career catch, a 42 yard grab against the New Orleans Saints while driving home from Como, prompting the KC Radio guy (Mitch whatever his name is, who I enjoy) to bus out an MIZ-ZOU for Franklin.
Also, a great game for 12-Gage, as he caught 4 balls for almost 140 yards and two long TDs to give the Titans their 10th straight win. My Jets get them next weekend.
Back to the Chiefs...I got to listen to both Len Dawson, along with Jim Hanifan on the Rams radio network once I got back to the Chuck. Each one used every single anti-superlative to describe their teams' play...it was rather funny and somewhat sad.
How good is football these days for the fans in New York City? 16-4....versus the sparkling 3-17 that Missouri is putting up. I did not think Mizzou's win total last year would be better than both teams combined over TWO years, but it seems like they have a shot at it.
I think I set a record for the amount of tags on one of my posts.
Record Book update coming later today, with the wrestling wrap-ups likely to hit tomorrow...then my fingers will fall off.

Mizzou-Baylor (and the rest of the Big 12): Beyond the Box Score

Bill C. — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 19:00:06 -0000

Alright, we're combining the "MU-__ Beyond the Box Score" piece with the "Big 12 BTBS Box Scores" piece...I've bolded the super-duper interesting parts of each box score...

Mizzou (31)		Baylor (28)
	% Close = 100.0%
51.4%	Field Position %	48.6%
80.8%	Leverage %	75.9%

	TOTAL
73	Plays	79
31.56	EqPts	29.73
63.0%	Success Rate	53.2%
0.43	Points Per Play (PPP)	0.38
1.062	S&P (Success + PPP)	0.908

	CLOSE GAME ONLY
same	Plays	same
same	EqPts	same
same	Success Rate	same
same	PPP	same
same	S&P	same

	RUSHING
9.45	EqPts	11.85
57.6%	Success Rate	57.5%
0.29	PPP	0.30
0.862	S&P	0.871
3.43	Line Yards/carry	*3.20*

	PASSING
22.10	EqPts	17.88
67.5%	Success Rate	48.7%
0.55	PPP	0.46
1.228	S&P	0.946

	NON-PASSING DOWNS
69.5%	Success Rate	56.7%
0.43	PPP	0.29
1.120	S&P	0.856

	PASSING DOWNS
35.7%	Success Rate	42.1%
0.46	PPP	0.65
0.820	S&P	1.073

	TURNOVERS
3	Number	2
9.39	Points Lost	5.50
4.93	Points Given	4.27
14.32	Total T/O Pts	9.77
*-4.55*	*Turnover Pts Margin*	*+4.55*

1.315	Q1 S&P	0.842
1.183	Q2 S&P	0.953
0.790	Q3 S&P	1.041
0.807	Q4 S&P	0.702

0.970	1st Down S&P	0.739
1.158	2nd Down S&P	1.066
1.156	3rd Down S&P	0.741

How was Baylor able to see more offensive success than expected on Saturday? Success on 2nd downs. They were okay on 1st downs, but their 2nd down success (which has been a strength of theirs all year, for some reason) kept them out of tough 3rd downs.
How was Baylor able to run so effectively on Saturday? It appears the answer is in the trenches. Baylor's 3.40 Line Yards per carry was higher than their 2.83 season average, and MUCH higher than Missouri's 2.18 season average allowed. This is something to watch as pass rush specialists Brian "God" Coulter and Jacquies Smith start to see more playing time over run stuffer Tommy Chavis (it's also something to keep in mind next year, when God and Jacq become two of our defensive staples). While the pass rush is improved by the addition of Coulter and Smith, they might not be as good at holding the line as Chavis is.
It goes without saying that the first two quarters went more or less as expected. Turnovers prevented Missouri from probably having a 17- or 21-point lead, but they were dominating in S&P. And then came the third quarter, where Baylor turned the game on its ear. Remember last year, when Missouri humiliated team after team in Q3 (sans the Big 12 title game)? While the offense is still more-or-less holding up its end of the bargain (#2 in Q3 S&P+ in Big 12 play), the defense hasn't been as dominant (only #7 in Q3 S&P+ in Big 12 play). Mizzou has been fine in Q3 in a lot of games--Texas, Colorado, Nebraska--but Q3 efforts against OSU and Baylor turned the game around against Mizzou. Is that coaching? Execution? Luck? No idea.
Taking turnovers into account, the scoring margin actually favors Baylor. OUCH. Not at all what we expected to see here, but...survive and advance! The North title still runs right through Columbia, and if NU beats KU on Saturday, the North title could actually be clinched before the trip to Arrowhead.

Alright, a bit more BU-MU analysis after the jump, then it's on to the other Big 12 games...

Here's a review of who I named the "Key Players" last week...

Key Players: Baylor

QB Hot Tub Griffin III

Griffin had 17.88 EqPts passing and 5.40 EqPts rushing (at a 0.954-S&P clip). His first career INT was obviously costly, and it's not like they have him throwing too many risky passes, but still...he passed this test with flying colors. Pass.

RB Jay Finley

Finley had 14 of the BU RBs' 27 carries. His S&P was only 0.786 (with a rather impressive 58% success rate), and he managed only 3.01 EqPts, but his game-tying Q4 TD reception was huge. Stil, though, Baylor needed a hair more from him, I guess. Pass.

LB Joe Pawelek

Pawelek was in on 13 tackles (7 solos) and a TD-saving INT. I mentioned last week that I wasn't sure if he was actually a good LB or if he was making plays in a "Somebody has to make tackles, even on a bad defense" way. He impressed me. Jordan Lake also passed this test, though if his hands were a little better, he wouldn't have dropped what could have been a game-winning INT. Thank goodness his hands aren't a little better, huh? PASS.

KR Mikail Baker

Baker had a 33-yard kickoff return, and two others totalling 44 yards, but he was not a difference-maker. Fail.

Key Players: Mizzou

TE Chase Coffman

How about 10 catches, 7.54 EqPts, a 1.454 S&P, and two more ridiculous TDs that apparently the refs reviewed on replay simply so they could watch it again? Does that sound like a difference-maker to you? PASS.

OL Colin Brown (i.e. the offensive line)

I don't believe Brown had any false starts this week, which is a good sign. As a whole, the O-Line gave up 1 sack and 2 QB hurries in 41 pass attempts--that's certainly not bad. It sounded like Daniel was having to run around quite a bit in the second half, and that Baylor's line was playing well, but without visual proof I'll go to the numbers and suggest that Mizzou's line was average to above average, and nothing more. Neither.

LB Brock Christopher, LB Sean Weatherspoon, FS William Moore, or whoever ends up shadowing Hot Tub Griffin III the most

Griffin's rushing totals were not a difference maker, though it sounded like Mizzou's determination not to let Griffin's legs beat them opened up the short passing game in a major way. Oh, and do you remember William Moore's name being called by Mike Kelly more than once? Because I don't. Fail.

P Jake Harry

Harry stepped onto the field only once, Mizzou won. Ahh, science. PASS.

BIG 12 BTBS BOX SCORES

Texas (33)		Tech (39)
	% Close = 87.4%
31.4%	Field Position %	68.6%
69.4%	Leverage %	75.3%

	TOTAL
62	Plays	81
22.90	EqPts	31.66
38.7%	Success Rate	59.3%
0.37	Points Per Play (PPP)	0.39
0.756	S&P (Success + PPP)	0.983

	CLOSE GAME ONLY
45	Plays	80
18.63	EqPts	31.19
44.4%	Success Rate	58.8%
0.41	PPP	0.39
0.858	S&P	0.978

	RUSHING
6.32	EqPts	7.65
41.7%	Success Rate	61.5%
0.26	PPP	0.29
0.680	S&P	0.910
2.19	Line Yards/carry	*3.81*

	PASSING
16.57	EqPts	24.01
36.8%	Success Rate	58.2%
0.44	PPP	0.44
0.805	S&P	1.018

	NON-PASSING DOWNS
44.2%	Success Rate	63.9%
0.41	PPP	0.37
0.852	S&P	1.012

	PASSING DOWNS
26.3%	Success Rate	45.0%
0.28	PPP	0.45
0.540	S&P	0.895

	TURNOVERS
2	Number	1
0.87	Points Lost	0.94
7.00	Points Given	3.41
7.87	Total T/O Pts	4.35
-3.52	Turnover Pts Margin	+3.52

0.283	Q1 S&P	0.873
0.469	Q2 S&P	1.246
0.651	Q3 S&P	0.625
1.744	Q4 S&P	1.121

0.924	1st Down S&P	1.135
0.578	2nd Down S&P	0.904
0.657	3rd Down S&P	0.716

What I said last week: "Meanwhile, if Colt McCoy wins the Heisman this year, you can thank the constantly successful tightrope act of thriving on Passing Downs. Yet again, UT was better on Passing Downs than Non-Passing Downs, and while you have to worry that the magic could suddenly, violently disappear (it did for Chase Daniel for about 6 quarters, long enough to kill his Heisman chances and his team's title chances), it might not."
What I say this week: BAM. Passing Downs KILLED Texas. Murdered them.
What also murdered Texas: playing like ass in the first half. You can ask Missouri--playing like ass for an entire first half against a Top 10 team on the road? Not a good idea. Just sayin'.
An underrated facet of Tech's victory was the way they dominated the field position battle. Even when they didn't put together a scoring drive, they usually moved the ball well enough to keep Texas deep inside their own field position. It led directly to the safety that kicked off the scoring, and despite Malcolm Williams' star-turning 91-yard TD, field position benefited Tech greatly.
In all, Tech's defense isn't dominant, and it doesn't rank tremendously well among other Big 12 teams, but they tackle really well, and they're much better than previous Tech defenses at stopping the big play. This was evident here, as aside from Williams' aforementioned TD, Texas was not eating up large chunks of yardage at a time.

Nebraska (28)		Oklahoma (62)
	% Close = 9.8%
32.1%	Field Position %	67.9%
68.3%	Leverage %	74.3%

	TOTAL
63	Plays	70
26.68	EqPts	41.17
38.1%	Success Rate	47.1%
0.42	Points Per Play (PPP)	0.59
0.805	S&P (Success + PPP)	1.060

	CLOSE GAME ONLY
3	Plays	10
0.53	EqPts	10.61
33.3%	Success Rate	60.0%
0.18	PPP	1.06
0.508	S&P	1.661

	RUSHING
14.21	EqPts	15.25
38.2%	Success Rate	42.5%
0.42	PPP	0.38
0.800	S&P	0.806
2.37	Line Yards/carry	3.02

	PASSING
12.47	EqPts	25.93
37.9%	Success Rate	53.3%
0.43	PPP	0.86
0.809	S&P	1.398

	NON-PASSING DOWNS
44.2%	Success Rate	48.1%
0.38	PPP	0.54
0.824	S&P	1.020

	PASSING DOWNS
25.0%	Success Rate	44.4%
0.51	PPP	0.73
0.763	S&P	1.173

	TURNOVERS
4	Number	1
5.37	Points Lost	4.41
17.50	Points Given	1.18
22.87	Total T/O Pts	5.59
*-17.28*	*Turnover Pts Margin*	*+17.28*

0.223	Q1 S&P	1.472
1.168	Q2 S&P	1.103
0.850	Q3 S&P	1.081
0.757	Q4 S&P	0.150

0.456	1st Down S&P	0.844
0.955	2nd Down S&P	1.122
1.329	3rd Down S&P	1.335

9.8%! We have a new record for "fastest time between when a game started and when it was officially over". Nebraska ran 3 plays when the game was within 17 points or less! THREE!
Needless to say, when you're playing in Norman, it's a bad idea to give up a 17-point Turnover Points Margin.

K-State (21)		Kansas (52)
	% Close = 20.1%
42.2%	Field Position %	57.8%
61.6%	Leverage %	71.2%

	TOTAL
73	Plays	66
22.34	EqPts	37.64
34.3%	Success Rate	53.0%
0.31	Points Per Play (PPP)	0.57
0.649	S&P (Success + PPP)	1.101

	CLOSE GAME ONLY
10	Plays	18
1.49	EqPts	15.98
30.0%	Success Rate	55.6%
0.15	PPP	0.89
0.449	S&P	1.443

	RUSHING
10.76	EqPts	25.39
37.9%	Success Rate	60.0%
0.37	PPP	0.635
0.750	S&P	1.235
2.36	Line Yards/carry	4.27

	PASSING
11.58	EqPts	12.25
31.8%	Success Rate	42.3%
0.26	PPP	0.47
0.581	S&P	0.894

	NON-PASSING DOWNS
40.0%	Success Rate	61.7%
0.33	PPP	0.66
0.727	S&P	1.273

	PASSING DOWNS
25.0%	Success Rate	31.6%
0.27	PPP	0.36
0.523	S&P	0.674

	TURNOVERS
5	Number	1
13.11	Points Lost	4.34
16.50	Points Given	0.90
29.61	Total T/O Pts	5.24
-24.37	Turnover Pts Margin	+24.37

0.351	Q1 S&P	1.418
0.601	Q2 S&P	0.946
0.554	Q3 S&P	1.150
0.970	Q4 S&P	0.755

0.486	1st Down S&P	1.131
0.525	2nd Down S&P	0.829
0.932	3rd Down S&P	1.586

Most weeks, a game that was only close 20% of the time would be the big 'blowout' winner, but not this week. KSU did win the "suicide by turnovers" award for the week, though, so congrats for that!
Jake Sharp has been running roughshod over opponents for the last few games, and I'm wondering if it's actually him, of if the O-line has finally clicked. A 4.28 Line Yards per carry suggests the latter.
For K-State, a confusing per-down line. They were atrocious on 1st and 2nd downs, but downright decent on 3rd downs.
I'm thinking Josh Freeman should go ahead and go pro. It's pretty clear that another year in this system isn't going to do anything for his "Man, does he look great in a uniform!" draft stock--really, it can only hurt it...unless K-State fires Ron Prince and hires Norm Chow or something. Which isn't going to happen. A 0.581 Passing S&P is pretty awful considering how iffy KU has been against the pass. I don't care if his receivers really are awful...a big-time pro prospect should be able to do better than that.

Iowa St (17)		OSU (59)
	% Close = 37.0%
51.4%	Field Position %	48.6%
68.5%	Leverage %	83.1%

	TOTAL
73	Plays	65
20.29	EqPts	49.87
43.8%	Success Rate	56.9%
0.28	Points Per Play (PPP)	0.77
0.716	S&P (Success + PPP)	1.336

	CLOSE GAME ONLY
24	Plays	27
6.67	EqPts	22.83
45.8%	Success Rate	59.3%
0.28	PPP	0.85
0.736	S&P	1.438

	RUSHING
9.35	EqPts	19.26
47.2%	Success Rate	52.8%
0.26	PPP	0.53
0.732	S&P	1.063
2.32	Line Yards/carry	3.58

	PASSING
10.94	EqPts	30.61
40.5%	Success Rate	62.1%
0.30	PPP	1.056
0.701	S&P	1.676

	NON-PASSING DOWNS
54.0%	Success Rate	57.4%
0.35	PPP	0.70
0.889	S&P	1.274

	PASSING DOWNS
21.7%	Success Rate	54.6%
0.12	PPP	1.10
0.342	S&P	1.643

	TURNOVERS
3	Number	2
8.85	Points Lost	5.22
5.57	Points Given	3.31
14.42	Total T/O Pts	8.53
-5.89	Turnover Pts Margin	+5.89

0.703	Q1 S&P	1.041
0.684	Q2 S&P	1.599
0.627	Q3 S&P	2.085
0.877	Q4 S&P	0.930

0.896	1st Down S&P	1.387
0.638	2nd Down S&P	1.457
0.551	3rd Down S&P	0.760

Hey, Gene Chizik: you were a defensive coordinator, right? Just checking. Because your defense just gave up over 1 Point Per Play for every pass OSU threw on Saturday. That's amazingly bad.
That's really all I've got. Every stat on the page is some variation of "ISU offense = okay. ISU defense = amazingly bad."

Colorado (17)		A&M (24)
	% Close = 100.0%
60.4%	Field Position %	39.6%
71.4%	Leverage %	59.4%

	TOTAL
77	Plays	64
21.91	EqPts	20.82
44.2%	Success Rate	34.4%
0.28	Points Per Play (PPP)	0.33
0.726	S&P (Success + PPP)	0.669

	CLOSE GAME ONLY
same	Plays	same
same	EqPts	same
same	Success Rate	same
same	PPP	same
same	S&P	same

	RUSHING
14.75	EqPts	6.26
50.0%	Success Rate	35.7%
0.35	PPP	0.22
0.851	S&P	0.581
3.05	Line Yards/carry	2.62

	PASSING
7.15	EqPts	14.56
37.1%	Success Rate	33.3%
0.20	PPP	0.40
0.576	S&P	0.738

	NON-PASSING DOWNS
50.9%	Success Rate	36.8%
0.31	PPP	0.32
0.815	S&P	0.693

	PASSING DOWNS
27.3%	Success Rate	30.8%
0.23	PPP	0.33
0.504	S&P	0.634

	TURNOVERS
3	Number	1
8.58	Points Lost	2.48
4.77	Points Given	2.41
13.35	Total T/O Pts	4.89
-8.46	Turnover Pts Margin	+8.46

0.764	Q1 S&P	0.333
0.707	Q2 S&P	0.468
0.377	Q3 S&P	1.455
0.951	Q4 S&P	0.211

0.850	1st Down S&P	0.646
0.687	2nd Down S&P	0.847
0.486	3rd Down S&P	0.436

Turnovers = difference in this game.
That, and the 3rd quarter.
And the Colorado offense's complete lack of explosiveness. 0.28 PPP is pretty damn bad.
Long-term, Rodney Stewart's gruesome broken leg might be a good thing for Colorado. He should recover just fine, and now Darrell Scott will have some more opportunities to prove if he's going to be worth a damn anytime soon.

The Day After...

Bill C. — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:19:10 -0000

Time for a State of the Union (of sorts) address. We'll start with the bad news.

Bad News

We will not be winning a national title this year. With all the seniors (and players who won't be in Tiger uniforms next year...cough Maclin cough), I know there was a bit of desperation toward this--we're Mizzou and we don't many chances to win a national title. We missed out last year, and it turns out that was the closest look we were going to get. That, for lack of a better term, sucks. Hard.

We will not be adding a Heisman trophy to our relatively thin trophy case. I really can't blame Chase Daniel for anything that happened yesterday. When your receivers are dropping passes, and your offensive line decides to fall into a massive funk right as they play what is by far the best defensive line they'll see this year...and when you spend a lot of your time running for your life, it's just not going to be your day. I guess it's still technically possible for Chase to win--if Mizzou immediately rediscovers its rhythm up front, Mizzou goes back to scoring 50 points per game, AND Mizzou beats Texas in the Big 12 title game. But the likelihood of that isn't high enough to actually start hoping for it.

This defense just isn't the unit we hoped to see this year. With 10 starters back from what turned into a pretty stout unit in conference play last year, we expected the best Mizzou defense in a generation in '08. Turns out that, for a variety of reasons--lack of effective play-calling, injury to William Moore (and Van Alexander), nobody coming through at CB2 and SS--that has not happened. What we're left with is a unit with some individual play-makers and a bunch of hard hitters...but not the best Mizzou defense in a generation. Now, I don't want to take too much from yesterday--Texas hit a rhythm during the OU game, and no defense in the country was going to stop them yesterday. But it's clear at this point that the players aren't as confident, and Matt Eberflus has yet to get into his play-calling rhythm. He and the players are both a step behind.

Our time as a Top 5 team is over. And it's going to take a while to climb back up there. It was fun while it lasted, wasn't it?

Not only are the remaining teams on our schedule still going to be gunning for us, but they're really actually going to think they can beat us. The bloom is off the rose. It's "A-game every game or bust" now. Do we have the resiliency? The leadership? My gut answer is 'yes', but until it's proven on the field, it's just a gut answer.

Once again, we will not be winning a national title this year. Not trying to rub salt in the wound here, but the quicker we can accept this and readjust our wishlist, the better.

Good News

We can still win the Big 12 title. Now, it's not likely, but it is technically still a possibility.

We can DEFINITELY still win our second straight Big 12 North title. The two teams we just played? Better than any of our remaining five conference opponents. We can kill Colorado, kill Baylor, kill Kansas State, kill Iowa State, and...well, we can't kill Kansas, but we can beat them, there is no doubt of that. All it takes is one thing: belief. Okay, two things: belief and confidence. When (not if) Mizzou finds its swagger again, it can roll through its remaining regular season slate. That could happen as soon as this coming Saturday.

We are still in position to possibly own the North for the forseeable future. Not saying we will, but we certainly could. Winning the North in 2009 will be rough--we will be replacing like 52 starters. But no other team has taken a step forward this year, aside from maybe Nebraska in the last two games. Kansas will still have Reesing and Briscoe in '09, but their defense will have to be rebuilt. Nebraska loses Ganz, Lucky, its top two WRs, the right side of its OL, and a majority of its solid defensive players. Colorado...well, they're still not very good. Kansas State and Iowa State? No. Start piling up the North titles, and losses like yesterday's become easier to swallow, whether the North is weak or not.

That defense that isn't as good as we'd hoped? It's still good enough to whomp the next few offenses on the schedule. Colt McCoy was amazing at handling the blitz. Cody Hawkins (and the true freshman now splitting time with him)? Not amazing. Josh Freeman? Not amazing. Austen Arnaud? Not amazing. Robert Griffin? Guaranteed to make an amazing play or two, but let's just put it this way--if he makes some of the throws that Colt McCoy made yesterday, Griffin won't have the receivers to make those catches.

We still have at least six, maybe seven, games remaining to watch Chase Daniel, Chase Coffman, Jeremy Maclin, William Moore, Stryker Sulak, Brock Christopher, Tommy Chavis, Ziggy Hood, and a bunch of other guys who have brought Mizzou a new level of success. That needed to be said.

It's okay to still be bitter about these last 8 days. The last two Saturday nights have CRUSHED our team, our fans, and our goals. But in six days, the bitterness ends. It's time for Homecoming, and it's time to circle the wagons for another North division title.

(Oh yeah, and 2003 Kansas State.)

Mizzou-Texas: Beyond the Box Score PREVIEW

Bill C. — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:30:04 -0000

As we look at this season's to-date BTBS stats, keep in mind that we can approximately say that Mizzou and UT have played similar schedules. I mean, OU > OSU, but Illinois > anybody UT played in non-conference. In the end, it's more or less balanced out (to my naked eye, anyway), and we can take these stats at something close to face value.

Mizzou	Opp.		Texas	Opp.
58.1%		% Close	54.1%
56.1%	43.9%	Field Position %	56.5%	43.5%
78.0%	66.9%	Leverage %	77.3%	62.3%

		Total
416	462	Plays	428	398
225.66	134.25	EqPts	204.58	107.25
57.7%	39.4%	Success Rate	51.9%	34.9%
0.54	0.29	PPP	0.48	0.27
1.116	0.685	S&P	0.997	0.619

		Close Games
284	227	Plays	237	210
153.60	69.36	EqPts	130.01	60.23
58.5%	39.2%	Success Rate	54.9%	35.7%
0.54	0.31	PPP	0.55	0.29
1.125	0.698	S&P	1.097	0.644

		Rushing
83.61	38.73	EqPts	89.93	18.85
52.0%	35.4%	Success Rate	47.7%	31.6%
0.47	0.19	PPP	0.37	0.14
0.987	0.542	S&P	0.850	0.455
3.23	2.28	Line Yds/carry	3.22	2.28

		Passing
142.05	95.51	EqPts	114.65	88.41
61.9%	42.6%	Success Rate	57.2%	36.6%
0.59	0.37	PPP	0.61	0.34
1.214	0.799	S&P	1.185	0.704

		Non-Passing Downs
62.6%	44.7%	Success Rate	54.7%	40.7%
0.56	0.31	PPP	0.45	0.27
1.184	0.762	S&P	0.994	0.678

		Passing Downs
41.3%	28.8%	Success Rate	42.3%	25.3%
0.46	0.24	PPP	0.58	0.27
0.876	0.529	S&P	1.007	0.527

		Turnovers
8	12	Total	6	9
23.53	28.95	Points Lost	16.72	22.00
18.40	50.19	Points Given	20.55	35.12
41.93	79.14	Total T/O Pts	37.27	57.12
+37.21	-37.21	*T/O Pts Margin*	+19.85	-19.85

		Q1
60.0%	46.6%	Success Rate	53.8%	38.9%
0.62	0.30	PPP	0.51	0.25
1.218	0.768	S&P	1.050	0.635

		Q2
56.6%	36.5%	Success Rate	60.6%	39.0%
0.56	0.23	PPP	0.58	0.37
1.124	0.592	S&P	1.186	0.765

		Q3
63.3%	37.5%	Success Rate	54.3%	25.0%
0.63	0.35	PPP	0.44	0.20
1.263	0.728	S&P	0.981	0.453

		Q4
49.5%	38.0%	Success Rate	36.3%	34.7%
0.32	0.29	PPP	0.38	0.24
0.814	0.669	S&P	0.741	0.587

		1st Downs
59.7%	41.5%	Success Rate	48.1%	37.0%
0.56	0.32	PPP	0.47	0.25
1.160	0.732	S&P	0.954	0.616

		2nd Downs
60.0%	35.3%	Success Rate	55.2%	34.1%
0.50	0.26	PPP	0.48	0.25
1.097	0.617	S&P	1.037	0.591

		3rd Downs
49.2%	40.2%	Success Rate	52.7%	33.7%
0.55	0.27	PPP	0.48	0.37
1.043	0.669	S&P	1.006	0.707

Thoughts...

This game will likely lie on the right arms of the two BFF's, Chase Daniel and Colt McCoy, as both teams have pretty stout run defenses. UT's run defense is a little better, but MU's run offense is better, so unless Ogbonnaya continues to break off 1-2 big runs a game, this is pretty much a wash.
One thing I find interesting: UT allows 2.28 line yards per carry. So does Mizzou. That's a very good number, but looking at the overall rushing numbers, I'd have expected a little better for UT. For instance, they allow a 0.455 rushing S&P (compared to Mizzou's 0.542); but UT and Mizzou have allowed the exact same LY/carry. The reason: while Mizzou has allowed few big rushes (longest five rushes: 68, 41, 35, 22, 18), UT has allowed almost no big rushes (longest five carries: 26, 26, 21, 21, 19). Really, the only difference between the Mizzou rush defense and that of Texas is Kendall Hunter's 68-yard TD run and a 41-yard scamper by Illinois' Daniel Dufrene (which I do not even remotely remember--that game was a Shiner-and-Jager-fueled blur).
Both teams are good at the leverage (avoiding Passing Downs on offense, moving opponents toward them on defense). They stay near 80% leverage while holding their opponents near 60-65%. Mizzou held OSU near 65%, while Texas held OU to 66%. Again, this is important because even teams who generally perform well on Passing Downs can get bitten by them eventually (Mizzou against OSU, for instance). The lower the leverage %, the more passing downs a team has to face.
To no one's surprise, Mizzou has been more explosive than Texas to date (0.54 PPP vs 0.48 PPP). UT's PPP has risen in the last couple of games, thanks to a few long plays to Chris Ogbonnaya. I can't figure Ogbonnaya out--he doesn't look fast at all, but defenders can't seem to catch up to him. And I don't know how much of his success has been due to his own skills or the skills of Colt McCoy and the guys blocking for him, but he's torched a decent defense (Colorado) and a good one (Oklahoma) so far, and you can't argue with results.
Both teams have similar S&P margins, both overall and in close games. In close games, MU is +0.427 (1.125 on offense, 0.698 on defense), while UT is +0.453.
Both teams have the tendency to give up some big pass plays (they both allow at least 0.34 PPP in the passing game), but the key for Texas will be holding Mizzou as close as possible to the 37% success rate that Texas opponents have managed so far, instead of the 62% Mizzou has put up. And it all ends up tying together. An unsuccessful passing attempt here and there means more Passing Downs...and Mizzou sucked on Passing Downs against OSU.
And speaking once more of Passing Downs, both defenses have been identically strong in this regard.
Turnovers could always swing either way, but so far Mizzou has had a tendency of making more of the turnover game than UT has--they've benefitted from t/o's by about 3 more points per game.
Mizzou's offense is best in Q1 and Q3, while their defense is best in Q2 and Q4, but overall they've been pretty consistently strong in both categories. Meanwhile, OU game aside, UT has been best on offense in the first half and best on defense in the second half.
Texas' defense has the overall advantage on Mizzou's, but Mizzou has been better (and allowed fewer big plays) on third downs. Keep that in mind.

Projections after the jump.

Mizzou-Texas '+' Projections

Mizzou Rushing

2007 Mizzou Rushing Offense EqPts+: 136.70
2008 Texas Rushing Defense EqPts/Gm: 3.14
Projection #1: 4.29
2007 Texas Rushing Defense EqPts+: 138.88
2008 Mizzou Rushing Offense EqPts/Gm: 13.94
Projection #2: 10.04

Avg Projected Mizzou Rushing Output: 7.17

Adjusted for 2008: 5.0. No, I haven't lost my faith in Derrick Washington (or as the scoreboard at Faurot calls him, Der Washington) and the Mizzou offensive line. I just don't see Mizzou attempting to run a ton, and I'm okay with that. That's right, I'm okay with it, and for one reason: I see Mizzou having a lot of success with the "run-esque" short passes. The true "rushing" output will be small, but the whole idea (to paraphrase horrifically) behind a balance of run-pass is that you can exploit holes close to and far from the line of scrimmage. Mizzou's short passing game is really just a series of long pitches, and if they can use that to their advantage, they'll be in this game.

But it sure wouldn't hurt if Derrick Washington was able to actually break a decent run here and there...something Texas really hasn't allowed all year.

Mizzou Passing

2007 Mizzou Passing Offense EqPts+: 156.79
2008 Texas Passing Defense EqPts/Gm: 14.74
Projection #1: 23.11
2007 Texas Passing Defense EqPts+: 106.08
2008 Mizzou Passing Offense EqPts/Gm: 23.68
Projection #2: 22.32

Avg Projected Mizzou Passing Output: 22.72

Adjusted for 2008: 25.0. Texas has been pretty decent at defending the pass, but a) those short passes I just referenced will count as passing yards, obviously, and b) they have indeed given up some deep balls. The opportunity will be there for Chase Daniel to have a big game, as long as the line protects him.

Texas Rushing

2007 Texas Rushing Offense EqPts+: 143.27
2008 Mizzou Rushing Defense EqPts/Gm: 6.46
Projection #1: 9.26
2007 Mizzou Rushing Defense EqPts+: 121.92
2008 Texas Rushing Offense EqPts/Gm: 14.99
Projection #2: 12.29

Projected Texas Rushing Output: 10.78

Adjusted for 2008: 10.0. This projection is based mostly off of a) my confidence in Mizzou's rush defense, and b) my fear of Texas' dump-off passes. Like MU, I expect UT to succeed more throwing than running. Then again, if Mizzou's DEs let Colt McCoy get out of the pocket in "run or throw" territory, the points could add up.

Texas Passing

2007 Texas Passing Offense EqPts+: 116.46
2008 Mizzou Passing Defense EqPts/Gm: 15.92
Projection #1: 18.54
2007 Mizzou Passing Defense EqPts+: 103.91
2008 Texas Passing Offense EqPts/Gm: 19.11
Projection #2: 18.39

Projected Texas Passing Output: 18.46

Adjusted for 2008: 19.0. A disciplined defense could see success against Texas' offense--if you keep Colt McCoy in the pocket, don't miss any assignments (like OU started to do after Ryan Reynolds got hurt), and tackle well, they don't necessarily have guys who can create an 80-yard TD out of thin air (though Jordan Shipley did look great against OU). But they take advantage of mistakes, and Mizzou has the tendency to make a couple a game in the passing game.

Projected EqPts Score: Missouri 30.0, Texas 29.0

Home Field Adjustment (+~3 for home, -~3 for road): Texas 32, Mizzou 27

Texas: Key Players

RB Chris Ogbonnaya

Ogbonnaya has gone crazy in the last two weeks, catching even some UT fans off-guard. He has benefited from circumstance as much as anything--Colt McCoy's crazy last-possible-second dump-off pass to him against CU (I'm sure you saw the replay) was almost all on Colt, and his big, all-but-game-clinching run against OU was as much on OU's backup MLB for getting horrifically out of position. But even with that said, it's clear that he's emerged as a weapon, and Mizzou has to account for him. Cody Johnson is great near the goalline, but that's really his only purpose. Vondrell McGee hasn't proven worthy of a starter's load just yet, and explosive and injury-prone RSFr Fozzy Whitaker is more myth than reality thus far (seriously, BON loves that guy). Unless Whitaker suddenly emerges, it's on Ogbonnaya to be both the main running threat and the guy who McCoy dumps off to for good yardage.

Either WR Jordan Shipley or WR Quan Cosby -- whichever isn't being covered by Carl Gettis

Credit where it's due: Mizzou once again shut down an opponent's #1 receiving threat last week (Dez Bryant had just 47 yards), and it wan't even very much due to Carl "The Best CB Nobody's Heard Of" Gettis. Mizzou decided to put the bigger Castine Bridges on him most of the night (and hit him early and often), and it worked. However, once again a different receiver emerged with a big game--Damian Davis had 76 yards and 2 TDs. Neither Shipley nor Cosby are very big, so it's a given that Mizzou will stick Gettis on whichever they deem the #1 threat, and that receiver probably won't do much. But the other one could make the difference between Texas scoring 20 points and Texas scoring 40.

LB Roddrick Muckelroy

I mentioned previously that, in playing against the Mizzou offense, it doesn't matter how good your LBs are, and it barely matters how good your secondary is. OSU prove me wrong somewhat and proved that there's a way to beat Mizzou without having tremendous DEs: shoot the gaps with reckless abandon, confuse Mizzou's O-line, and tackle well. Texas will beat Mizzou if a) they can blow up Mizzou's running game and b) they can then tackle well and contain the short passes. The main man in regard to both (a) and (b) could be Muckelroy. He leads the UT defense with 20.5 'successful' tackles from the WLB position, and he allows SLB Sergio Kindle to serve as basically a rush end. Kindle and Brian Orakpo have gotten most of the headlines from UT's front seven, but Muckelroy could be the key against Mizzou.

S's Blake Gideon and Earl Thomas

Repeat after me: "Chase Daniel is going against a secondary led by two freshman safeties." Gideon and Thomas might be playing above their years so far this year (Thomas looked great against OU), but OU still passed for almost 400 yards last week, and if anybody can make them look like freshmen quickly and precisely, it's Daniel.

Mizzou: Key Players

QB Chase Daniel

We'll go with one big "DUH!" for this one. The last time Mizzou was coming off of an unexpected loss (2006 Iowa State), Daniel responded with 356 passing yards and 4 TDs (plus 39 rushing yards). He might need 456 yards this Saturday, but it's in him to bounce back from his worst performance in two years, and if Mizzou is going to beat the #1 team on the road, they'll do it via his right arm.

OLs Ryan Madison, Tim Barnes and Kurtis Gregory

These three are the starters on the interior of Mizzou's O-line. UT has great DEs, and therefore Colin Brown and Elvis Fisher will also need to pack a lunch; but OSU was able to break down the middle of MU's O-line quite effectively, and if they fail to do their job, this could kill both the Mizzou running game and passing game. Derrick Washington thrived up the middle for the first five games of the year, and there was nothing there against OSU. I do think Mizzou can win without Washington being a running threat (as I suggested above), but the margin for error becomes much, much smaller...especially if UT has an up-the-middle pass rush to complement Kindle and Orakpo.

DEs Stryker Sulak and Tommy Chavis

The best point Gabe at PowerMizzou made in today's PM mailbag is that Colt McCoy is at his best outside the pocket. He is a gunslinger-type, improvising and creating on the fly; basically, he's what I thought we were getting in Chase Daniel (instead of the automated computer that he turned out to be). His best plays come in high-risk, high-reward situations, and eventually that could backfire on him--just think of all the different ways his aforementioned spur-of-the-moment sideline pass to Ogbonnaya against Colorado could have backfired. But it hasn't backfired on him in 2008 yet.

When Colt's out of the pocket, he's in his comfort zone--when he's stuck in the pocket, he becomes more mistake-prone. Sulak and Chavis have both done well in making plays in the backfield, but if they get to McCoy, they better bring him down. Otherwise, simply containing him is the best option. If Good Colt is on display, chances are our DEs aren't playing very well.

FS William Moore

I mentioned last week that I would continue to put William Moore on the "Key Players" list until he has a big game. Well, he started to look like Willy Mo against OSU, but until he has a big pick, he's not back to 100%. He is Mizzou's game-changer, and at some point soon he's going to step up. And if he wants to be the one who makes McCoy pay for gunslinging ways, I won't complain.

Summary

No matter what you believe in the "Texas spurned Chase spurned Texas" saga, chances are that Chase Daniel marked this Saturday's game on his calendar the moment after he put ink to paper and faxed in his Letter of Intent in February 2005. What's funny is, while Mizzou has played well in Texas with Chase at the helm (romping through last year's Cotton Bowl, whipping Texas Tech in '06), Daniel himself hasn't played all that well. Needless to say, that ends Saturday. Mizzou won't beat Texas without Daniel having one of those ridiculously good days we've enjoyed over the last two years.

It's easy to remain haunted by the OSU loss (and judging from the aforementioned PowerMizzou mailbag, most Mizzou fans still are), but let's realize two things: 1) every team in the country has lost a game like that in the last year and a half, and 2) not a single Mizzou player will be thinking a single OSU-related thought this Saturday. It's removed from their head, and what remains is the fact that if Mizzou is going to win its first ever major-sport national title, it will have to beat Texas. No margin for error, no "They can still win out after this game and maybe have a chance" scenario. It's all or nothing for Mizzou, and we'll see how they respond.

I said yesterday that if Mizzou wins, I always want to say I predicted it. Well, I predicted a Mizzou win yesterday--I've got that covered. Today, I'm going with what the stats tell me and challenging Chase Daniel (and Cheat Code Maclin, for that matter, since I haven't mentioned him once in this preview) to make up the difference. Texas 31, Mizzou 27. Prove me wrong, Mizzou.

Mizzou-OSU: Beyond the Box Score

Bill C. — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:00:05 -0000

So as I was entering play-by-play data yesterday, I had an extra spring in my step. I was very curious what the BTBS data would say about this game...how it would explain the whole "outgained them, broke even on turnovers...still lost at home" thing. Well...now I'm wishing I hadn't looked at this...wishing I had just skipped right over the BTBS piece this week. Mizzou dominated in almost every statistical category except one: Passing Downs. You know that whole concept of "leverage" that I've been pushing recently? If you haven't hopped on board the Leverage train yet, you might want to do so now, as Leverage cost Mizzou an undefeated record.

Missouri		Okie State
	% Close = 100.0%
53.8%	Field Position % *	46.2%
81.4%	Leverage % **	65.3%
	TOTAL
70	Plays	72
28.09	EqPts	26.73
55.7%	Success Rate	41.7%
0.40	Points Per Play (PPP)	0.37
0.958	S&P (Success + PPP)	0.788

	RUSHING
7.46	EqPts	13.24
56.3%	Success Rate	35.7%
0.47	PPP	0.32
1.029	S&P	0.672
2.83	Line Yards/carry	2.28

	PASSING
20.63	EqPts	13.48
57.7%	Success Rate	50.0%
0.40	PPP	0.45
0.974	S&P	0.949

	NON-PASSING DOWNS
63.2%	Success Rate	44.7%
0.45	PPP	0.39
1.077	S&P	0.834

	PASSING DOWNS
23.1%	Success Rate	36.0%
0.21	PPP	0.34
0.438	S&P	0.701

	TURNOVERS
3	Number	3
8.85	Points Lost	8.28
6.09	Points Given	5.78
14.94	Total T/O Pts	14.06
-0.88	Turnover Pts Margin	+0.88

So Missouri outgained OSU in terms of yards and EqPts...
They split in turnover margin...
They out-leveraged them (in terms of how many Passing Downs they forced)...
They won the field-position battle...
They dominated the OSU O-line in terms of line yards (OSU was averaging over 3.6 line yards per carry)...
They didn't miss their season S&P average by much...
They held OSU to what was by far their lowest S&P of the season...
And they lost. Because they were absolutely horrific on Passing Downs.
There were 6 turnovers in the game, and almost all of them were relatively huge. Mizzou's were worth 4.68 points (Danario trips and falls), 5.89 points (Daniel bombs it to nobody in particular), and 4.37 points (Lavine steps in front of Maclin). OSU's were worth 6.13 points (Baston recovers fumble at end of half), 3.66 points (Bridges INT) and 4.28 points (Moore sticks Bryant, Gettis recovers). Any one of those doesn't happen, and the result is probably significantly different.
Finally, I can't say enough about how well OSU tackled. They were fast, and they didn't miss. That was the biggest reason they held Mizzou to 0.40 Points Per Play.

More analysis after the jump.

Let's go into a little more detail...

S&P by Quarter

Q1
Missouri: 53.8% / 0.36 PPP / 0.894 S&P
Oklahoma State: 59.1% / 0.37 PPP / 0.956 S&P

Q2
Missouri: 45.0% / 0.39 PPP / 0.843 S&P
Oklahoma State: 33.3% / 0.10 PPP / 0.428 S&P

Q3
Missouri: 65.0% / 0.43 PPP / 1.082 S&P
Oklahoma State: 35.7% / 0.85 PPP / 1.203 S&P

Q4
Missouri: 58.8% / 0.41 PPP / 0.998 S&P
Oklahoma State: 33.3% / 0.29 PPP / 0.619 S&P

You see a nice spike in Mizzou's numbers in the second half, once they basically gave up on the run and focus on quick short passing as their new "running game". Meanwhile, OSU did a good job of gameplanning (success in Q1 and Q3), while the Mizzou defense made very good adjustments (success in Q2 and Q4).

S&P by Down

1st Down
Missouri: 60.5% / 0.41 PPP / 1.014 S&P
Oklahoma State: 36.4% / 0.25 PPP / 0.618 S&P

2nd Down
Missouri: 60.9% / 0.50 PPP / 1.111 S&P
Oklahoma State: 52.0% / 0.51 PPP / 1.034 S&P

3rd Down
Missouri: 22.2% / 0.11 PPP / 0.332 S&P
Oklahoma State: 38.5% / 0.40 PPP / 0.780 S&P

Just a staggering job by OSU of preventing Mizzou from having success where they're used to it the most--3rd downs (and, somewhat consequently, Passing Downs). Mizzou was as consistent as always on 1st and 2nd downs, but the clutch plays belonged to OSU. Yet another reason why I wish we could play this team again...like, right now.

Projections vs Performance

Here, we'll look at actual performance compared to what was projected in last week's BTBS preview.

Mizzou Rushing

Avg Projected Mizzou Rushing Output: 13.6 EqPts
BTBS Adjusted Projection: 19.0
Actual Performance: 7.5

Chase Daniel: 2.97 EqPts, 100.0% success rate, 1.595 S&P
Derrick Washington: 2.49 EqPts, 25.0% success rate, 0.561 S&P
Jimmy Jackson: 1.38 EqPts on 1 carry
Jeremy Maclin: 0.62 EqPts on 2 carries

Though it was on Passing Downs where Mizzou had its biggest failures, chances are that failure in the running game caused a lot of those Passing Downs, especially in the first half. Chase Daniel did well at eating away chunks of yards when given the opportunity, and you could make the case that he should have run the ball a bit more, but seeing how dead his arms and legs seemed to be in the 4th quarter already, he probably took enough hits as is. But the game hinged at least somewhat in OSU's ability to shoot the gaps at just the right times and take away Derrick Washington's effectiveness.

Mizzou Passing

Avg Projected Mizzou Passing Output: 23.7 EqPts
BTBS Adjusted Projection: 28.0
Actual Performance: 20.6

Jeremy Maclin: 5.16 EqPts, 100% success rate, 1.645 S&P
Chase Coffman: 4.91 EqPts, 63.6% success rate, 1.083 S&P
Tommy Saunders: 3.44 EqPts, 100% success rate, 1.689 S&P
Derrick Washington: 2.78 EqPts, 71.4% success rate, 1.111 S&P
Danario Alexander: 2.48 EqPts on 2 catches
Earl Goldsmith: 1.32 EqPts, 100% success rate, 1.441 S&P
Jared Perry: 0.53 EqPts on 2 catches
Andrew Jones: 0.49 EqPts on 1 catch

Once again, both the projections and my own projections were too optimistic about Mizzou's offensive performance. Credit OSU's gameplan for a lot of that.

OSU Rushing

Avg Projected OSU Rushing Output: 13.7 EqPts
BTBS Adjusted Projection: 14.0
Actual Performance: 13.2

The projections were actually a smidge optimistic about OSU's offensive performance too. Just imagine how good these numbers would look for Mizzou without Hunter's one long TD run. If if's and but's were candy and nuts...

OSU Passing

Avg Projected OSU Passing Output: 17.7
BTBS Adjusted Projection: 15.0
Actual Performance: 13.5

Credit where it's due: Mizzou's pass defense came to play. They were hitting hard, and they were two plays away from a wonderful performance. Of course, both of those plays went for TDs--one an obvious miscommunication on the play-action TD; the other, a confusing play where there ended up being two OSU players (Bryant & Davis) and one MU player (Ricks) in the same part of the endzone. Unfortunately, Davis made the catch. Regardless, Mizzou's pass defense played better than the numbers suggested they would, and this further reinforces the fact that it wasn't the Mizzou defense that cost them this game.

Mizzou Defense

Because of the solid defensive play, I thought I'd show you the breakdown for "successful" defensive tackles...

Sean Weatherspoon: 4.5 successful tackles (69.2% success rate)
Justin Garrett: 3.5 (46.7%)
William Moore: 3.0 (42.9%)
Jaron Baston: 2.5 (100.0%)
Tommy Chavis: 2.5 (100.0%)
Brock Christopher: 2.5 (71.4%)
Carl Gettis: 2.5 (55.6%)

Three members of the secondary with a success rate above 40% is just weird. But this does further support that our secondary a) hits hard and b) supports the run defense wonderfully.

Summary

For regular football fans, this game was a treat. Big plays were made on both sides of the ball. All the big-name offensive players (Daniel, Maclin, Coffman, Robinson, Hunter, Bryant) made plays at one point or another; all of Mizzou's defensive playmakers made some big hits and stops; OSU had guys like Jeremiah Price and Orie Lemon making names for themselves. It was a fun game...unfortunately, the result left something to be desired.

If nothing else, the BTBS stats point to what we basically already knew: Mizzou played well...except for when it didn't. (Brilliant analysis, I know.) The Mizzou Offense clicked along as always on Non-Passing Downs...but for really only the second time in the last 20 games, they were horrific on Passing Downs. The Mizzou receivers played well...except for the dropped passes (which don't really work themselves into BTBS numbers). The Mizzou defense played great...aside from three specific plays.

All these things point squarely to the "It just wasn't our day" truism, but that doesn't make the loss any easier to accept. Mizzou fans should take comfort in the fact that the Tigers still match up relatively well against Texas, and they're still clearly (to my eyes) a Top 10 team. The problem is...5-1 isn't nearly as promising as 6-0, and the Tigers quite obviously need to beat Texas to keep their national title hopes (and possibly Chase Daniel's Heisman hopes) alive.

Poll

Who was Mizzou's statistical MVP of the OSU game?

Chase Daniel (0.974 S&P Passing, 20.63 Passing EqPts, 2.97 Rushing EqPts)

1 votes

Jeremy Maclin (5.78 Total EqPts)

3 votes

Sean Weatherspoon (4.5 Successful Tackles)

5 votes

William Moore (3.0 Successful Tackles, 1 forced fumble)

3 votes

Jaron Baston (2.5 Successful Tackles, 1 fumble recovery)

10 votes

No MVP--we lost!

66 votes

88 votes | Poll has closed

Mizzou-Nebraska: Beyond the Box Score

Bill C. — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:00:05 -0000

I may have posted the BTBS 'box' yesterday, but there's still plenty to discuss. Let's look back at last week's preview and see how things shook down.

Nebraska's 46% success rate is pretty solid; Mizzou's 58% success rate (60% in close games) is ridiculous.

Nebraska: 39.7% success rate, 40.9% while the game was close
Missouri: 56.9% success rate, 56.3% while the game was close

So NU held Mizzou a smidge below its season success rate...but still couldn't stop the big play. Meanwhile, NU didn't have nearly enough offensive consistency.

If you can force Nebraska into passing downs, they're not able to complete them as well as they did last year, back when Marlon Lucky was alive.

Nebraska: 6-for-22 on passing downs. They were 5-for-11 passing (2 successful passes to Nate Swift, 2 to Todd Peterson, 1 to Menelik Holt) with 1 sack, and they were 1-for-5 rushing.

They were 2-for-4 in Q1 (that's when the two passes to Swift came), 4-for-18 the rest of the game.

Nebraska is a Q1/Q3 team. They gameplan well offensively, and they backslide a smidge once the gameplan runs out and they actually have to adjust.

Nebraska Offense

Q1: 50.0% success rate / 0.42 PPP / 0.924 S&P
Q2: 30.0% success rate / 0.18 PPP / 0.484 S&P
Q3: 37.5% success rate / 0.15 PPP / 0.522 S&P

And the game was over in Q4.

They really did gameplan pretty well, with the rollouts and such, but once Mizzou got comfortable (which didn't take long), it was over fast.

Mizzou's offense is disgustingly consistent from Q1 to Q3. We hear a lot about Mizzou's "fast starts", but a fast start suggests a fall-off. They start fast and stay fast.

Missouri Offense

Q1: 61.5% success rate / 0.70 PPP / 1.320 S&P (skewed by Maclin's long TD)
Q2: 50.0% success rate / 0.40 PPP / 0.903 S&P
Q3: 72.7% success rate / 1.23 PPP / 1.953 S&P

So a slight dropoff in Q2, but only to 0.903. That's still good. I do find one thing ironic, though: remember how NU's coaches bragged about the fantastic gameplan they'd put together? Well Mizzou was unbelievable in the "gameplan" quarters (Q1/Q3). That's some good coaching by Nebraska, huh?

The game could be made or broken on third downs.

Mizzou on 3rd downs: 77.8% success rate / 1.487 PPP / 2.264 S&P
Nebraska on 3rd downs: 63.2% success rate / 0.391 PPP / 1.022 S&P

Nebraska was a little too successful on 3rd downs for my taste, but while they were just barely converting (0.391 PPP), Missouri was breaking the Points Per Play chart (1.487). Again, S&P is a lot like OPS in baseball--anything over 0.900 is pretty good. A 2.264 S&P is "Barry Bonds in the 2002 World Series" good.

(Correction: Barry Bonds only put up a 1.994 OPS in the 2002 World Series. My bad. The Missouri offense on third downs was better than Barry Bonds in the 2002 World Series.)

Key Players: Nebraska

Every receiver besides Nate Swift

Roy Helu Jr. (RB): 4 catches, 50% success rate, 2.80 EqPts
Ryan Hill (TE): 2 catches, 0% success rate, 0.02 EqPts
Menelik Holt: 5 catches, 80% success rate, 5.45 EqPts
Mike McNeill (TE): 2 catches, 100% success rate, 1.72 EqPts
Todd Peterson: 7 catches, 100% success rate, 2.86 EqPts
Dreu Young (TE): 1 catch, 100% success rate, 0.68 EqPts

TOTAL: 21 catches, 76.2% success rate, 13.52 EqPts

Meanwhile...

Nate Swift: 5 catches, 80% success rate, 4.40 EqPts.

Not nearly enough from him. Carl Gettis strikes again.

RB Marlon Lucky

Marlon Lucky: 14 carries, 1.61 EqPts, 0.401 S&P - WORTHLESS. I feel vindicated.

DE Zach Potter

Zach Potter: 3.5 tackles, 3.0 successful - 85.7% success rate, 0.868 defensive S&P (Defensive Success Rate - PPP = Defensive S&P). Oh yeah, and 1 helmet-to-helmet penalty worth 0.84 points.

DT Ndamukong Suh

Ndamukong Suh: 4.5 tackles, 4.0 successful - 88.9% success rate, 0.780 defensive S&P, 1 noteworthy loogie.

Both Potter and Suh played rather well, though they both made more notable contributions to the game outside of the stats. And neither came up with a sack. And it should also be mentioned that only 4.0 of their 8.0 tackles came when the game was actually close.

Key Plays: Mizzou

RB Derrick Washington

Derrick Washington (rushing): 14 carries, 57.1% success rate, 1.348 S&P
Derrick Washington (receiving): 2 catches, 100% success rate, 2.327 S&P

Derrick Washington (TOTAL): 16 touches, 62.5% success rate, 1.470 S&P

I'll just say this: Derrick Washington is possibly the most underrated RB in the country right now. He's putting up numbers like this on a weekly basis, he's scored 12 TDs, and he's averaging 7.5 yards per carry. Seriously, Chase Daniel's already the Heisman favorite at the moment, but if Washington weren't so darn proficient at getting into the endzone, Daniel might have another 5 or so TD passes (or rushes) to add to his resume!

OT's Elvis Fisher & Colin Brown

Nebraska: 0 sacks
Missouri offense w/Chase Daniel at QB: 58.7% success rate, 0.69 PPP, 1.272 S&P

Nebraska's attempts at getting past Elvis Fisher and Colin Brown: MASSIVE FAIL.

DE Stryker Sulak

Stryker Sulak: 2.5 tackles, 100% success rate, 0.966 Defensive S&P, 1 forced fumble worth 5.05 points.

Sulak brought his A-game again, but he was outplayed by his counterpart...

Tommy "Perpetually Underrated" Chavis: 4.5 tackles, 100% success rate, 0.980 S&P, 1 sack, 1.5 tackles for loss

FS William Moore

William Moore: 4.0 tackles, 0% successful, 1 TD-preventing pass break-up.

Moore's stats certainly suggest he's not 100%, but he still came up with a huge play and a couple hard hits...plus, he's the one who flushed Ganz out of the pocket, leading to Christopher's pick six.

Summary

I guess we should have known what to expect when a) Nebraska scored only 14 points in the first three quarters against San Jose State and b) Virginia Tech (which scored only 27 against Western Kentucky) put up 35 in Lincoln. In the end, it's not a 100% worthwhile experience delving into the box scores of blowouts, but I'll say that's a pretty nice problem to have.

Look for an MU-OSU BTBS Preview on Thursday, and I'm still intending to write a) an updated BTBS glossary and b) a look at the BCS statistical leaders at some point. We'll see when that happens.

Also, I haven't been doing a good job of whoring these recently, but if you're interested in catching up on my Varsity Numbers pieces at Football Outsiders, here they are:

Varsity Numbers #1: NCAA Analysis 101
Varsity Numbers #2: Six Missing Points
Varsity Numbers #3: The '+' Concept
Varsity Numbers #4: Leverage, Leverage, Leverage

Poll

Who was the statistical MVP of the Mizzou-Nebraska game?

Chase Daniel (17.96 Passing EqPts)

13 votes

Derrick Washington (13.52 Rushing & Receiving EqPts)

70 votes

Jeremy Maclin (7.45 Rushing & Receiving EqPts, tone-setting first TD, caused one massively shanked punt)

5 votes

Sean Weatherspoon (5.5 successful tackles, 79% success rate)

4 votes

Tommy "Perpetually Underrated" Chavis (4.5 successful tackles, 0.980 defensive S&P, 1 sack)

4 votes

Brock Christopher (3.5 success tackles, 1 INT for TD)

3 votes

99 votes | Poll has closed

Mizzou-Nebraska: Preview and Predictions thread

Bill C. — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 21:30:05 -0000

I was looking back at the first posts made on RMN recently...and it reminded me that last year, along with the BTBS piece, I threw together a unit-by-unit preview of the upcoming game as well. How's about we try that again?

Oh yeah, and leave your own predictions and/or random comments in the comments below.

QB vs QB

I can honestly say without hesitation that Mizzou would win this category against any team in the country. This one needs no explanation. Advantage: Mizzou.

MU RBs vs NU LBs

I'll say this: Cody Glenn has worked out better at LB than I thought he would--you'd figure there would be a one-year transition period, but he's stepped up well and is leading the Huskers in tackles from his weakside LB position. He's even 3rd on the team in tackles for loss, plus he's broken up three passes and forced a fumble. Problem is, his counterparts have been underwhelming. Phillip Dillard is okay, but the strongside LB position has produced next to nothing. Granted, they'll likely be in a nickel most of Saturday, but regardless, this LB unit is still limited.

Oh yeah, and Derrick Washington is really, really good. Advantage: Mizzou.

MU WRs/TEs vs NU DBs

NU Secondary = work in progress. MU receiving corps = best in America. Advantage: Mizzou.

MU O-line vs NU D-line

This is an interesting matchup; it will probably be where the game is decided. The starting front four for Nebraska--Zach Potter, Ndamukong Suh, Ty Steinkuhler, and Pierre Allen--has been downright solid for the Huskers. There are two problems, however.

1) Though we've heard pretty good things about freshman DE Cameron Meredith, there is almost no depth whatsoever with this unit. Their rotation is small, which means either a) they continue with their small rotation against Missouri and wear down by the third quarter, or b) they open up a big rotation to keep guys fresh, and a lot of guys who are either too inexperienced or not good enough to have earned playing time get a lot of snaps. Either way, that's a bad thing for Nebraska.

2) Illinois' D-line is likely better than the Husker unit, and Illinois got little to no pressure on Chase Daniel. Maybe you've heard this once or twice on RMN, ahem, but getting pressure on Chase Daniel with your front four is your only means of survival against the Mizzou offense. Elvis Fisher and Colin Brown are proving to be a ridiculously good set of bookend tackles.

In other words, Advantage: Mizzou.

NU RBs vs MU LBs

Even though I've never been as high on Marlon Lucky as some, I still always saw him as a solid back, particularly on 3rd down. He's picking a bad time to not live up to even my expectations. Granted, there's still a lot of time left in his senior season, but he just hasn't been very dynamic at all. Sophomore Roy Helu Jr. seems to have passed him in terms of potential and upside, and fellow sophomore Quentin Castille is getting the short-yardage carries. It's now a three-headed RB attack for Nebraska, and last week's 15-carry, 46-yard performance from the RBs against Virginia Tech didn't exactly fill me with the fear that Nebraska will be able to control the pace and grind out the clock with the running game. They'll have to rely on the short passing game for that.

Oh yeah, and Brock Christopher and Sean Weatherspoon are freaking fantastic. Advantage: Mizzou.

NU WRs/TEs vs MU DBs

I realize I'm a lot more confident than some regarding the Mizzou secondary. I think an 85%-healthy William Moore is still possibly the best safety in the conference, and I think Carl Gettis continues to be the most underrated defensive player in the country. Seriously, people haven't started wondering why seemingly every #1 WR playing Mizzou in the last 18 games has been a complete non-factor? Gettis is the primary reason why, and while I'm sure Nate Swift will get some catches, the Huskers will likely have to rely on other receivers for the big-play threat.

The Huskers have some potential at WR--I like big Menelik Holt quite a bit, and Niles Paul has proven himself valuable in the return game at least (which means there's some athletic potential there). Plus, Todd Peterson is nothing if not steady. I can see a solid 5-catch, 65-yard day out of him. And any day now, Chris Brooks is going to live up to his 4-star billing. Just kidding.

This unit doesn't scare me to death, and since half of Mizzou's secondary is as rock solid as rock solid gets, I'm almost giving Mizzou the advantage here. But until the unit gels as a whole--until whatever communication problems that have existed get remedied, and until a consistent second CB comes to the forefront--I can't do it. Advantage: Nebraska.

NU O-line vs MU D-line

It's been hard to figure out the Mizzou defensive line. Ziggy Hood dominated August practices like no other--not a day went by when a new story of him torturing a right guard didn't emerge--but he didn't do a whole lot against Illinois. He's steadily improved each game since, but we'll see what he can do against another BCS-level O-line. Meanwhile, Stryker Sulak was amazing against Illinois, but he's done next to nothing since. He's actually been outplayed by fellow starting DE Tommy "Perpetually Underrated" Chavis. If Sulak, Chavis and Hood ever start finding a rhythm at the same time, the sky is the limit with this unit.

Meanwhile, the NU O-line has been...decent. Not great, not terrible...not a strength, not a liability. If Sulak's only playing okay, this matchup is a draw. But big games bring out good things from him, so...Advantage: Mizzou.

Special Teams

As I mentioned the other day in my BTBS piece, Nebraska's got a solid special teams unit. Problem is, Mizzou's got a really, really good one. Advantage: Mizzou.

Coaching

The first time a Gary Pinkel team took on a Bo Pelini defense, this happened. Oh yeah, and only one of the two head coaches has thrown a hissy fit on the sidelines and gotten his team a crippling penalty because of it. Hint: it wasn't Pinkel. Advantage: Mizzou.

Karma

Here's a tough one. Thirty years of bad results in Lincoln = Advantage: Nebraska. Chase Daniel wanting to avenge the worst performance of his career = Advantage: Mizzou. Because I'm a still-scarred Mizzou fan, I'll lean toward the latter, but barely. Advantage: Nebraska.

You know what? The scars healed last year. Advantage: Mizzou.

Summary

That's a 9-1 advantage for Mizzou. Throw in home-field advantage, and it's 9-2. I'll say one more time that we're going to get everything Nebraska has tomorrow, but you know what? It's not going to be enough. I'll stick with what I said on Tuesday: Mizzou 45, Nebraska 24.

SB Nation - Tommy Chavis

Beyond the Box Score Preview: Illinois

Conventional Wisdom

---

Offense

Quarterback

Running Back

Wide Receivers / Tight Ends

Offensive Line

---

Defense

Defensive Line

Linebackers

Secondary

Special Teams

---

Three Keys to the Game

Prediction

Illinois Preview

Mizzou 2009, Part Ten: Defensive Line

Defensive Line

2009 Mizzou Football Preview Series

Texas: Beyond the Box Score Preseason Defensive Preview

Defense

Defensive Line

Linebackers

Secondary

Special Teams

Summary

Monday Musings - The Big XII North Champion Edition

Mizzou-Baylor (and the rest of the Big 12): Beyond the Box Score

Mizzou(31)

Baylor(28)

Texas(33)

Tech(39)

Nebraska(28)

Oklahoma(62)

K-State(21)

Kansas(52)

Iowa St(17)

OSU(59)

Colorado(17)

A&M(24)

The Day After...

Mizzou-Texas: Beyond the Box Score PREVIEW

Mizzou

Opp.

Texas

Opp.

Mizzou-OSU: Beyond the Box Score

Missouri

Okie State

Who was Mizzou's statistical MVP of the OSU game?

Chase Daniel (0.974 S&P Passing, 20.63 Passing EqPts, 2.97 Rushing EqPts)

Jeremy Maclin (5.78 Total EqPts)

Sean Weatherspoon (4.5 Successful Tackles)

William Moore (3.0 Successful Tackles, 1 forced fumble)

Jaron Baston (2.5 Successful Tackles, 1 fumble recovery)

No MVP--we lost!

Mizzou-Nebraska: Beyond the Box Score

Who was the statistical MVP of the Mizzou-Nebraska game?

Chase Daniel (17.96 Passing EqPts)

Derrick Washington (13.52 Rushing & Receiving EqPts)

Jeremy Maclin (7.45 Rushing & Receiving EqPts, tone-setting first TD, caused one massively shanked punt)

Sean Weatherspoon (5.5 successful tackles, 79% success rate)

Tommy "Perpetually Underrated" Chavis (4.5 successful tackles, 0.980 defensive S&P, 1 sack)

Brock Christopher (3.5 success tackles, 1 INT for TD)

Mizzou-Nebraska: Preview and Predictions thread

Mizzou
(31)

Baylor
(28)

Texas
(33)

Tech
(39)

Nebraska
(28)

Oklahoma
(62)

K-State
(21)

Kansas
(52)

Iowa St
(17)

OSU
(59)

Colorado
(17)

A&M
(24)