SB Nation - Missouri Tigers

Tyler Gabbert Decommits

Husker Mike — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:12:13 -0000

Dave Matter of the Columbia Daily Tribune reports that Tyler Gabbert has broken his pledge to attend Nebraska, and will make a visit this weekend to Missouri. That's two high-profile decommits this week; earlier, receiver Curtis Carter also dropped his plans to sign with Nebraska.

After results of Nebraska's offensive problems? Carter indicated that he didn't think Nebraska's offense fit his style of play. But truth be told, any player should realize that Nebraska's offense became what it is because of a lack of playmakers on the field...and that after watching Brandon Kinnie leap up the depth chart, should realize that if you can play, you'll play.

Gabbert's decommitment shouldn't be a surprise. His brother did the exact same thing. What it does suggest is that this staff needs to come up with some answers about what they want their offense to be, and start recruiting in that direction. If players aren't a fit in that style, then we shouldn't be worried about decommitments.

I wonder if this opens up a scholarship for Millard South's Bronson Marsh, who looked intriguing in the Class A championship game, despite only being a "two star" recruit by Rivals.

Targets and Catches (Part Two, a.k.a. Will Franklin's Redemption)

Bill C. — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:00:17 -0000

Image via The Trib's G.J. McCarthy

You may have noticed that, somewhere around 1pm yesterday, the title of yesterday's "Targets and Catches" post changed to "Targets and Catches (Part One)." That's because I figured out the next direction I wanted to take the concept of targets and couldn't wait to get started on it.

As discussed yesterday, the concept of targets (catches + incomplete passes intended for a given receiver) versus catches is a pretty good one, despite the likely flaws in the ways target data is collected (dropped/tipped passes that become interceptions don't have target data attached, not every scorekeeper probably records targets the same way, etc.). It allows us to look into a receiver's reliability in ways that simpler measures do not, and once national data is collected on this (offseason project #12,424), it might give us a way to measure a quarterback's performance independent of the quality of his receivers (hey Uribe Auction, here's how we get to Receiver Independent Passing Stats, or RIPS...I love it when a plan comes together).

But simply looking at a players Catch% (Catches per Target) does a disservice to those who are likely to run deeper, lower-percentage routes. How about we do this as well: create a Yards Per Target measure. Yards Per Catch is a good way to measure a receiver's explosiveness, and wouldn't the incorporation of target data create something that shows us both explosiveness and reliability? Let's try that.

Below are tables for 2006-09 giving us the following information:

Catches
Yards
Catch% (Catches divided by Targets)
Yards Per Target

2006

2006 Yards Per Target
Name	Pos.	Catches	Yards	Catch%	Yds/Target
Chase Coffman	TE	58	638	65.2%	7.2
Martin Rucker	TE	53	511	77.9%	7.5
Will Franklin	WR	48	829	57.8%	10.0
Jared Perry	WR	37	429	67.3%	7.8
Brad Ekwerekwu	WR	32	430	64.0%	8.6
Tommy Saunders	WR	25	271	73.5%	8.0
Danario Alexander	WR	15	251	71.4%	12.0
Jason Ray	WR	6	50	40.0%	3.3
Tony Temple	RB	6	34	85.7%	4.9
Earl Goldsmith	RB	5	59	100.0%	11.8
Greg Bracey	WR	3	79	50.0%	13.2
Marcus Woods	RB	2	11	40.0%	2.2
Jimmy Jackson	RB	1	-2	50.0%	-1.0
Andrew Hoskins	WR	0	0	0.0%	0.0
TOTAL	ALL	291	3,590	66.0%	8.1

Here's where we start to see the value of Will Franklin. The 'Copta had an awful catch rate this season, but as we see here, a) he made up for it with his explosiveness, and b) being a deep threat means you're probably seeing more low-percentage passes. Meanwhile, tight ends running high-percentage routes will have good catch rates, but their Yards Per Target figures show that while it's good to have high-percentage targets, there isn't necessarily a lot of explosiveness there.

Two other interesting things to note:

1) Danario was very clearly showing his big-play potential early on. It really is a damn shame that he ended up having to fight so many injuries, but on the bright side, if he hadn't, he'd have almost certainly gone pro last year.

2) Clearly we should have been passing to Earl Goldsmith more often. Ahem.

2007

Image via the inestimable Bill Carter

2007 Yards Per Target
Name	Pos.	Catches	Yards	Catch%	Yds/Target
Martin Rucker	TE	84	834	77.8%	7.7
Jeremy Maclin	WR	80	1,055	72.1%	9.5
Chase Coffman	TE	52	531	80.0%	8.2
Will Franklin	WR	49	709	64.5%	9.3
Tommy Saunders	WR	41	397	74.5%	7.2
Danario Alexander	WR	37	417	77.1%	8.7
Jared Perry	WR	13	152	65.0%	7.6
Derrick Washington	RB	10	70	71.4%	5.0
Jason Ray	WR	8	61	80.0%	6.1
Tony Temple	RB	7	68	77.8%	7.6
Jimmy Jackson	RB	6	30	100.0%	5.0
Earl Goldsmith	RB	4	20	66.7%	3.3
Greg Bracey	WR	3	53	33.3%	5.9
Blake May	WR	0	0	0.0%	0.0
TOTAL	ALL	394	4,397	73.2%	8.2

And here's where the numbers even out for Senor Goldsmith.

Even though his YPT dipped in 2007, Franklin was still a decent weapon here, averaging over 9.0 per target (which appears to be a pretty good number) and, as we must not forget, becoming one helluva downfield blocker for Maclin. In all, Chase Coffman was the most reliable target this season, but obviously the WRs were more dangerous, even though they didn't really thrust too many nunchuks.

(Non-RMN regulars just read and re-read that last sentence 5-6 times, then gave up on figuring it out what it meant. Here's the explanation.)

2008

Bill Carter again

2008 Yards Per Target
Name	Pos.	Catches	Yards	Catch%	Yds/Target
Jeremy Maclin	WR	102	1,260	75.6%	9.3
Chase Coffman	TE	90	987	88.2%	9.7
Tommy Saunders	WR	72	833	78.3%	9.1
Jared Perry	WR	41	567	68.3%	9.5
Derrick Washington	RB	29	277	76.3%	7.3
Danario Alexander	WR	26	329	60.5%	7.7
Andrew Jones	TE	20	146	83.3%	6.1
Jerrell Jackson	WR	9	98	69.2%	7.5
Earl Goldsmith	WR	5	58	83.3%	9.7
Michael Egnew	TE	4	22	50.0%	2.8
Jimmy Jackson	RB	3	26	75.0%	6.5
Wes Kemp	WR	1	15	50.0%	7.5
Jon Gissinger	TE	1	10	100.0%	10.0
Brandon Gerau	WR	0	0	0.0%	0.0
Forrest Shock	WR	0	0	0.0%	0.0
TOTAL	ALL	403	4,628	76.0%	8.7

Here's where Chase Coffman became the best tight end we'll ever see. He was so reliable that throwing to him actually resulted in more yards per target than Jeremy Maclin, All-American. Here's also where Jared Perry, a.k.a. Will Franklin 2.0, began to show value. He was a reasonably reliable option his first couple of years (obviously targeted much more in 2006 than 2007, when Maclin emerged), but while he still couldn't hit 70% from a Catch% perspective, his big-play ability went up a notch, and he went from averaging 7-8 yards per target to over 9. Meanwhile, Jerrell Jackson registered with numbers very similar to Perry's freshman numbers, albeit on a small sample size.

2009

Yup, Bill Carter.

2009 Yards Per Target
Name	Pos.	Catches	Yards	Catch%	Yds/Target
Danario Alexander	WR	107	1,644	73.8%	11.3
Jared Perry	WR	46	695	53.5%	8.1
Jerrell Jackson	WR	37	458	60.7%	7.5
Wes Kemp	WR	23	335	52.3%	7.6
Derrick Washington	RB	23	99	69.7%	3.0
Andrew Jones	TE	7	39	58.3%	3.3
Rolandis Woodland	WR	4	23	66.7%	3.8
Michael Egnew	TE	3	25	60.0%	5.0
De'Vion Moore	RB	3	13	100.0%	4.3
Kendial Lawrence	RB	2	42	100.0%	21.0
Brandon Gerau	WR	2	19	66.7%	6.3
T.J. Moe	WR	2	8	40.0%	1.6
Gilbert Moye	RB	1	5	50.0%	2.5
TOTAL	ALL	260	3,405	63.9%	8.4

And here's where we find out just how amazing Danario Alexander has been this season (as if there were any doubt). Looking only at receivers who were targeted at least ten times in a given season, Alexander's 11.3 per-target average is topped only by ... 2006 Danario Alexander, who was targeted only 21 times. For ~~Domino Axelrod~~ Danario to be both this reliable and this explosive has just been amazing.

Here are the overall averages per position:

WR: 67.3% catch rate, 8.7 yards per target
TE: 77.2% catch rate, 8.2 yards per target
RB: 75.0% catch rate, 5.5 yards per target

So for the last four seasons, here are your top ten in terms of Yards Per Target (with a minimum of ten targets):

Danario Alexander (2006): 12.0 per target (on 21 targets)
Danario Alexander (2009): 11.3 (145)
Will Franklin (2006): 10.0 (83)
Chase Coffman (2008): 9.7 (102)
Jeremy Maclin (2007): 9.5 (111)
Jared Perry (2008): 9.5 (60)
Jeremy Maclin (2008): 9.3 (135)
Will Franklin (2007): 9.3 (76)
Tommy Saunders (2008): 9.1 (92)
Danario Alexander (2007): 8.7 (48)

Will Franklin, you are absolved.

Danario Alexander, you officially have a case for having been the best receiver in Mizzou history.

Know Your (Temporary) Rival: Oral Roberts Golden Eagles

Bill C. — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:00:19 -0000

More photos » by Marcio Jose Sanchez - AP

20 days ago: Oral Roberts' Roderick Pearson (3) is hugged by teammates after making the game-winning basket in an NCAA college basketball game in Stanford, Calif., Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009. Oral Roberts defeated Stanford 83-81. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

Browse more photos »

Oral Roberts: 5-4

	ORU	Opp
Points Per Minute	1.73	1.63
Points Per Possession (PPP)	1.01	0.95
Points Per Shot (PPS)	1.20	1.14
2-PT FG%	50.9%	47.1%
3-PT FG%	29.3%	30.9%
FT%	69.6%	63.6%
True Shooting %	52.5%	50.0%

	ORU	Opp
Assists/Gm	13.0	12.2
Steals/Gm	5.6	6.6
Turnovers/Gm	15.2	12.4
Ball Control Index (Assists + Steals) / TO	1.22	1.51

	ORU	Opp
Expected Offensive Rebounds	110	116
Offensive Rebounds	106	84
Difference	-4	-32

ORU's season thus far:

There have been two main components to the Golden Eagles' season so far: results and injuries.

Results

@Wake Forest 76, ORU 56 (L)
@ORU 86, NW Oklahoma State 50 (W)
Cancun Challenge
ORU 83, Stanford 81 (W)
Virginia 76, ORU 51 (L)
Sam Houston 71, ORU 65 (L)
ORU 72, Florida A&M 51 (W)
@UA-Little Rock 73, ORU 68 (L)
@ORU 68, UMKC 57 (W)
@ORU 68, Southern Utah 53 (W)

Injuries

Roderick Pearson (6'2, 195, Jr., pictured above): ACL - Out for Season
Hunter McClinton (6'2, 180, Fr.): ACL - Out for Season
Tim Morton (6'9, 240, RSFr.): ACL - Out for Season
Javier Nasarre (6'10, 225, Jr.): WRIST - Out for two weeks

Also: guard Beloved Rogers quit due to lack of playing time right before some of these injuries happened...D'OH! This is a game that could potentially be scary if ORU were at full-strength, but with just seven scholarship players available right now, depth is, to say the least, a bit of a concern.

After the jump: What does Ken Pomeroy have to say?

What Does Ken Pomeroy Have to Say?

Now that we've got a little bit of data in the system, it's time to incorporate Ken Pomeroy's wonderful website into our previews. Below is a table listing both ORU's and MU's ranks on offense and defense, in both KenPom's Efficiency measure and what are considered the "Four Factors" of winning basketball, shooting, turnovers, offensive rebounds, and getting to the free throw line.

ORU Offense vs MU Defense
	ORU Offense	MU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	247	12	MU (big)
Effective FG%	201	43	MU (big)
Turnover %	176	3	MU (big)
Off. Reb. %	178	245	ORU
FTA/FGA	222	220	push
MU Offense vs ORU Defense
	MU Offense	ORU Defense	Advantage
Efficiency	23	152	MU (big)
Effective FG%	27	179	MU (big)
Turnover %	98	323	MU (big)
Off. Reb. %	151	14	ORU (big)
FTA/FGA	241	129	ORU (big)

Where the Praying Hands are solid

This is another decent rebounding team, especially on the defensive end, which means they should represent another nice challenge in Mizzou's quest to get better on the boards. Kevin Ford (6'9, 250) has four double-doubles in nine games this season, and he is exactly the kind of player that would seem to give Mizzou some problems. If he gets hot and gets Laurence Bowers et al into foul trouble, then the Mabee Center could start rocking. Plus, ORU is relatively capable of preventing teams from getting to the free throw line, which has been a Mizzou weakness to begin with.

Where ORU is less than solid

BCI, BCI, BCI, BCI and BCI. The Golden Eagles don't really force many turnovers, and they turn the ball over way too much for a team expecting success against Mizzou's pressure. Mizzou has been allowing teams to get to the line a bit too much, but ORU isn't very good at getting to the line. And beyond turnovers, they're still not a very good offensive team. This isn't a surprise -- thanks to injuries, they are quite thin; plus, of their seven remaining scholarship players, five are either freshmen or sophomores. This is not a team equipped to go against Missouri's defense right now, and that should make the difference in the game.

Player Stats

NCAA Basketball Stats

Player	*AdjGS/Gm**	GmSc/Min	Line
Michael Craion (6'5, 205, Jr.)	15.0	0.49	30.6 MPG, 12.7 PPG, 7.6 RPG, 1.9 APG, 1.9 TOPG
Kevin Ford (6'9, 250, Sr.)	13.7	0.52	26.4 MPG, 12.1 PPG, 7.7 RPG, 1.6 BPG, 2.4 TOPG
Dominique Morrison (6'6, 190, So.)	13.2	0.42	31.9 MPG, 14.4 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 2.9 APG, 2.3 TOPG
Warren Niles (6'4, 175, Fr.)	8.2	0.31	26.4 MPG, 10.4 PPG, 3.8 RPG, 1.6 APG, 2.0 TOPG
Damen Bell-Holter (6'10, 245, Fr.)	5.1	0.30	17.2 MPG, 5.4 PPG, 4.2 RPG
Kyron Stokes (6'5, 210, So.)	5.1	0.21	24.0 MPG, 4.6 PPG, 3.7 RPG, 1.9 APG
Ken Holdman (6'1, 175, Fr.)	5.0	0.23	22.2 MPG, 4.7 PPG, 2.8 RPG, 1.7 APG, 1.2 SPG, 2.0 TOPG
Michael Fletcher (5'10, 165, So.)	3.3	0.40	8.3 MPG, 4.0 PPG (Walk-On)
Joe Moore (6'1, 190, Sr.)	1.7	0.38	4.5 MPG, 2.5 PPG (Walk-On)
Mikey Manghum (6'1, 175, Fr.)	1.0	0.34	1 game (Walk-On)

* AdjGS = a take-off of the Game Score metric (definition here) accepted by a lot of basketball stat nerds. It redistributes a team's points based not only on points scored, but also by giving credit for assists, rebounds (offensive & defensive), steals, blocks, turnovers and fouls. It is a stat intended to determine who had the biggest overall impact on the game itself, instead of just how many balls a player put through a basket.

One thing ORU is not lacking is length. Their top five players average out at 6'7. Consider that another nice challenge for the Tigers.
Despite good height, it appears that ORU plays what could be considered a four-guard lineup for the most part, with five of seven players coming in at 205 pounds or smaller.
Ford could be the biggest direct threat to Mizzou, especially if the refs are whistle-happy, but the game could hinge on the play of Dominique Morrison, the 6'6 sophomore guard. He appears to be a primary ball handler (2.9 assists, 2.3 turnovers per game), and he shoots a lot, having taken 14 more shots than anybody else on the team. He's only 13-for-40 from 3-point range, but if he gets hot, he could carry the Eagles on offense for a lengthy period of time.

Keys to the Game

Tempo. ORU clocks in at basically the national average in terms of pace, and if Mizzou can speed them up, they simply do not have the horses to compete. Even if they get hot shooting the ball, they still won't be able to keep it up unless they are able to slow the pace like Richmond did. Unfortunately for ORU, Richmond was much more experienced and much deeper. With all the youth ORU is having to go with at the moment, I don't see them slowing things down enough to have a chance at the end, but if they do, look out.
Rebounds. As with Oregon, ORU's main chance at competing comes on the glass. They are an outstanding defensive rebounding team, and if Mizzou comes out cold, they could be looking at quite a few one-and-done possessions. That will allow ORU to both keep things close and slow the tempo down, since Mizzou obviously can't press very well off of missed shots. But if Mizzou is getting putbacks and second opportunities, ORU really doesn't have a way to stay close.
Laurence Bowers. Simply put, if he stays out of foul trouble, Mizzou has too many weapons to lose this game. If he gets two fouls in three minutes, like he did against Vanderbilt in Mizzou's last road trip, they should still have too many weapons, but it's not as much of an absolute.

Prediction

You never like going up against a mid-major team on their home court, where you are their biggest home opponent of the season. This is their Super Bowl, and they will play like it. The crowd will be into it as well. But when all is said and done, I think ORU is just too wounded to keep up for 40 minutes. Good early shooting by ORU, some one-and-done's for Mizzou, and a hyped crowd could keep this thing close for 20-30 minutes, but in the end Mizzou is just too capable of quick strikes and should be able to put together a couple of nice second-half runs and move to 6-2. We'll say ORU keeps it close for a while. Mizzou 76, Oral Roberts 62.

Mizzou Links, 12-9-09

Bill C. — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:41:27 -0000

So uhh...now this is making the rounds...

Texas Bowl!

The Trib: Bowl snub is holiday tradition
Inside Missouri Football: Tigers to Texas Bowl

Targets and Catches (Part One)

Bill C. — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:00:15 -0000

One of the measures I am looking to track more in-depth in the future, in terms of my play-by-play data, is the notion of catches versus targets. In the play-by-play data exists a line that I have yet allowed to go unrecorded: "Pass incomplete to _____." Obviously I record that the pass is incomplete, but I have not really paid attention to who the pass was intended for. It's a rather objective measure -- does everybody record who a pass was intended for the same way? If the QB is throwing the ball away and it goes 20 feet over a certain receiver's head, does it count as an incompletion "to" that receiver? Does every score-keeper even keep track of this? Plus, if a ball is tipped by a receiver and intercepted (e.g. Jerrell Jackson in the Oklahoma State game), the "intended for" bit isn't recorded. Clearly this is a piece of data that is rather inconsistent.

That said, this is also one of those measures where you figure that the inconsistencies balance out over time. Even if it doesn't paint a perfect picture, it probably tells an interesting story. Therefore, let's take a look at how our view of a receiver's (or quarterback's) performance changes when adding in "intended for" data.

The categories below are:

Catches: receptions
Targets: receptions + incomplete passes intended for that receiver (as recorded in the play-by-play data). In general, you can think of those incomplete passes as either being a) dropped or b) too well-covered to be completed. If your QB is accurate, you will obviously catch more of your targeted passes, but if you struggle to get open and clear space from the guy covering you, a lot more of your targeted passes are going to fall incomplete.
Catch%: the percentage of "targets" a receiver catches
Target%: the percentage of a team's overall targets aimed at a specific receiver

Without further ado, let's take a look at the last four years of Mizzou "target" data and see what it tells us.

2006

Image via Phoebe Sexton / Columbia Missourian

2006 Targets and Catches
Name	Catches	Targets	Catch%	Target%
Chase Coffman	58	89	65.2%	20.2%
Will Franklin	48	83	57.8%	18.8%
Martin Rucker	53	68	77.9%	15.4%
Jared Perry	37	55	67.3%	12.5%
Brad Ekwerekwu	32	50	64.0%	11.3%
Tommy Saunders	25	34	73.5%	7.7%
Danario Alexander	15	21	71.4%	4.8%
Jason Ray	6	15	40.0%	3.4%
Tony Temple	6	7	85.7%	1.6%
Greg Bracey	3	6	50.0%	1.4%
Marcus Woods	2	5	40.0%	1.1%
Earl Goldsmith	5	5	100.0%	1.1%
Jimmy Jackson	1	2	50.0%	0.5%
Andrew Hoskins	0	1	0.0%	0.2%
TOTAL	291	441	66.0%	100.0%

WRs: 60.1% of targets
TEs: 35.6%
RBs: 4.3%

Before looking at ensuing seasons, it is hard to get a grasp on what these numbers actually mean, but a couple of things should stick out pretty quickly. First, thanks to a midseason bout with the dropsies, Chase Coffman's numbers were only decent, not great. Martin Rucker was a rather automatic target at TE, but Coffman wasn't amazing. Meanwhile, if your #1 WR is only catching 58% of the passes thrown at him, that is going to do a number on your completion percentage.

Anyway, before we try to interpret this too much, let's take a look at how 2007 unfolded.

2007

Image via ESPN.com

2007 Targets and Catches
Name	Catches	Targets	Catch%	Target%
Jeremy Maclin	80	111	72.1%	20.6%
Martin Rucker	84	108	77.8%	20.1%
Will Franklin	49	76	64.5%	14.1%
Chase Coffman	52	65	80.0%	12.1%
Tommy Saunders	41	55	74.5%	10.2%
Danario Alexander	37	48	77.1%	8.9%
Jared Perry	13	20	65.0%	3.7%
Derrick Washington	10	14	71.4%	2.6%
Jason Ray	8	10	80.0%	1.9%
Greg Bracey	3	9	33.3%	1.7%
Tony Temple	7	9	77.8%	1.7%
Earl Goldsmith	4	6	66.7%	1.1%
Jimmy Jackson	6	6	100.0%	1.1%
Blake May	0	1	0.0%	0.2%
TOTAL	394	538	73.2%	100.0%

WRs: 63.9% of targets
TEs: 32.2%
RBs: 3.9%

Despite a deep, experienced cast of receivers (Rucker and Franklin were seniors, Coffman and Saunders were juniors), Jeremy Maclin came out of nowhere to become Chase Daniel's most trusted receiver. His 72% Catch% was much higher than Will Franklin's 58% from the season before. Meanwhile, MotherRucker stayed right around 78% while Chase Coffman improved dramatically, from 65% to 80%. Franklin did improve to 65%, but he was still a far less reliable target than others around him. Of course, he obviously ran deeper routes than guys like Coffman, Rucker or Saunders, so that might have something to do with it. Then again, were his routes any different than those of Maclin? Maclin still outshone him in that regard.

With Maclin and an extra year of experience for Chase Daniel, the overall Catch% rose from 66% to 73% in 2007. This, of course, tells us nothing about how many passes Daniel chose to throw away (which would just go in the play-by-play as "pass incomplete" with no "intended for" information), but it does show that Daniel was completing one more pass for roughly every 14 catchable balls in 2007, and that could make a difference of 2-3 completions per game.

2008

Image via Chris Lee / Post-Dispatch

2008 Targets and Catches
Name	Catches	Targets	Catch%	Target%
Jeremy Maclin	102	135	75.6%	25.5%
Chase Coffman	90	102	88.2%	19.2%
Tommy Saunders	72	92	78.3%	17.4%
Jared Perry	41	60	68.3%	11.3%
Danario Alexander	26	43	60.5%	8.1%
Derrick Washington	29	38	76.3%	7.2%
Andrew Jones	20	24	83.3%	4.5%
Jerrell Jackson	9	13	69.2%	2.5%
Michael Egnew	4	8	50.0%	1.5%
Earl Goldsmith	5	6	83.3%	1.1%
Jimmy Jackson	3	4	75.0%	0.8%
Wes Kemp	1	2	50.0%	0.4%
Jon Gissinger	1	1	100.0%	0.2%
Brandon Gerau	0	1	0.0%	0.2%
Forrest Shock	0	1	0.0%	0.2%
TOTAL	403	530	76.0%	100.0%

WRs: 66.6% of targets
TEs: 25.5%
RBs: 7.9%

In 2008, Missouri lost Martin Rucker and his 78% catch rate but still improved as a team, from 73% to 76%. Danario Alexander aside (this was the year he was recovering from knee injuries and was clearly not as confident/aggressive a receiver), just about everybody showed improvement. Coffman improved to a sickening 88% (that means that eight of every nine balls that were thrown at him and were even remotely catchable, were caught...yeah, he deserved the Mackey Award), Saunders improved to 78%, which is the highest you'll see from a highly-targeted receiver, and even Maclin improved to 76%. Having a ton of reps with the same quarterback helped a ton, I'm sure, as did the fact that said quarterback (Daniel) was as automatic as a computer in his reads, especially over the first half of the season.

So what happens when you lose your quarterback and your top three targets? As shocking as it may sound, your numbers go down!

2009

Image via the one, the only Bill Carter

2009 Targets and Catches
Name	Catches	Targets	Catch%	Target%
Danario Alexander	107	145	73.8%	35.6%
Jared Perry	46	86	53.5%	21.1%
Jerrell Jackson	37	61	60.7%	15.0%
Wes Kemp	23	44	52.3%	10.8%
Derrick Washington	23	33	69.7%	8.1%
Andrew Jones	7	12	58.3%	2.9%
Rolandis Woodland	4	6	66.7%	1.5%
Michael Egnew	3	5	60.0%	1.2%
T.J. Moe	2	5	40.0%	1.2%
De'Vion Moore	3	3	100.0%	0.7%
Brandon Gerau	2	3	66.7%	0.7%
Kendial Lawrence	2	2	100.0%	0.5%
Gilbert Moye	1	2	50.0%	0.5%
TOTAL	260	407	63.9%	100.0%

WRs: 86.0% of targets
TEs: 4.2%
RBs: 9.8%

So here's where I start to get encouraged about Blaine Gabbert's prospects moving forward. With a relatively similar cast of characters in the receiving corps (Alexander was clearly better than any receiver in 2006, but Gabbert was without anyone nearing the reliability of Rucker, so they cancel out) and the propensity for throwing many more deep balls than Daniel, the Catch% for Gabbert's sophomore season was almost identical to Daniel's.

Now, unless one of our redshirting freshmen is suddenly capable of pulling a Jeremy Maclin impersonation (doubtful, to say the very least), Gabbert will head into 2010 without his top two targets, which is obviously something Daniel didn't have to worry about heading into 2007. However, while losing Alexander is a huge concern, losing Perry simply might not be too big a deal. Jackson has done a lovely Perry impersonation in recent weeks, and besides, Perry's 54% catch rate is simply horrendous. We know that Perry had a decent amount of bad luck this season -- how many times did Gabbert throw too high for him in the Oklahoma State game? -- but 54% is too low to blame simply on bad luck. Over four seasons, Perry never topped 70%, and while Jackson's 61% is nothing impressive, it is still better than what Perry managed this season. With another year (at least) of getting used to catching Gabbert's fastballs (and another year of Gabbert learning to keep the ball down as much as possible), I would expect Jackson's catch rate to be closer to the 65-70% range next year.

However, is that good enough? Gabbert can be expected to improve a decent amount next year, but ... who becomes the #1 target? And if it's Jackson, can Mizzou succeed at a high level with a #1 WR target catching only 65-70%, especially when there is suddenly no ultra-reliable tight end option to fall back on in times where a completion absolutely must be made?

Speaking of the tight end position, I guess this is the year in which we officially learned that WRs and TEs are basically exactly the same in this system. Alexander's Target% of 35% this year was 10% higher than Maclin ever managed and came within 10% of matching that of Maclin and Coffman from 2008. Lining up in the tight end slot position quite often, Alexander was actually able to approximately compensate for the loss of both players this year and catch passes at a very high rate for a receiver. Meanwhile, thanks to Alexander being a WR, tight ends accounted for only 4% of targets this year, and that's only if you count Michael Egnew as a tight end. The position disappeared from Mizzou's repertoire, but the passing numbers stayed relatively successful thanks to Alexander. With Alexander gone in 2010, do we see guys like Andrew Jones or Egnew working their way back into Gabbert's sights, or will another big receiver like Wes Kemp move into that role?

I have a lot more questions here than answers, but answers weren't the purpose of this exercise. I wanted to see if target data was viable and interesting, and while I found it both of those things, I'm curious what you think.

Mizzou Links, 12-8-09

Bill C. — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:38:51 -0000

Texas Bowl Links

Annapolis Capital: Navy get Missouri in Texas Bowl
PowerMizzou: Behind the bowl snub
The Trib: Big 12's bowl rules hurt MU again
The Trib: Tigers forced to grin and bear it in Texas Bowl
KC Star: Tigers will head to Texas Bowl after Insight passes

Suh for Heisman?

Dr. Saturday: Alternate Reality Heisman: Just give it to a Husker named Suh
Buster Sports: Suh for Heisman - Ndamukong Suh is the Best Player in College Football

Other Big 12/Bowl Links

KC Star: Ole Miss' Nutt is on KU's list in search for football coach
Rock Chalk Talk: Get to Know a Coaching Candidate: Turner Gill
Double Extra Point: Woe Is the Nebraska Offense
ESPN.com: Big Ten turns another BCS double play
Now we can certainly debate whether multiple BCS entries really helps the Big Ten, which consequently faces tougher postseason matchups in a bowl system that has several built-in disadvantages for the league. But from a financial and a competitive standpoint, the current setup certainly benefits Jim Delany and the conference.

I can assure you if the Big Ten expanded and held a championship game, you wouldn't see multiple BCS entries as often.
Senator Blutarsky: Like the swallows to Capistrano...

They made the BCS selections yesterday, so you know what that means.
John Feinstein is very, very unhappy.

...

It is my fervent hope that we never see John Feinstein and Ari Fleischer debate this issue. Because I’m afraid that if we did, millions of Americans would promptly lose complete interest in college football forever.

Basketball Links

MUtigers.com: Tigers take on Oral Roberts
Big 12 Hoops: Official Mizzou News and Notes on Wednesday's Oral Roberts Matchup
KC Star (Campus Corner): Mizzou Sets TV for ORU Game
The Trib (Steve Walentik): Big 12 Power Poll

Week Fourteen BlogPoll Ballot Draft

T Kyle King — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:52:12 -0000

The time has come to cast my final regular-season BlogPoll ballot---or, at least, I think it has; I’m assuming we’re not submitting new top 25s after next weekend’s Army-Navy game---and here is what I came up with after starting with a blank piece of paper:

Rank	Team	Delta

1	Alabama
2	Cincinnati	2
3	Texas
4	Boise State	1
5	TCU	1
6	Florida	4
7	Oregon
8	Ohio State
9	Georgia Tech	1
10	Iowa	1
11	West Virginia	9
12	LSU	1
13	Arizona
14	Oregon State	2
15	Southern Cal
16	Virginia Tech	5
17	Stanford
18	Miami (Florida)	4
19	Pittsburgh	7
20	California	1
21	Oklahoma State	2
22	Brigham Young	1
23	Nebraska	1
24	Penn State	7
25	Wisconsin	1
Last week's ballot

Dropped Out: Houston (#18), Central Michigan (#25).

The Alabama Crimson Tide (13-0) are No. 1. Duh! Of the dozen Division I-A opponents beaten by Nick Saban’s squad, nine finished with winning records, including the sixth-ranked Florida Gators, the twelfth-ranked LSU Tigers, and the 16th-ranked Virginia Tech Hokies. The Tide’s only close calls came in rivalry games against teams who will be playing on New Year’s Eve or later.

In spite of their close call against the Pittsburgh Panthers in a game played in the snow featuring two botched extra point attempts, the Cincinnati Bearcats (12-0) captured the No. 2 spot on my ballot by virtue of seven regular-season wins over teams that finished above .500, among them the 11th-ranked West Virginia Mountaineers, the 14th-ranked Oregon St. Beavers, and 19th-ranked Pitt. Also, Cincy gets credit for having a logo reminiscent of Chick-fil-A's.

While I understand and respect C&F’s argument, I awarded the No. 3 ranking to the Texas Longhorns (13-0) because Mack Brown’s outfit went undefeated against a slate that included no Division I-AA schedule fodder and only four teams that posted losing ledgers. Wins over the No. 21 Oklahoma St. Cowboys and the No. 23 Nebraska Cornhuskers provided heft to the Big 12 standard-bearer’s resume.

I ranked the Boise St. Broncos (13-0) ahead of the TCU Horned Frogs (12-0) for a variety of reasons. Both took advantage of a Division I-AA victim and each faced five Division I-A teams with winning records, but Boise State has an additional win and Texas Christian has two close shaves (at Air Force and at Clemson) as opposed to the Broncos’ one (at Tulsa). Boise State’s second- and third-best wins (over Nevada and Fresno State) are comparable to the Frogs’ (over Utah and Clemson), but the Broncos’ marquee victory over the seven-ranked Oregon Ducks far outshines TCU’s best pelt, that of the 22nd-ranked BYU Cougars.

The Sunshine State Saurians (12-1) slipped to sixth after their less than competitive neutral site outing against ‘Bama, as befits the nation’s lone once-beaten team, and Oregon (10-2) led the parade of two-loss teams because the Ducks fell to two quality teams on the road and made up for those setbacks with wins over three teams ranked in my top 20 (Arizona, Oregon State, and Cal).

The Ohio St. Buckeyes (10-2) earned a No. 8 ranking on the strength of wins over the tenth-ranked Iowa Hawkeyes, the 24th-ranked Penn St. Nittany Lions, and the 25th-ranked Wisconsin Badgers. The Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets (11-2) rode their ~~fourth-place finish in the SEC East~~ ACC championship to the No. 9 ranking, although the Ramblin’ Wreck’s loss to the Georgia Bulldogs at home serves as a drag on a resume that includes five close calls in the Golden Tornado’s ten Division I-A wins. Only two of the Engineers’ victims finished with fewer than five losses, but one of those triumphs came over No. 16 VPI.

Iowa (10-2) carded quality victories over a trio of top 25 teams (Arizona, Penn State, and Wisconsin, all by double-digit margins) to overcome respectable losses to Ohio State and Northwestern, both of whom will be playing on New Year’s Day. (For whatever it might be worth, I would point out that the five BCS bowls pit No. 9 v. No. 10, No. 7 v. No. 8, No. 4 v. No. 5, No. 2 v. No. 6, and No. 1 v. No. 3 on my ballot. This ought to be a pretty good bowl season.)

West Virginia narrowly edged out Louisiana State in my estimation. Both teams boasted similar resumes: both finished 9-3; both won three games by a touchdown or less; both lost one game by a touchdown or less. However, as ashamed as I am to admit it, the Mountain Men’s win over Pitt counts for more this season than the Bayou Bengals’ win over Georgia. I know, it hurts me to admit that, too; visions of Tony Dorsett and Dan Marino will haunt my dreams tonight.

A glut of 8-4 clubs out of the Pac-10 proved difficult to untangle, but I declared the Arizona Wildcats first among equals by awarding Mike Stoops’s troops the No. 13 ranking. Three of Arizona’s four losses came on the road, two of them were nailbiters, and only one of them was the handiwork of a team with fewer than eight wins. The Wildcats carded victories over No. 14 Oregon State, the 15th-ranked USC Trojans, and the 17th-ranked Stanford Cardinal, with Central Michigan thrown in for good measure.

The Beavers landed right behind Arizona, partly because of wins over Cal and Stanford but mostly because of a quartet of quality losses. Oregon State’s four setbacks all came against opponents sporting eight or more wins, and, of the four, only the one against the No. 2 team in the country wasn’t a close call.

I will grant that it appears somewhat strange that I placed Stanford at No. 17, two spots behind Southern California (a club the Cardinal beat handily in Los Angeles) and three spots ahead of the California Golden Bears (a squad that defeated Jim Harbaugh’s outfit at the Farm), but Stanford had no legitimate third-best victory after the Cardinal’s wins over Oregon and USC to overcome the trio of triumphs notched by the Men of Troy over Ohio State, Oregon State, and Cal. Likewise, the Bears of Berkeley had trouble overcoming the fact that all four of their losses came by margins of 17 points or more. Oddly enough, Southern California, Stanford, and California each lost to a 5-7 team on the road, but the Trojans’ loss to the Washington Huskies and the Cardinal’s loss to the Wake Forest Demon Deacons at least had the virtue of being close.

Sandwiched amid those West Coast outfits were No. 16 Virginia Tech (9-3), which beat top 25 teams Miami and Nebraska while sustaining three respectable defeats (including two to top ten squads); the 18th-ranked Miami Hurricanes (9-3), who are able to boast of a marquee win over Georgia Tech; and 19th-ranked Pittsburgh (9-3), which sneaked ahead of California by virtue of a more forgivable set of losses. The Panthers’ three setbacks all came by close margins, with two of those coming in down-to-the-wire clashes with top eleven opponents Cincinnati and West Virginia. Pitt’s loss to N.C. State was comparable to Cal’s loss to Washington---both came on the road against 5-7 squads---but the Wolfpack won by seven and the Huskies won by 32.

The inclusion of Oklahoma State (9-3) attested to the fact that next year’s BlogPoll should rank only 20 teams instead of 25---which the Associated Press poll did prior to 1989, by the way---but somebody had to be No. 21, so the Pokes were as qualified as anyone. Why was Les Miles’s old team ranked nine spots behind Les Miles’s current team when both have identical records and both count a win over the ‘Dawgs among their most impressive conquests? Simple: LSU lost to three teams with a combined 33-5 record by a combined 62-41 margin, while OSU lost to three teams with a combined 30-8 record by a combined 113-49 margin.

BYU (10-2) had absolutely no business being ranked after getting positively smoked by TCU and the hapless Florida St. Seminoles, but Brigham Young beat the Oklahoma Sooners and the Utah Utes, which counts for something. Nebraska (9-4) did little to impress me in the win column---the ‘Huskers beat only two teams with winning records---but, since all of the Big Red Machine’s losses were to teams that finished .500 or better and three of those were by razor-thin margins, I gave Bo Pelini’s team the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that Penn State (10-2) and Wisconsin (9-3) made the grade proves that I was scraping the bottom of the barrel; both the Nittany Lions and the Badgers lost convincingly to the Big Ten’s two top ten teams and neither beat more than two Division I-A teams that finished above .500, but the dearth of quality squads at the bottom of my ballot allowed a PSU team whose best win was against Temple and a Wiscy unit whose best win was against Fresno State to sneak undeservedly into the top 25.

Consideration was also given to the Boston College Eagles and the Mississippi Rebels. I’d like to tell you that I took a look at the Central Michigan Chippewas, East Carolina Pirates, Houston Cougars, Missouri Tigers, Navy Midshipmen, North Carolina Tar Heels, Northwestern Wildcats, Rutgers Scarlet Knights, and Texas Tech Red Raiders, but, if I said so, I’d be lying.

I watched the Oregon-Oregon State game on Thursday, the Central Michigan-Ohio (Ohio) game on Friday, and a Saturday slate consisting primarily of the Cincinnati-Pittsburgh, Alabama-Florida, and Clemson-Georgia Tech games, with bits of the Nebraska-Texas and Hawaii-Wisconsin tilts sprinkled in for variety.

As always, I actively solicit your input with respect to what is, after all, a draft ballot. Feel free to register your disagreement or lobby for or against particular teams in the comments below.

Go ‘Dawgs!

2009 Bowl Projections - Final

Bama Hawkeye — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 06:01:52 -0000

I'm writing this as the Wisconsin-Hawaii game is wrapping up. Wisconsin is up by more than two touchdowns in the 2nd Quarter, and I don't think that it makes a difference whether they win or lose. I think their slot is set. In fact, after Texas held on to beat Nebraska (despite, not because of Colt McCoy), the Big Ten and BCS bowls seem pretty well set.

Which was the only conference that couldn't deliver a close championship game?

In the six BCS conferences, we had official title games in three conferences and de facto title games in three conferences. The margins in the six games? 1 (Cincy over Pitt), 1 (Texas over Nebraska), 3 (Ohio State over Iowa), 4 (Oregon over Oregon State), 5 (Georgia Tech over Clemson), and 19. Only the "Game of the Century" failed to be a classic. Here are the final projections for the BCS and Big Ten Bowls.

Remember the rules.

The best teams don't always go to the best games. In the end, butts in the seat and eyes to the television are the biggest factors.
The order of BCS selection is 1) Replacement for #1 Team; 2) Replacement for #2 Team; 3) Orange Bowl; 4) Fiesta Bowl; 5) Sugar Bowl.
The Champs Bowl picks its Big Ten team ahead of the Alamo Bowl this year.
For the full rules on BCS selections, look here.

			My guess is that when the rankings come out tomorrow, it will be Cincinnati, and not TCU that ended up :01 away from a shot at Alabama.
			The Orange Bowl is really hoping that the Fiesta passes on a Big Ten team to match up two undefeated teams in Arizona (it is a hip rumor), but...
			that's not happening. The Fiesta takes Iowa over Penn State. They're the better team.
			What are the odds the Ezekiel 25:17 is written on Tebow's eyeblack at the Sugar Bowl?
			The Big Ten is winning the Rose Bowl this year. It's going to win at least 4 of 7 bowl games.
			The weakness of both teams is in the trenches. Should be a fascinating game.
			So instead of facing a Monte Kiffin defense with a month to prepare, the Badgers get a team that won one of their last six games against 1-A competition? Thank you, Mr. Bloomin' Onion!
			Did you see what CJ Spiller did? Dear God, that's scary.
			Could the Alamo pick Minnesota to avoid a Spartan squad weakened by suspensions? Yes, but it won't. I'm also thinking that it won't miss out on its first chance to host Oklahoma. That means jumping the Sooners over Texas Tech and Missouri.
			Neither fanbase 1) travels exceptionally well and 2) is overly excited for the game. This crowd could be very small.
			Like Notre Dame would ever sully itself by playing a MAC team in a bowl game in Detroit...
			Only Illinois could lose that way to Fresno State. If you're going to finish with a Zook-like record, you'll end up On the Couch with the Queso Bowl (now sponsored by Ro*Tel).

Mizzou Links, 12-2-09

Bill C. — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 11:36:05 -0000

Mizzou Football Links

Post-Dispatch (Jeff Gordon): Was Mizzou's 8-4 season a high or a low?
For the first time since the late 1970s and early '80s, this program has sustained significant year-to-year success.

This is huge. Ask Illinois fans about the value of sustained success. Ron Zook is just the latest Illini coach to take that program on a roller-coaster ride of extreme highs and lows.

Ask Kansas fans about consistency, too. The Jayhawks collapsed this year amid speculation that coach Mark Mangino was doomed. It appears that KU football will have to start over, again.

...

High school stars now view Missouri as a destination program. The Tigers are winning, filling their stands and sending players on to the NFL.

Before Missouri can become a national power, it must achieve consistency. That has happened.
KC Star (Upon Further Review): Danario Alexander: Biletnikoff Award is a Joke
In case you didn't know, the way it "works" is the first ten semi-finalists are picked by October 22nd. Now, if that seems like a long time ago, it was. At the time, most teams had only played half their games – and, what’s worse, most of those games were against sub-par competition – certainly not the kind of quality opponents you would want to evaluate the best receivers against. What if the #11 receiver by votes went on to dominate the last half the season?

The three finalists were picked on November 19th. If Alexander had been one of the ten semi-finalists he might have been picked in the final three at that time. But even then, I doubt it as his last two games were very strong. The point is that any system that doesn’t let the best player participate is flawed.

Frankly, I’m not sure why they have the "countdown" anyway. Why not have the voting at the end of the season when every receiver could be eligible? I suppose that’s too revolutionary of an idea. I mean it only works for just about every other award in every other sport in history.
PowerMizzou: Tuesday's Top Tigers
Mizzourah: Beast MODE Items on Ebay for White-Collar Crowd

Big 12 Links

Lawrence Journal-World: Recruiting woes: Mangino's play-calling against MU not the issue
Tulsa World: Believe it: Stoops isn't lying to us
Tulsa World: Stoops frustrated with ESPN reports
Austin American-Statesman: Huskers embracing underdog role against Texas
Topeka Capital-Journal: Snyder already eyeing 2010

BASKETBALL

The Missourian: Missouri-Vanderbilt basketball game a homecoming for some Tigers
The Missourian: Missouri prepares for unique gym
KC Star: MU wants to pick up the pace against Vanderbilt
Post-Dispatch: Mizzou to face more than just Vanderbilt
PowerMizzou: Audio: Anderson breaks down big week
Rush the Court: Checking In On... The Big 12
ESPN.com: Tony Mitchell and Phil Pressey steal the show at Texas Jamboree
PowerMizzou: PMTV: Phil Pressey in action

The Border War: Beyond the Box Score

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

Confused? Catch up with the BTBS Primer.

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

The best receiver in the country

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to make of Mizzou's pass defense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Positives

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

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

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

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

Three Negatives

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

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

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

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

Three Keys Revisited

Seen here.

Passing Downs

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

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

Danario Alexander vs Dez Briscoe

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

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

MU's Running Game

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

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

Summary

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

SB Nation - Missouri Tigers

Tyler Gabbert Decommits

Targets and Catches (Part Two, a.k.a. Will Franklin's Redemption)

2006

2007

2008

2009

Know Your (Temporary) Rival: Oral Roberts Golden Eagles

Oral Roberts: 5-4

What Does Ken Pomeroy Have to Say?

Player Stats

Keys to the Game

Prediction

Mizzou Links, 12-9-09

Targets and Catches (Part One)

2006

2007

2008

2009

Mizzou Links, 12-8-09

Week Fourteen BlogPoll Ballot Draft

2009 Bowl Projections - Final

Mizzou Links, 12-2-09

The Border War: Beyond the Box Score

Kansas(39)

Mizzou(41)

What to make of Mizzou's pass defense

Three Positives

Three Negatives

Three Keys Revisited

Summary

Kansas
(39)

Mizzou
(41)