Well this is pretty awesome--the OSU and Colorado games have officially sold out.  We've got a decent shot at averaging 64K per game this year, which is pretty good after the rain-dampened Nevada game.

MAILBAG!!!

The Missourian states the obvious: William Moore is a huge part of the Mizzou defense.  Meanwhile, the Trib has a nice article on Mizzou's cornerbacks and their lust for redemption.

[J]ust like last year’s turbulent start in nonconference play, big plays have been the culprit. The Tigers have given up nine passes of 25 yards or more - the same number they surrendered during nonconference play last season. But here’s the good news for the Tigers: Only three of those long passes have come in the last three games.

On the other hand, it’s the big ones that stand out. Nevada caught the MU secondary napping with a 42-yard touchdown pass in the final seconds of the first half on Sept. 13. A week later, Missouri mostly tamed Buffalo’s passing game but gave up a 32-yard scoring pass midway through the second quarter.

"I don’t think we give up a lot of plays, just too many big plays," Gettis said. "Those plays are what really kills our secondary."

Nebraska Links!

• Corn Nation: Should Missouri Be Considered Nebraska's Rival?  (The question's catching on!)
• Tim Griffin: Should Missouri Now Be Considered Nebraska's Major Rival?  (Like I said...)
• Omaha World-Herald: Time of Possession looms large for NU (No, no it doesn't.  Mizzou's last in the conference in TOP right now, and they seem to be doing just fine.)
• PowerMizzou: A Meaningless Streak
• Omaha World-Herald: Missouri over NU?  Absolutely.
• MIssourian: Tigers hope they're mature enough for trip to Nebraska
• Lincoln Journal-Star: NU's McNeill, Mizzou's Maclin friends off the field
• Omaha World-Herald: Huskers hungry for another shot at Mizzou
• Post-Dispatch: Where's the 'D'?
• Omaha World-Herald: Mizzou receiver Maclin leaves defenders breathless
• Post-Dispatch: Pelini can't handle losing, which is fine by him

Jake Harry knows that less is more.  Meanwhile, Jeff Wolfert is in the moment.

Finally, Mizzou Volleyball's NCAA chances are holding on after last night's 3-2 home win over Iowa State.  It was a 5-setter that wasn't actually very close.  Mizzou dominated the first two sets (25-15, 25-15), got thumped in the 3rd (25-16), lost the only close set in the 4th (25-22), then dominated the fifth (15-7).  In all, they outscored Iowa State 103-87, outhit them .259-.165, and outdug them 82-74.  Iowa State stayed in the match by outblocking the FIghtin' Kreklows, 12.0-5.0, but Mizzou pulled it out.  They're now 2-2 in the Big 12 and 8-6 overall, having won 3 in a row.  The Missourian has more.

We're trying out a couple of new figures today...please try to contain your excitement...

* Field Position % = an attempt to get at the field position battle.  This basically says that there were a total of 74 plays run in opponents' field position, and Mizzou ran 63.5% of them (47) to Buffalo's 36.5% (27).

** Leverage % = the % of a team's total plays that were Non-Passing Downs.  Mizzou ran 74 total plays, and 61 of them were Non-Passing Downs.  61/74 = 82.4%.  The higher the number, the better an offense was at staying out of Passing Downs and awkward situations.

So what do these numbers tell us?  Basically the same thing that our eyes did--that Mizzou statistically dominated, but Buffalo was good at a) holding onto the ball (75 plays was more than I thought they ran...especially considering how generally unsuccessful they were) and b) ripping the ball out of Mizzou's hands.  Kenji Jackson's game-ending INT helped Mizzou in the Turnover Points Margin, but in the end turnovers kept the Fightin' Turner Gills in the game.

One thing our eyes may not have seen was just how unsuccessful Buffalo was at running the ball.  They had some success with the toss sweeps at times, but let's just say that anytime Mizzou allows a 0.400 S&P on the ground, I'll take it.  Buffalo was just good enough at passing to move the chains, but their lack of big-play potential (sans the one long TD on the double-move) killed them.  To beat Mizzou you have to a) force turnovers and b) put up as many easy points as possible.  Buffalo succeeded at (a), but not at (b), and that's why they still lost by 21.

One more thing: a 67.6% success rate is just sick.  To date, Mizzou's been both efficient and explosive.  Buffalo tackled wonderfully, and that limited Mizzou's explosiveness (even Mizzou's biggest gain--the bomb to Tommy Saunders--was shorter than it could have been because of good tackling), but they could do nothing to Mizzou's efficiency.  Efficiency was why Tim Tebow ran away with the Heisman last year, and it's why Chase Daniel is threatening to do the same (though granted, we're only one-third through the regular season).

Continue reading this post »

Behold Postgame Podcast #3!  It's an abbreviated session, as the skies opened up at the 14-minute mark.  Not that we had anything left to say at that point anyway...MizzouRobot Ridiculous Matt, you were missed...

Oh yeah, and Mizzou has scored ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY-THREE POINTS IN THREE GAMES.  Just thought I'd throw that out there.

(Photo courtesy Jonathan Brownfield, MUTigers.com)

Well, I'm absolutely soaked after the floods came on the walk back to the car after Mizzou's 69-17 thrashing of Nevada, so I'll go ahead and open up this thread for postgame reaction while I head off to take a shower.

The postgame podcast should be posted sometime soon, and Good, Bad, and Indifferent will be available after the jump on this post later in the day.

UPDATE, by rptgwb at 5:37 p.m.: Good, Bad, Indifferent now after the jump.

Continue reading this post »

We're going to set up projections the same way we did for Illinois (I will not give SEMO the short shrift!), only to get enough of a sample size, I'm not going with SEMO, but with "FCS Tier 6", the estimated amalgamation of the worst FCS teams to play D1 opponents in 2007.  (I've explained this before, but basically I combined the 1-AA/FCS teams into six tiers and grouped their stats together thusly.)

So without further adieu...

Mizzou-SEMO Projections

Mizzou Rushing

• 2007 Mizzou Rushing Offense EqPts+: 178.77
• FCS Tier 6 Rushing Defense EqPts/Gm: 19.77
• Projection #1: 35.34
• FCS Tier 6 Rushing Defense EqPts+: 50.18
• 2007 Mizzou Rushing Offense EqPts/Gm: 16.21
• Projection #2: 32.30

Avg Projected Mizzou Rushing Output: 33.82

Adjusted for 2008: 28.00 (Pinkel doesn't run up the score)

Mizzou Passing

• 2007 Mizzou Passing Offense EqPts+: 149.55
• FCS Tier 6 Passing Defense EqPts/Gm: 17.32
• Projection #1: 25.90
  
• FCS Tier 6 Passing Defense EqPts+: 45.11
• 2007 Mizzou Passing Offense EqPts/Gm: 18.40
• Projection #2: 40.79
  

Avg Projected Mizzou Passing Output: 33.35

Adjusted for 2008: 28.00 (Pinkel doesn't run up the score)

SEMO Rushing

• FCS Tier 6 Rushing Offense EqPts+: 47.00
• 2007 Mizzou Rushing Defense EqPts/Gm: 8.29
• Projection #1: 3.90
• 2007 Mizzou Rushing Defense EqPts+: 151.97
• FCS Tier 6 Rushing Offense EqPts/Gm: 7.57
• Projection #2: 4.98

Projected SEMO Rushing Output: 4.44

Adjusted for 2008: 2.50 (I liked what I saw against Illinois)

SEMO Passing

• FCS Tier 6 Passing Offense EqPts+: 38.82
• 2007 Mizzou Passing Defense EqPts/Gm: 12.14
• Projection #1: 4.71
• 2007 Mizzou Passing Defense EqPts+: 141.07
• FCS Tier 6 Passing Offense EqPts/Gm: 4.44
• Projection #2: 3.15

Projected SEMO Passing Output: 3.93

Adjusted for 2008: 4.50 (are the troubles with Mizzou's Passing D enough to accidentally give up a long pass to SEMO at some point?)

--

Projected EqPts Score: Missouri 56.0, SEMO 7.0

Continue reading this post »

So after taking a day to digest what happened in St. Louis, I whipped out the TiVo to try to figure out exactly what most Mizzou fans were thinking: what the hell went wrong with our pass defense?

I went back through Juice's first four touchdown passes (before my TiVo cut out) to try to assess what the scheme was, what went wrong, and who exactly was to blame.

TOUCHDOWN PASS NO. 1:

The situation is stated in the top left corner of the diagram. Mizzou leads 7-0 but Illinois has worked into MU territory. The Illini line up in the Gun, with Dufrene left of Juice, a split end out wide on the left, a tight end to the right, and Judson and an unspecified slot receiver on the right. The left side of the field, both offense and defense, is unidentifiable but is also fairly inconsequential during the course of the play. 

The play begins with a playfake from Juice to Dufrene, which at first appears to suck in Sean Weatherspoon. As the play develops though, Spoon shuffles along the line of scrimmage, showing himself  to be playing a QB spy. Brock Christopher sits in a zone to take away the middle of the field.

The secondary is where the problem begins to occur. William Moore, lined up on the slot receiver before the snap, is sent on a nickel back blitz. This leaves safety Justin Garrett in man on the slot receiver (who I think was Arrelious Benn), who runs a post route and forces Garrett to the middle of the field. This route keeps Garrett from providing any support over the top, leaving Kevin Rutland in man-on-man with Will Judson on the right sideline. Judson barely gets by Rutland and goes up to make a great catch for the touchdown.

Here's the kicker, though. The coverage from Rutland was OUTSTANDING. But here's the thing about playing defensive back - you can be in perfect position and be step-for-step with the receiver, and if you don't make a play on the ball, it doesn't mean squat. Rutland NEVER looks back at the ball, giving Judson a chance to go up over him and get it.

Moore and/or Eberflus can be faulted for the ineffectiveness of the blitz, as Willy Mo is easily picked up by the IU O-Line. Moore is officially taken out of the play, but at the speed that this play developed, I'm not sure that it would have mattered.

VERDICT: Eberflus sent Moore on the blitz hoping that either A) Willy Mo would get to Juice first or B) Garrett and Rutland would be able to hold their own in man coverage. He was wrong about Part A, and very nearly right about Part B. This one is pretty much ALL on Rutland. A good defensive back has to have an innate sense of when the ball is in the air and show the ability to go up and make a play on it.

Breakdowns of the next three TD passes after the jump.

Continue reading this post »