Before we get to the numbers, let us once again look at last week's 'Game Keys' to see what it tells us about a) how the game played out and b) how good I am at identifying keys to the game (lol).
As always, here's the BTBS glossary.
Game Key #1: 1st Quarter. Q1 is a strength for both teams (MU-CU game aside). In conference play, Mizzou holds a 55%-45% success rate advantage over their opponents, while ATM holds a 49%-41% advantage. ATM must not fall behind much in this game, and obviously Q1 play will dictate what kind of game this is.
Q1 Success Rate: Mizzou 50.0%, ATM 41.2%. Thanks to the bad punt snap and a couple stalled drives, the score was only 7-2 Mizzou after Q1, which allowed ATM to avoid going into panic mode somewhat.
Game Key #2: 3rd Quarter. Q1 might define how the game will play out, but Q3 will be where Mizzou makes its move. They hold a sickening 58%-35% Q3 success rate advantage in conference play, while ATM is at a disadvantage (50%-46%). ATM had better figure make some really strong adjustments...otherwise the game will be over before Q4, and Q4's where ATM might hold a distinct advantage of its own.
Everything that could go wrong for Mizzou, did go wrong in Q3. Never mind the success rates (ATM 65.2%, MU 45.5%), from the deflected Goodson completion to the pass interference no-call, Q3 was a complete debacle for Mizzou. The fact that they bounced back the way they did offensively in Q4 (success rates: Mizzou 76.0%, ATM 53.8%) was phenomenal to see...once it was over, and Mizzou had won, anyway.
Click 'Full Story' for more.
Game Key #3: ATM LB Success Rate. I just mentioned why this is important. The ATM LBs are big and strong and physical...but they're not particularly fast. If they can't keep up with both the Mizzou RBs and TEs, this game's a blowout. Dodge, Misi Tupe, and the other LBs have to figure out a way to make plays somehow.
ATM LBs: 20 tackles, 5 successful (25.0%). Ouch. Score one for Mizzou. It helped Mizzou that Mark Dodge didn't play, but this is just atrocious.
Game Key #4: ATM 3rd downs. The Ags aren't particularly great at 3rd downs (44.7% by my count), and Iowa State game aside, Mizzou's been pretty solid in defending the 3rd down. But if Lane is getting yards on first down, the third downs might be manageable...and if ATM converts a few, the D will begin to wear down at some point. You remember last year's game, right? The Mizzou run defense was unbelievably good against ATM in the first half, but they were on the field too damn long, and Lane started getting bigger and bigger carries in the second half. For better or worse, you know that Mizzou will never hold onto the ball for very long, so it's up to the D to make some stops on third down.
ATM 3rd down success rate: 56.3%. Pretty good for ATM, especially in the second half (when they were 6-for-8). This allowed them to wear Mizzou down in the third quarter and take control of the game for a while.
Game Key #5: Kerry Franks. It's been pretty obvious for a while that either a) Stephen McGee can't make reads and find open receivers anymore, or b) Stephen McGee's receivers can't get open. However, when Kerry Franks does catch the ball, good things tend to happen. Of his 22 catches, 20 have resulted in a 'successful' play, and beyond that, he's averaging just a hair under 1.00 PPP. One of the reasons Mizzou was so successful against Colorado last week was because they shut down CU's secret weapon, Tyson DeVree. Well, Franks is ATM's secret weapon. He's not deserving of a high rating or anything, but he'll sneak up on you.
Kerry Franks: 1 catch, 3.11 points (remember, anything over 1.0 PPP is quite explosive). He single-handedly set up ATM's first TD. Nailed this one!
Game Key #6: ATM OL vs MU DL. As I said earlier, Lorenzo Williams and the Mizzou D-line had a simply huge first half in College Station last season, but they wore down with the combination of the J-Train and quick offensive possessions. The ATM O-line has been banged up this year, and have therefore been less effective, but you never know what to expect from week to week. Meanwhile, Mizzou's front four have improved steadily over the last few games. This matchup will decide whether MU-ATM is a tight game or a blowout.
Didn't nail this one. The Mizzou DL was fantastic for most of the game, but the LBs were quite disappointing again, and ATM moved the ball well in the second half. The real key was the Mizzou OL versus the ATM DL. Chase Daniel got lit up a couple of times on plays where someone on Mizzou's OL had a complete breakdown, and ATM was able to stay close for most of the game. However, in Q4, when Mizzou truly needed points, the OL was amazing.
Alright, on to the stats...
Success Rate by Quarter
Q1: Mizzou 50.0%, ATM 41.2%
Q2: Mizzou 51.9%, ATM 21.4%
Q3: ATM 65.2%, Mizzou 45.5%
Q4: Mizzou 76.0%, ATM 53.8%
TOTAL: Mizzou 58.5%, ATM 47.8%
It was a tale of two halves for the ATM offense. It took them a long time to get rolling--the only first half TD was set up by a long bomb, and they really didn't have much going other than that. The tipped pass that went straight to Mike Goodson on the first drive of Q3 really gave ATM some momentum they didn't surrender for a while. But...76.0%? Are you kidding me? Mizzou proved that it can move the ball in pressure situations in Q4, and they proved it in a big way.
Success Rate by Down
1st: Mizzou 59.5%, ATM 48.3%
2nd: Mizzou 53.8%, ATM 40.9%
3rd: Mizzou 60.0%, ATM 56.3%
TOTAL: Mizzou 58.5%, ATM 47.8%
QB Success Rate and PPP
Run: 55.6% success rate, 15.6 EqPts, 0.35 PPP
Pass: 62.2% success rate, 21.3 EqPts, 0.58 PPP
TOTAL: 58.5% success rate, 36.9 EqPts, 0.45 PPP
Run: 54.1%, 8.4 EqPts, 0.23 PPP
Pass: 40.0%, 16.3 EqPts, 0.54 PPP
TOTAL: 47.8%, 24.6 EqPts, 0.37 PPP
Run Success Rates and PPP
Tony Temple: 22 carries, 9.1 EqPts, 0.41 PPP, 54.5%
Jimmy Jackson: 10 carries, 4.0 EqPts, 0.40 PPP, 70.0%
Chase Daniel: 8 carries, 1.3 EqPts, 0.16 PPP, 50.0%
Jeremy Maclin: 4 carries, 1.2 EqPts, 0.31 PPP, 50.0%
Derrick Washington: 1 carry, 0.0 EqPts, 0.0%
TOTAL: 45 carries, 15.6 EqPts, 0.35 PPP, 55.6%
Michael Goodson: 15 carries, 1.9 EqPts, 0.13 PPP, 40.0%
Jorvorskie Lane: 12 carries, 4.3 EqPts, 0.36 PPP, 66.7%
Stephen McGee: 10 carries, 2.1 EqPts, 0.21 PPP, 60.0%
TOTAL: 37 carries, 8.4 EqPts, 0.23 PPP, 54.1%
Receiver Success Rate
Jeremy Maclin: 5 catches, 11.0 EqPts, 2.20 PPP, 100.0%
Chase Coffman: 3 catches, 2.7 EqPts, 0.89 PPP, 100.0%
Martin Rucker: 6 catches, 3.0 EqPts, 0.50 PPP, 83.3%
Will Franklin: 4 catches, 2.0 EqPts, 0.50 PPP, 100.0%
Derrick Washington: 4 catches, 1.5 EqPts, 0.37 PPP, 50.0%
Tommy Saunders: 2 catches, 0.9 EqPts, 0.43 PPP, 100.0%\
Tony Temple: 1 catch, 0.9 EqPts, 100.0%
Danario Alexander: 1 catch, 0.3 EqPts, 100.0%
Jason Ray: 1 catch, 0.2 EqPts, 0.0%
TOTAL: 27 catches, 22.3 EqPts, 0.82 PPP, 85.2%
Martellus Bennett: 4 catches, 6.9 EqPts, 1.73 PPP, 50.0%
Michael Goodson: 5 catches, 3.8 EqPts, 0.76 PPP, 60.0%
Kerry Franks: 1 catch, 3.1 EqPts, 100.0%
Joey Thomas: 3 catches, 1.3 EqPts, 0.42 PPP, 50.0%
Pierre Brown: 2 catches, 1.0 EqPts, 0.51 PPP, 100.0%
Chris Alexander: 1 catch, 0.6 EqPts, 100.0%
Earvin Taylor: 2 catches, minus-0.3 EqPts, minus-0.13 PPP, 50.0%
TOTAL: 18 catches, 16.4 EqPts, 0.91 PPP, 66.7%
Line Yards and Sack Rates
Line Yards: 47 carries, 115.1 line yards, 2.45 LY/carry
1st-2nd down sack rate: 27 pass attempts, 1 sack (3.7%)
3rd-4th down sack rate: 10 pass attempts, 1 sack (10.0%)
Line Yards: 37 carries, 119.3 line yards, 3.22 LY/carry
1st-2nd down sack rate: 22 pass attempts, 2 sacks (9.1%)
3rd-4th down sack rate: 8 pass attempts, 0 sacks (0.0%)
The high LY/carry total for ATM, combined with the low PPP average, shows that while ATM was able to keep the chains moving (especially in the 2nd half), they never busted a long run. Granted, they were breaking all sorts of long passes, but still...I call this a success for the Mizzou Front Four.
Defensive Success Rates
Tommy Chavis: 5.0 tackles, 4.5 successful (90.0%)
Stryker Sulak: 4.5 tackles, 2.5 successful (55.6%)
Charles Gaines: 1.5 tackles, 1.5 successful (100.0%)
Lorenzo Williams: 1.5 tackles, 1.5 successful (100.0%)
Ziggy Hood: 1.5 tackles, 0.5 successful (33.3%)
John Stull: 1.0 tackles, 0.5 successful (50.0%)
Jaron Baston: 0.5 tackles, 0.5 successful (100.0%)
TOTAL: 15.5 tackles, 11.5 successful (74.2%)
Sean Weatherspoon: 6.5 tackles, 2.5 successful (38.5%)
Brock Christopher: 2.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (50.0%)
Van Alexander: 3.0 tackles, 0.5 successful (16.7%)
TOTAL: 11.5 tackles, 4.0 successful (34.8%)
Atrociously low success rate for the LBs, especially against such a run-oriented team. Of course, Sean Weatherspoon's 3rd-down tackle of Goodson (the one where he held onto Goodson's jersey for about 10 seconds until Goodson finally fell) was one of the biggest plays of the game. Still, though, this is three times in four games when the LBs, who carried the defense early in the season, have had poor games statistically.
Justin Garrett: 5.5 tackles, 2.5 successful (45.5%)
William Moore: 5.0 tackles, 2.0 successful (40.0%)
Carl Gettis: 1.5 tackles, 1.0 successful (66.7%)
Castine Bridges: 5.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (20.0%)
Del Howard: 5.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (20.0%)
Paul Simpson: 2.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL: 24.0 tackles, 7.5 successful (31.3%)
I'm still not sure what a great statistical line looks like for a cornerback, but I'd say only 1.5 tackles (meaning his guy didn't catch the ball much) and 1.0 successful is pretty close to great. Unfortunately the guys who weren't covered by Gettis managed quite a bit of success.
Defensive Line: 30.4%
Defensive Backs: 47.1%
Again, the LBs' numbers just have to be better than this.
: William Moore INT - 1.53 points
: Alton Dixon FR - 2.83 points
Not a big turnovers game.
: I'm debating between Jeremy Maclin (12.2 EqPts on just 9 touches) and Tony Temple (10.0 EqPts and was the main cog in the two fourth quarter scores). Eh, I give it to Maclin every week, it seems...Temple it is!
: William Moore made the biggest defensive stop of the game, blowing up a 3rd-down screen pass early in Q4 and forcing a field goal (that was missed) when ATM had all the momentum. However, from a statistical standpoint it has to be Tommy Chavis. His 4 successful plays led the way for the Tigers and made up for a lack of big plays from the LBs.