clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

MU-OU: Beyond the Box Score

No depth of analysis for this game will tell you what you didn't already know--the redzone murdered Mizzou.  But I humbly submit the stats nonetheless.  And as always, we'll start with the 'Game Keys' from last week's BTBS Preview.

Game Key #1: Fourth Quarter.  If Mizzou is going to win, it would behoove them to be up more than 1 point heading into Q4 this time around.  No matter which stats you look at, OU's defensive stats are best in the Q4 almost totally across the board.  Q4 was also where the OU defense asserted itself once and for all in Norman on October 13.  If the score is tight heading into the final 15 minutes, the Mizzou offense had better have it's A+ game ready.

OU was up 14 going into the fourth quarter, and...Q4 success rate: OU 52.2%, MU 14.3%.  Ouch.

Game Key #2: OU Rushing Success Rate.  As you'll see below, OU's passing game tends to tail off a bit after Q1, while the running game gets stronger.  Mizzou's ability to defend the run saved them in the first half while the offense was trying to escape Auston English's clutches, but then the efficient power-running of Chris Brown carried OU home in the second half.  The loss of Murray hurts OU, as you'll see in the numbers below, but Brown and Allen Patrick are more than capable of carrying a power-running attack.  That style didn't work well for ATM or KU against Mizzou, and for Mizzou to be sitting pretty, it better not work well for OU either.  If OU's run success rate is over 50%, Mizzou's in trouble.

OU Run Success Rate: 42.5%.  Pretty good job by Mizzou.  The problem was, we sold out to stop the run, leaving Darnell Terrell on an island with Malcolm Kelly and leading to an OU Pass Success Rate of 57.7%.

Click 'Full Story' for more.

Game Key #3: Juaquin Iglesias and Manuel Johnson.  Mizzou has been absolutely phenomenal at taking away a team's #1 receiving threat, and while Iglesias has more catches than Malcolm Kelly, there no doubt who the big play threat is.  However, a team with solid #2 or #3 (or #4, for that matter) threats can do some damage.  I guess I should throw the TEs in here too, but it hasn't been TEs doing damage against the Mizzou pass defense.  Last time these two teams played, Iglesias and Johnson had a pretty strong day, Iglesias as a 'possession receiver' type (7 catches, 4.47 EqPts, 0.64 PPP) and Johnson as more of a downfield thread (2 catches, 1.99 EqPts, 1.00 PPP).  OU will need them to keep the chains moving again on Saturday.

Iglesias and Johnson: 4 catches, 1.82 EqPts, 0.46 PPP, 100.0% success rate.  Not bad, but certainly not amazing.  Like I said, though, Kelly was left in single coverage and burned Mizzou with 4 timely catches and 3.66 EqPts.

Game Key #4: Mizzou cannot allow the homerun.  Short, sweet.

OU had long passes to Gresham and Kelly, and Allen Patrick had one long run, but it certainly wasn't the homerun ball that killed Mizzou.

Game Key #5: Mizzou's DB success rate.  William Moore has taken his game to a new level since Pig Brown got hurt, but even with Pig, Mizzou's DB success rate was 22.4% against OU the first time around.  Be it Moore or anybody else, the secondary needs to make some plays.  They succeeded in avoiding the long ball last time, but OU's 3rd-down conversion rate was through the roof.  

Now, part of the DBs' poor success rate was the fact that OU's offense is based on more downfield throws than a lot of the spread offenses you see nowadays.  That usually results in lower completion %'s and higher YPC (or PPP).  In other words, when an OU receiver catches the ball, he's likely already past the 'success' marker.  So chances are, MU's DB success rate will be lower than normal anyway.  That's fine.  It just needs to be in the 25-30% range instead of 22%.

Mizzou DB Success Rate: 23.7%.  Pretty good, but they were a play or two away from that 25-30% more third down stop, and Mizzou might have had a bit more margin for error on offense.  Again, though...defense wasn't Mizzou's problem on Saturday.

Game Key #6: the OU DL's total successful plays.  With as many times as I've mentioned English's name in the last week, you knew this one was coming.  OU shut Mizzou out for about 25 minutes of the first half last time they played.  They did it by rushing 3 and dropping 8...and (unlike any other Mizzou opponent) still getting pressure on Chase Daniel.  English was in Daniel's face all evening, plus he tipped at least two passes that I can remember.  He was a beast, and his status is uncertain.  Whether he plays or not, he will be far from 100%, and OU will need to figure out how to avoid allowing Chase to get comfortable.  When Chase is comfortable (as he was against KU), you could drop 18 guys into coverage, and he would still find an open receiver almost every time.  The OU DL needs to make some plays, otherwise the DBs and LBs (who are phenomenal at stopping plodding, physical offenses but are less comfortable at defending a spread this season--see the numbers Tulsa, Mizzou, and Tech put up against them) will have too much responsibility and will eventually crumble.

OU DL: 9.5 successful tackles.  Too many.  Jeremy Beal led the way with an outstanding 5.0.

Game Key #7: turnovers.  Another no-brainer.  I've talked about "EqPts Scores" a few times now.  Basically this consists of two parts: 1) the tallied "scores" of each offense's plays according to the Points Per Play figures I've used many times, and 2) turnover costliness.  On October 13, Mizzou tallied up 27.71 "points" to OU's 27.65.  It was basically dead-even in that department.  However, OU had a 9.32-point advantage in turnover costliness.  That was ballgame.  That absolutely cannot happen again.

Last week, I said that turnovers were important because KU lives off of them.  This week it's important because MU died off of them against OU last time.  OU can pretend to be offended by Mizzou saying that turnovers killed them and that they could have won the game otherwise, but...uhh, it's 100000% true.  Power to OU for forcing those turnovers (granted, they didn't force the Daniel/Maclin fumble), but turnovers really were the difference.

Turnovers: Mizzou 1 (3.82 costliness points), OU 0.  Game, set, match.

Alright, on to the stats...and as always, feel free to consult the BTBS glossary.

Success Rates by Quarter


Q1: OU 35.7%, MU 33.3%
Q2: OU 60.0%, MU 46.2%
Q3: MU 50.0%, OU 42.9%
Q4: OU 52.2%, MU 14.3%
TOTAL: OU 48.5%, MU 40.8%


Q1: MU 42.9%, OU 0.0%
Q2: OU 60.0%, MU 42.9%
Q3: MU 37.5%, OU 25.0%
Q4: OU 50.0%, MU 0.0%
TOTAL: OU 42.5%, MU 40.0%

Mizzou made damn sure the run didn't beat them...problem was, OU passed the ball too.


Q1: OU 50.0%, MU 27.3%
Q2: OU 60.0%, MU 50.0%
Q3: OU 66.7%, MU 58.3%
Q4: OU 60.0%, MU 16.7%
TOTAL: OU 57.7%, MU 41.5%

Thanks to Mizzou's insistence on loading up the box, OU was able to put Sam Bradford in comfortable throwing situations, either with quick catch-and-run passes, or with rollouts...and a couple times with the play action.


Q1: MU 45.5%, OU 44.4%
Q2: OU 50.0%, MU 47.4%
Q3: MU 53.3%, OU 50.0%
Q4: OU 57.9%, MU 0.0%
TOTAL: MU 52.1%, OU 52.0%


Q1: OU 20.0%, MU 14.3%
Q2: OU 100.0%, MU 42.9%
Q3: MU 40.0%, OU 25.0%
Q4: MU 25.0%, OU 25.0%
TOTAL: OU 56.3%, MU 30.4%

Second quarter aside, both teams were equally effective at staying out of passing situations, and equally ineffective at converting in passing situations.  However, OU's offense got rolling in Q2, and while Mizzou did well to tie the game at halftime, damage had been done.


Q1: OU 50.0%, MU 40.0%
Q2: OU 80.0%, MU 33.3%
Q3: OU 40.0%, MU 0.0%
Q4: OU 50.0%, MU 0.0%
TOTAL: OU 54.2%, MU 27.8%

You didn't need me to tell you this, but Mizzou was horrid in the redzone.  You get the feeling that every redzone play in the playbook is contingent on the presence of Chase Coffman and his ability to catch jumpballs in the back of the endzone.  Without Coffman, Mizzou tried almost nothing but QB sneaks and horizontal passes, and they were horrible failures.

Success Rates by Down

1st: MU 46.9%, OU 36.7%
2nd: OU 54.5%, MU 33.3%
3rd: OU 64.3%, MU 40.0%
4th: OU N/A, MU N/A
TOTAL: OU 48.5%, MU 40.8%

Run Success Rates

Chase Daniel: 9 carries, 4.99 EqPts, 0.55 PPP, 44.4% success rate
Jeremy Maclin: 4 carries, 2.12 EqPts, 0.53 PPP, 75.0%
Tony Temple: 13 carries, 1.86 EqPts, 0.14 PPP, 30.8%
Danario Alexander: 1 carry, 0.71 EqPts, 100.0%
Jimmy Jackson: 1 carry, 0.00 EqPts, 0.0%
Derrick Washington: 1 carry, minus-0.15 EqPts, 0.0%
Tommy Saunders: 1 carry, minus-0.25 EqPts, 0.0%
TOTAL: 30 carries, 9.28 EqPts, 0.31 PPP, 40.0%

Well, I was correct in saying that I didn't think Tony Temple's presence would make that much of a difference in the running agme...but I didn't really want to be this correct.  Mizzou's RBs had 15 carries for 1.71 EqPts, or 0.11 PPP.  That's horrid.  As a point of comparison, Temple, Jackson, and Washington had combined for a 0.35 PPP average going into Saturday's game.

Allen Patrick: 13 carries, 7.06 EqPts, 0.54 PPP, 61.5%
Chris Brown: 23 carries, 6.66 EqPts, 0.29 PPP, 30.4%
Jacob Gutierrez: 2 carries, 0.51 EqPts, 0.26 PPP, 100.0%
TOTAL: 38 carries, 14.23 EqPts, 0.37 PPP, 44.7%

Receiver Success Rates

Martin Rucker: 6 catches, 3.73 EqPts, 0.62 PPP, 83.3%
Jeremy Maclin: 8 catches, 2.36 EqPts, 0.30 PPP, 75.0%
Tommy Saunders: 6 catches, 2.11 EqPts, 0.35 PPP, 83.3%
Will Franklin: 2 catches, 1.09 EqPts, 0.55 PPP, 50.0%
Derrick Washington: 1 catch, minus-0.33 EqPts, 0.0%
TOTAL: 23 catches, 8.96 EqPts, 0.39 PPP, 73.9%

Pretty much shows you that without our entire arsenal of weapons (missing Coffman and Alexander), we succumbed to the style of defense OU usually inflicts on Texas Tech--keep everything in front of you and make sure tackles.  We really really really needed Coffman's ability to patrol the deep-middle of the field.

Jermaine Gresham: 2 catches, 3.81 EqPts, 1.91 PPP, 100.0%
Malcolm Kelly: 4 catches, 3.66 EqPts, 0.92 PPP, 100.0%
Joe Jon Finley: 5 catches, 3.40 EqPts, 0.68 PPP, 60.0%
Chris Brown: 2 catches, 1.49 EqPts, 0.75 PPP, 100.0%
Juaquin Iglesias: 3 catches, 1.14 EqPts, 0.38 PPP, 100.0%
Manuel Johnson: 1 catch, 0.68 EqPts, 100.0%
Allen Patrick: 1 catch, minus-0.02 EqPts, 0.0%
TOTAL: 18 catches, 14.16 EqPts, 0.79 PPP, 83.3%

Line Yards and Sack Rates

Line Yards: 30 carries, 53.4 line yards (1.78 LY/carry...ouch)
Sack Rate (Non-Passing Downs): 23 attempts, 1 sack (4.3%)
Sack Rate (Passing Downs): 18 attempts, 1 sack (5.6%)

Line Yards: 40 carries, 112.4 line yards (2.81 LY/carry)
Sack Rate (Non-Passing Downs): 16 attempts, 0 sacks (0.0%)
Sack Rate (Passing Downs): 10 attempts, 0 sacks (0.0%)

Defensive Success Rates (Mizzou)

Defensive Line
Stryker Sulak: 3.0 tackles, 2.5 successful (83.3%)
Tommy Chavis: 3.0 tackles, 2.0 successful (66.7%)
Ziggy Hood: 3.0 tackles, 2.0 successful (66.7%)
Lorenzo Williams: 2.0 tackles, 2.0 successful (100.0%)
Charles Gaines: 1.5 tackles, 0.5 successful (33.3%)
TOTAL: 12.5 tackles, 9.0 successful (72.0%)

Van Alexander: 5.0 tackles, 4.0 successful (80.0%)
Sean Weatherspoon: 5.5 tackles, 3.5 successful (63.6%)
Brock Christopher: 6.0 tackles, 3.0 successful (50.0%)
Steve Redmond: 1.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL: 17.5 tackles, 10.5 successful (60.0%)

Best game from the LBs in a while, though that might have something to do with a) how much OU ran the ball, and b) how close to the line of scrimmage they were in attempting to shut down the OU run.

Defensive Backs
William Moore: 8.0 tackles, 1.5 successful (18.8%)
Castine Bridges: 3.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (33.3%)
Del Howard: 1.5 tackles, 1.0 successful (66.7%)
Justin Garrett: 3.0 tackles, 0.5 successful (16.7%)
Darnell Terrell: 1.5 tackles, 0.5 successful (33.3%)
Carl Gettis: 2.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL: 19.0 tackles, 4.5 successful (23.7%)

Considering how close to the line of scrimmage they lined up as well, they probably should have come up with higher than 23.7%.  Garrett and Howard combined for a decent showing (33.3%).

% of plays made by...
Defensive Line: 25.5%
Linebackers: 35.7%
Defensive Backs: 38.8%

Defensive Success Rates (Oklahoma)

Defensive Line
Jeremy Beal: 5.0 tackles, 5.0 successful (100.0%)
DeMarcus Granger: 3.0 tackles, 3.0 successful (100.0%)
Gerald McCoy: 1.5 tackles, 0.5 successful (33.3%)
Steven Coleman: 0.5 tackles, 0.5 successful (100.0%)
Auston English: 0.5 tackles, 0.5 successful (100.0%)
Adrian Taylor: 0.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL: 11.0 tackles, 9.5 successful (86.4%)

Beal was a monster.  English really didn't need to play.

Curtis Lofton: 6.0 tackles, 4.5 successful (75.0%)
Ryan Reynolds: 0.5 tackles, 0.5 successful (100.0%)
Lewis Baker: 5.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL: 12.0 tackles, 5.0 successful (41.7%)

Defensive Backs
Reggie Smith: 3.5 tackles, 3.5 successful (100.0%)
D.J. Wolfe: 8.0 tackles, 3.0 successful (37.5%)
Nic Harris: 5.5 tackles, 2.0 successful (36.4%)
Marcus Walker: 3.5 tackles, 2.0 successful (57.1%)
Lendy Holmes: 6.5 tackles, 1.0 successful (15.4%)
Dominique Franks: 1.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL: 28.0 tackles, 11.5 successful (41.1%)

Simply bizarre numbers for OU here.  Their LBs made little to no plays and almost had a worse success rate than their DBs.  Of course, that simply proves how much time OU spent in nickel and dime coverages, but it's still interesting.  And no matter how well the OU secondary covered, Jeremy Beal was the Sooners' MVP.  His sack and almost-sack of Daniel on the Tigers' first Q3 drive entirely killed Mizzou's momentum...and he made three other successful plays beyond that!

Turnover Costliness

Mizzou1 (Lofton INT): 3.86 points

That was the only turnover, but it was a dagger.

Statistical MVPs

Offense: Chase Daniel had more EqPts rushing (4.99) than any other Mizzou player had rushing and/or receiving (Maclin had 4.48 total, Rucker 3.73).  He was single-handedly trying to keep Mizzou in the game when no other weapon stood out.

Defense: I've been hard on Van Alexander all year (and I was hard on him in the Live Blog, complaining about a tackle he missed on OU's first play of the game), but he came up big Saturday, and while all three LBs played well, he seemed to be around the ball the most.  If he turns into a playmaker, MU's LB corps is going to be stout next year, not to mention deep (with the continued development of Luke Lambert, Andrew Gachkar, and Connell Davis).