clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Georgia 34, Missouri 0: Beyond the box score

New, 8 comments

Yep.

By Bill Connelly
Denny Medley-USA TODAY Sports

Georgia 34, Missouri 0

Confused? Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here.

Basics Georgia Missouri Nat'l Avg
Total Plays 87 43
Close Rate (non-garbage time) 80.8%
Avg Starting FP 41.9 22.3 29.8
Possessions 12 12
Scoring Opportunities*
 8 0
Points Per Opportunity 4.25 N/A 4.70
Leverage Rate** 55.2% 60.5% 68.3%
Close S&P*** 0.476 0.383 0.507
* A scoring opportunity occurs when an offense gets a first down inside the opponent's 40 (or scores from outside the 40).
** Leverage Rate = Standard Downs / (Standard Downs + Passing Downs)
*** When using IsoPPP, the S&P formula is (0.8*Success Rate) + (0.2*IsoPPP)
EqPts (what's this?) Georgia Missouri
Total 27.3 5.5
Rushing 18.2 2.3
Passing 9.2 3.2
Success Rate (what's this?) Georgia Missouri Nat'l Avg
All (close) 42.7% 37.8% 42.0%
Rushing (close) 35.9% 50.0% 43.4%
Passing (close) 51.7% 28.6% 40.6%
Standard Downs 45.8% 50.0% 47.3%
Passing Downs 35.0% 9.1% 30.6%
IsoPPP (what's this?) Georgia Missouri Nat'l Avg
All (close) 0.67 0.40 0.85
Rushing (close) 0.82 0.31 0.73
Passing (close) 0.53 0.53 0.99
Standard Downs 0.73 0.38 0.77
Passing Downs 0.50 0.61 1.14
Line Stats Georgia Missouri Nat'l Avg
Line Yards/Carry (what's this?) 2.76 3.41 2.92
Std. Downs Sack Rt. 0.0% 7.7% 4.7%
Pass. Downs Sack Rt. 14.3% 12.5% 7.3%
Turnovers Georgia Missouri
Turnovers 0 5
Turnover Points (what's this?) 0.0 18.5
Turnover Margin Georgia +5
Exp. TO Margin Georgia +0.15
TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin) Georgia +4.85
TO Points Margin Georgia +18.5 points
Situational Georgia Missouri
Q1 S&P 0.358 0.197
Q2 S&P 0.564 0.373
Q3 S&P 0.479 0.529
Q4 S&P 0.553 N/A
1st Down S&P 0.497 0.404
2nd Down S&P 0.467 0.387
3rd Down S&P 0.537 N/A
Projected Scoring Margin: Georgia by 40.4
Actual Scoring Margin: Georgia by 34

"N/A"

Anytime there's an "N/A" in one of your columns, that's probably bad news. That probably means there's a zero in a denominator.

Missouri had three of them: Points Per Opportunity (there were no opportunities), fourth-quarter S&P (IsoPPP, part of the S&P equation, is Equivalent Points divided by Successful Plays, and there were no successes), and third-down S&P (ditto). Guh.

Blocking when it counts

I had to check and make sure that Missouri's Line Yardage average (3.41) was correct. It was ... with an asterisk. First quarter: 1.43. Second quarter: 3.80. Third quarter: 4.5. Fourth quarter: -0.9. So the blocking was sketchy when Georgia was building a lead, then got better. This certainly builds a case that maybe Mizzou should have leaned on the run a bit more in the middle of the game when Maty Mauk was struggling to find the plot, but Mizzou had so few plays, period, that there was no chance to find any sort of play-calling rhythm regardless.

Targets and catches

Jimmie Hunt: 4 targets, 2 catches, 29 yards (7.3 per target), 2 INT
Marcus Murphy: 4 targets, 2 catches, 16 yards (4.0 per target), 2 INT
Bud Sasser: 3 targets, 2 catches, 14 yards (4.7 per target)
J'Mon Moore: 2 targets, 2 catches, 33 yards (16.5 per target)
Sean Culkin: 2 targets, 0 catches
Lawrence Lee: 1 target, 1 catch, 5 yards
Russell Hansbrough: 1 target, 0 catches
Wesley Leftwich: 1 target, 0 catches

I've wondered at times why Maty Mauk doesn't try to lean on Bud Sasser as he did Dorial Green-Beckham last year; it's not that I think Sasser is at DGB's level -- it's that he's still the best option, and throwing 50/50 balls his way is still better than scrambling into pressure or throwing to others.

I think part of it is simply that Sasser isn't even partially open a good portion of the time. He's a No. 2 getting covered by No. 1 corners. I mentioned heading into the year that I feared Mizzou didn't have a true No. 1, and that the Tigers would need to take advantage of depth over star power. And as we've seen, Mizzou only has three ready-for-prime-time receivers, and one has been hurt for the last 2+ games. (And the other two -- Sasser and Hunt -- each had drops on Saturday and in other games.) None of the backups have even come close to stepping up, though I was intrigued by what I saw from J'Mon Moore on Saturday, and I've seen just enough from Lawrence Lee to assume he'll be pretty good in 2015. (And thank goodness for that.)

So if you don't have depth and you don't have a big-time No. 1 ... you don't have much. And now you've got a quarterback who doesn't know where to look, and who seems to be missing open receivers even when they do exist. Bad times, and I don't know how you fix it mid-season.

And speaking of the QB...

No. 16 bounced back, too (eventually)

Granted, they want(ed) to keep them in the pocket for totally different reasons, but it's an interesting thought. And it certainly meshes with my "more moving pockets" idea.

Havoc

Havoc Rate: Georgia 25.6% (11 in 43 plays), Missouri 14.9% (13 in 87 plays)

Seven of Georgia's 11 Havoc plays (four interceptions, three sacks) were directly tied to Mauk, which obviously isn't a great look.

Individuals
Aarion Penton: 3.0 (1 TFL, 1 FF, 1 PBU)
Harold Brantley: 2.0 (1.0 sacks, 1.0 other TFL)
Charles Harris: 2.0 (1.0 sacks, 1.0 other TFL)
Markus Golden: 1.5 (1.5 TFL)
Shane Ray: 1.0 (1 TFL)
Matt Hoch: 1.0 (1 TFL)
Josh Augusta: 1.0 (1 TFL)
Tyler Hunt: 1.0 (1 FF)
Donavin Newsom: 0.5 (0.5 TFL)

From the WAIT TILL NEXT YEAR!! department, one has to love seeing a true sophomore (Penton), redshirt sophomore (Brantley), and redshirt freshman (Harris) leading the way during a pretty strong defensive performance, with two other sophomores (Augusta, Newsom) getting on the board.

Wasted defense

Obviously Georgia's rushing success rate wouldn't have been 36 percent if Todd Gurley had been playing, but the Mizzou defensive front really did do a hell of a job. Georgia also had no semblance of big plays. And while Georgia did have more success than you'd like on passing downs, the problem on those downs wasn't Georgia's 35 percent success rate ... it was Mizzou's nine percent success rate.

The good news:

Florida's defense actually ranks lower than Georgia's right now. The bad news: it's Florida's pass defense that has been the problem. The Gators' run defense has been much, much better than Georgia's. So any hope of leaning on the run to set up the pass might be problematic.

Oh we're totally beating Florida now...

In This Stream

Georgia 34, Missouri 0: Tigers' offense no-shows in key division game

View all 23 stories

Next Up In Mizzou Football

Loading comments...