clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Middle Tennessee at Missouri: Tigers' most important game of the year should have a happy ending

Derrick Forsythe (Rock M Nation)

It has played out like we expected it to so far: Mizzou has been favored twice and won and has been an underdog four times and lost. The first half of the season was about trying to steal some margin for error, and while that almost happened against Georgia ... it didn't happen.

So now come the four games that will define the season. Was this a lost-cause, Year Zero situation in which Barry Odom started over on both sides of the ball and attempted to arrange them as he wanted? Was this a season of marginal improvement, in which Missouri ekes out a bowl bid with a young roster? We'll find out over the next month.

Long-term, it doesn't really matter. Year Zeroes happen all the time to coaches who eventually win big. It could make the difference for a couple of recruits in the 2017 class -- and that, plus the simple enjoyment of wanting your team to win games -- is enough to root for it to happen. And that makes the Middle Tennessee game the most important of the year to date for Missouri.

(Spoiler: Win or lose on Saturday, next week's Kentucky game will also be the most important to date.)

Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders (4-2) vs. Missouri Tigers (2-4)

October 22, 2016 ( 4:00 PM ET, SECN )
Spread: Missouri -6.5
S&P+ Projection: Missouri (32.7-28.9)

Confused? Check out the advanced-stats glossary here.
Statistical profiles index.
Full Football Outsiders F/+ rankings can be found here.

The Basics
Category MTSU Missouri
S&P+ (Rk) 52 49
Category MTSU offense Missouri defense Missouri offense MTSU defense
Yards per play (Rk) 6.33 (18) 5.34 (74) 6.11 (28) 5.04 (39)
Yards per game (Rk) 540.0 (5) 443.0 (101) 481.8 (28) 400.7 (61)
Points per possession (Rk) 2.82 (26) 1.80 (43) 2.26 (66) 1.89 (48)
Category MTSU offense Missouri defense Missouri offense MTSU defense
S&P+ (Rk) 34.4 (33) 26.4 (51) 32.0 (41) 30.5 (78)
Rushing S&P+ (Rk) 103.6 (61) 90.5 (106) 88.8 (110) 91.2 (101)
Passing S&P+ (Rk) 105.3 (57) 112.0 (33) 125.4 (15) 88.9 (106)
Standard Downs S&P+ (Rk) 107.0 (53) 103.2 (54) 116.0 (21) 89.8 (109)
Passing Downs S&P+ (Rk) 100.8 (69) 95.4 (88) 96.7 (83) 108.4 (47)
Q1 S&P+ (Rk) 112.7 (50) 104.4 (57) 132.6 (14) 93.9 (90)
Q2 S&P+ (Rk) 100.8 (77) 99.7 (73) 128.8 (18) 82.3 (119)
Q3 S&P+ (Rk) 97.8 (84) 106.0 (51) 109.0 (44) 103.4 (61)
Q4 S&P+ (Rk) 98.9 (81) 90.5 (106) 112.6 (34) 105.3 (48)
Five biggest advantages* (according to the advanced stats)

* or smallest disadvantages

MTSU

  1. Standard Downs Sack Rate (No. 14 offense vs. No. 106 defense)
  2. Adj. Sack Rate (No. 1 offense vs. No. 78 defense)
  3. Passing Downs Sack Rate (No. 4 offense vs. No. 78 defense)
  4. Second Down S&P+ (No. 42 offense vs. No. 100 defense)
  5. Rushing Explosiveness (IsoPPP) (No. 37 offense vs. No. 89 defense)

MTSU's advantages, distilled: The Blue Raiders' quarterback will have time to pass, and if Mizzou gets overextended trying to get to him, a running back is going to slip into the open and run a long way.

Missouri

  1. First Down S&P+ (No. 18 offense vs. No. 118 defense)
  2. Run Stuffs (No. 27 offense vs. No. 122 defense)
  3. Adj. Sack Rate (No. 2 offense vs. No. 96 defense)
  4. Standard Downs Explosiveness (IsoPPP) (No. 9 offense vs. No. 100 defense)
  5. Passing S&P+ (No. 15 offense vs. No. 106 defense)

Mizzou's advantages, distilled: The Tigers' offense probably won't move backwards very much, and if the run is working, the passing game could pop the cap off of the defense.

That both teams' advantages are mostly on the offensive side of the ball is probably pretty telling, too.

Five Factors
Category MTSU offense Missouri defense Missouri offense MTSU defense
EXPLOSIVENESS 1.38 (25) 1.16 (24) 1.42 (15) 1.06 (4)
EFFICIENCY 46.0% (27) 42.2% (75) 38.2% (108) 45.9% (111)
FIELD POSITION 29.5 (75) 25.8 (9) 29.6 (73) 31.2 (106)
FINISHING DRIVES 4.8 (61) 4.9 (84) 5.1 (40) 4.4 (45)
TURNOVER MARGIN EXPECTED:
MTSU 5.48 (7)
Missouri -0.34 (76)
ACTUAL
MTSU 0 (54)
Missouri 2 (38)

On both sides of the ball, there's a little bit of big-play tension: Both offenses have produced them (relative to competition, at least), and both defenses have prevented them. A couple of 40-yarders one way or the other could obviously sway the result.

Offensive Footprint
Category (Rk) MTSU offense Missouri offense
Adj. Pace 7.9 (12) 3.7 (36)
Plays per game 85.3 (9) 78.8 (35)
Possessions per game 13.7 (37) 14.7 (12)
Std. Downs Run Rate 42.5% (121) 52.9% (102)
Pass. Downs Run Rate 27.9% (101) 30.2% (82)
% of solo tackles 75.8% (48) 74.6% (60)

Mizzou's pace has slowed, but ... two pass-heavy teams with top-40 tempos? Settle in. This is going to take a while.

Defensive Footprint
Category (Rk) MTSU defense Missouri defense
Std. Downs Run Rate 55.7% (90) 58.1% (71)
Pass. Downs Run Rate 25.4% (119) 35.0% (58)
Overall Havoc Rate 17.4% (41) 15.6% (78)
Front 7 Havoc Rate 10.3% (38) 8.1% (89)
DB Havoc Rate 6.9% (54) 7.5% (38)
PD to INC 40.2% (15) 40.4% (12)

On average, you end up with one interception to every three or four pass breakups. And both of these teams get hands on a lot of passes. That could make deflections and bounces pretty key. Who is holding onto interception opportunities?

When MTSU has the ball…

Standard Downs
MTSU Offense Missouri Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Standard Downs S&P+ 107.0 53 103.2 54
Standard Downs Success Rate 47.6% 54 48.0% 81 MTSU
Standard Downs IsoPPP 1.31 11 0.97 13
SD Line Yards per Carry 3.22 30 3.43 120 MTSU big
SD Sack Rate 1.9% 14 3.1% 106 MTSU big

Only the overall Standard Downs S&P+ figure is opponent-adjusted, so if you're trying to figure out why this matchup is supposedly even despite what appears to be a big MTSU advantage, that's why.

That said, Missouri's defensive front has been downright feckless on standard downs, and MTSU's style is almost designed to neutralize any sort of disadvantage in the trenches. So if you're waiting for another breakout game for the Missouri line, odds aren't great that it will be this game.

Passing Downs
MTSU Offense Missouri Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Passing Downs S&P+ 100.8 69 95.4 88 MTSU
Passing Downs Success Rate 42.7% 6 30.8% 70 MTSU big
Passing Downs IsoPPP 1.54 106 1.45 67 Missouri
PD Line Yards per Carry 3.87 28 2.85 35
PD Sack Rate 1% 4 6.6% 78 MTSU big

MTSU is really good at gaining just enough on passing downs to catch back up to the chains. Tight, sound coverage by Mizzou DBs might be integral to getting off of the field.

The MTSU offense is fascinating, by the way. That the Blue Raiders lean on slot receivers Richie James and Ty Lee isn't particularly surprising -- slot guys can be fantastic options on standard downs, used almost as an extension of the run game. But on passing downs, Brent Stockstill leans on James and Lee even more. They have combined for 51 targets, 34 catches, and 507 yards on such downs. Starting outside receivers Patrick Smith and Dennis Andrews: 22 targets, 10 catches, 133 yards. It's almost like they send the slots long and the outside guys short when they need more yards. Very interesting.

When Missouri has the ball…

Standard Downs
Missouri Offense MTSU Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Standard Downs S&P+ 116.0 21 89.8 109 Missouri big
Standard Downs Success Rate 44.4% 100 52.7% 120 Missouri
Standard Downs IsoPPP 1.31 10 0.97 14
SD Line Yards per Carry 2.81 91 3.18 100
SD Sack Rate 1.1% 6 5.3% 52 Missouri

More tension here. Missouri has been all-or-nothing on standard downs; the Tigers have been inefficient but have proven capable of making very big plays. MTSU, meanwhile, will allow you all the efficiency you want but wants to prevent anything big.

As we've discussed already this week, this makes the run game doubly important. If the Tigers are patient, and if Damarea Crockett and Ish Witter are generating solid first-down yardage, then there's really no reason to think MTSU will stop Mizzou very much. But if the run game still isn't clicking all that well, and if Drew Lock is throwing incompletions into traffic downfield, there could be trouble.

Passing Downs
Missouri Offense MTSU Defense
Avg. Rk Avg. Rk Edge
Passing Downs S&P+ 96.7 83 108.4 47 MTSU
Passing Downs Success Rate 26.0% 109 28.1% 46 MTSU big
Passing Downs IsoPPP 1.78 59 1.71 12 MTSU
PD Line Yards per Carry 2.76 101 1.81 4 MTSU big
PD Sack Rate 0% 1 5.9% 87 Missouri big

There could be trouble because MTSU is very good on passing downs. The Blue Raiders don't have much of a pass rush, but they again don't give you many looks downfield. This appears to be a pretty decent "form a cloud" defense, and that's problematic considering Lock is still a sophomore learning how to make proper reads.

We could see a breakout performance from Crockett on Saturday. If we don't, then Drew Lock will carry a ton of weight on his shoulders.

Individual Passing Stats
Team Player Ht, Wt Year Comp Att Yards TD INT Comp
Rate
Sacks Sack Rate Yards/
Att.
MTSU Brent Stockstill 6'0, 206 SO 179 276 2091 18 5 64.9% 4 1.4% 7.4
MTSU John Urzua 6'3, 185 FR 10 17 106 1 1 58.8% 0 0.0% 6.2
Missouri Drew Lock 6'4, 220 SO 117 217 1714 14 6 53.9% 3 1.4% 7.7
Missouri Marvin Zanders 6'1, 200 SO 9 11 105 1 0 81.8% 0 0.0% 9.5

Of course, if I'm going to mention Lock's importance, I should also point out that he likely won't be the only Tiger quarterback playing. And honestly, with MTSU's shaky run defense, the thought of playing Marvin Zanders quite a bit is an attractive one. Really curious about the distribution of snaps here.

Individual Rushing Stats
Team Player Pos. Ht, Wt Year Rushes Yards TD Yards/
Carry
Hlt Yds/
Opp.
Opp.
Rate
MTSU I'Tavius Mathers RB 5'11, 197 SR 115 725 10 6.3 6.8 39.1%
MTSU Terelle West RB 5'10, 186 FR 31 123 0 4.0 4.5 35.5%
MTSU Brent Stockstill QB 6'0, 206 SO 25 160 0 6.4 4.7 52.0%
MTSU Ruben Garnett RB 5'9, 178 FR 9 19 0 2.1 2.6 33.3%
Missouri Ish Witter RB 5'10, 200 JR 83 339 3 4.1 3.3 26.5%
Missouri Damarea Crockett RB 5'11, 220 FR 54 390 3 7.2 6.2 51.9%
Missouri Marvin Zanders QB 6'1, 200 SO 27 164 2 6.1 5.0 51.9%
Missouri Alex Ross RB 6'1, 220 SR 22 69 0 3.1 1.7 22.7%
NOTE: Quarterback run totals above do not include sacks (which are counted toward pass averages below) or kneeldowns.

MTSU's is a pass-first, pass-second offense, but the Blue Raiders are more than willing to gash you with Mathers if you get distracted.

Individual Receiving Stats
Team Player Pos. Ht, Wt Year Targets Catches Yards TD Yds/
Catch
Yds/
Target
Catch Rate
MTSU Richie James WR 5'9, 180 SO 86 57 792 5 13.9 9.2 66.3%
MTSU Ty Lee WR 5'9, 155 FR 41 30 295 4 9.8 7.2 73.2%
MTSU I'Tavius Mathers RB 5'11, 197 SR 34 27 295 2 10.9 8.7 79.4%
MTSU Patrick Smith WR 6'0, 185 JR 34 20 245 2 12.3 7.2 58.8%
MTSU Dennis Andrews WR 6'0, 179 SR 25 14 210 3 15.0 8.4 56.0%
MTSU Desmond Anderson WR 5'10, 176 SO 15 9 121 1 13.4 8.1 60.0%
MTSU Isiah Upton WR 6'0, 181 FR 10 7 37 0 5.3 3.7 70.0%
Missouri J'Mon Moore WR 6'3, 205 JR 61 28 465 6 16.6 7.6 45.9%
Missouri Dimetrios Mason WR 6'0, 185 FR 27 18 227 0 12.6 8.4 66.7%
Missouri Chris Black WR 6'0, 190 SR 23 14 199 1 14.2 8.7 60.9%
Missouri Emanuel Hall WR 6'3, 205 SO 22 14 241 2 17.2 11.0 63.6%
Missouri Johnathon Johnson WR 5'10, 185 FR 22 12 205 1 17.1 9.3 54.5%
Missouri Jason Reese TE 6'5, 250 JR 12 7 82 2 11.7 6.8 58.3%
Missouri Sean Culkin TE 6'6, 250 SR 11 7 70 0 10.0 6.4 63.6%

Here's your regular reminder that J'Mon Moore has been targeted more than twice as much as any other Mizzou receiver. That's probably not good, though Moore should find matchups far more to his benefit than he did over the Tigers' last two games.

Individual Defensive Stats
Team Name Pos Ht, Wt Year Tackles % of Team TFL Sacks Int PBU FF FR
MTSU Darius Harris LB 6'2, 231 SO 34.0 9.4% 2.5 0.5 0 0 1 0
MTSU Alex Dale S 5'10, 206 JR 29.5 8.1% 0.5 0.0 0 5 0 0
MTSU Chris Melton LB 6'1, 210 SO 27.0 7.4% 2.5 1.5 0 1 0 0
MTSU Jeremy Cutrer CB 6'2, 170 SR 26.5 7.3% 1.5 0.0 1 5 1 0
MTSU Jovante Moffatt S 6'0, 191 SO 26.0 7.2% 1.0 0.0 0 1 0 0
MTSU D.J. Sanders LB 6'0, 225 JR 23.5 6.5% 2.0 1.0 0 5 2 0
MTSU Michael Minter CB 6'0, 181 JR 22.0 6.1% 0.0 0.0 0 6 0 0
MTSU Dontavious Heard CB 6'1, 189 SR 18.5 5.1% 1.0 1.0 0 3 0 0
MTSU Malik Hawkins LB 6'1, 218 JR 15.5 4.3% 2.5 1.5 0 0 0 0
MTSU Steven Rhodes DE 6'3, 268 SR 14.0 3.9% 3.5 1.5 0 1 1 0
MTSU Raynard Felton DT 6'4, 267 SR 13.0 3.6% 3.5 2.5 1 0 1 0
MTSU Khalil Brooks LB 5'11, 197 FR 13.0 3.6% 1.5 0.5 0 2 0 0
MTSU Shaquille Huff DT 6'1, 330 SR 12.5 3.4% 5.0 2.0 0 1 1 0
Missouri Thomas Wilson S 5'10, 195 JR 39.5 11.1% 1.5 0.0 0 2 1 0
Missouri Michael Scherer LB 6'3, 235 SR 38.0 10.6% 3.5 0.5 1 2 0 0
Missouri Donavin Newsom LB 6'2, 240 SR 32.5 9.1% 2.0 2.0 0 2 0 0
Missouri Anthony Sherrils DB 6'0, 205 JR 27.0 7.6% 1.0 0.0 1 0 0 0
Missouri Aarion Penton DB 5'10, 195 SR 20.0 5.6% 0.0 0.0 3 7 0 0
Missouri Joey Burkett LB 6'2, 225 JR 18.0 5.0% 1.0 0.0 1 0 0 0
Missouri Terry Beckner, Jr. DL 6'4, 290 SO 17.0 4.8% 1.0 0.0 0 0 0 0
Missouri Charles Harris DL 6'3, 260 JR 16.5 4.6% 4.5 3.5 0 1 1 0
Missouri Cale Garrett LB 6'3, 230 FR 14.5 4.1% 2.0 0.0 0 1 0 0
Missouri Ronnell Perkins S 6'0, 200 FR 13.5 3.8% 0.5 0.0 0 1 0 0
Missouri John Gibson DB 6'0, 195 SR 13.0 3.6% 0.0 0.0 3 5 0 0
Missouri Rickey Hatley DL 6'4, 320 SR 11.0 3.1% 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0
Missouri Marcell Frazier DL 6'5, 260 JR 11.0 3.1% 1.0 1.0 0 2 1 0
Note: It appears "Fumble Returns" are getting pulled instead of "Fumble Recoveries." My apologies. Will try to get that corrected.

Neither team creates many havoc plays, though we know Missouri is more capable than what it has shown. Still, with two quick-passing and pass-happy attacks, flowing to the ball and tackling well will end up more important than making creating disruption.

Individual Special Teams Stats
Team Punter Ht, Wt Year Punts Avg TB FC I20 FC/I20
Ratio
MTSU Matt Bonadies 6'1, 213 SO 24 40.0 0 8 10 75.0%
MTSU Brent Stockstill 6'0, 206 SO 1 27.0 0 0 1 100.0%
Missouri Corey Fatony 5'11, 205 SO 36 44.1 1 8 12 55.6%
Team Kicker Ht, Wt Year Kickoffs Avg TB TB% OOB Fair
Catches
Onside
Att
Onside
Success
MTSU Canon Rooker 5'11, 184 JR 43 60.0 15 34.9% 0 2 0 0
MTSU Matt Bonadies 6'1, 213 SO 1 56.0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 0
Missouri Tucker McCann 6'0, 195 FR 36 63.3 24 66.7% 0 0 0 0
Missouri Turner Adams 6'0, 205 JR 0 0.0 0 0.0% 0 0 1 1
Team Place-Kicker Ht, Wt Year PAT FG Pct
MTSU Canon Rooker 5'11, 184 JR 27-29 10-12 83.3%
Missouri Tucker McCann 6'0, 195 FR 21-23 4-6 66.7%
Missouri Turner Adams 6'0, 205 JR 2-3 0-0 #DIV/0!
Team Kick Returner Ht, Wt Year Returns Avg. TD Fair Catch Fumbles (Lost)
MTSU Desmond Anderson 5'10, 176 SO 8 20.3 0 0 0 (0)
MTSU Richie James 5'9, 180 SO 2 21.5 0 0 0 (0)
Missouri Johnathon Johnson 5'10, 185 FR 9 18.0 0 0 0 (0)
Missouri Damarea Crockett 5'11, 220 FR 5 17.8 0 0 1 (0)
Team Punt Returner Ht, Wt Year Returns Avg. TD Fair Catch Fumbles (Lost)
MTSU Richie James 5'9, 180 SO 10 7.0 0 9 2 (1)
MTSU Azar Wilson 6'0, 257 SR 1 20.0 0 0 0 (0)
Missouri Chris Black 6'0, 190 SR 6 12.3 0 4 1 (0)
Missouri Johnathon Johnson 5'10, 185 FR 5 13.8 1 4 2 (1)

One strange effect of Missouri's strange all-or-nothing stretch: Tucker McCann has only attempted one field goal in the last three games. Mizzou was too busy scoring touchdown after touchdown against Delaware State and was too busy not generating many scoring chances against LSU and Florida. With the bye week included, that means he's attempted one field goal in nearly a month.

I mean, he's probably attempted a few in practice and everything. But it's still weird.

---

Keys to the game

1. First down

It's always a key, sure, but Missouri's inability to move the ball on first-and-10 has been crippling over the last two games. MTSU's run defense is lacking and could allow the efficient Crockett to have a very big day. But run or pass, the Tigers must generate consistent yardage on first downs. Because MTSU probably will.

Key stat: Standard downs success rate

2. Crockett/Witter vs. Mathers/West

I guess this is almost 1a. Last week, Damarea Crockett and Ish Witter continued to split carries and snaps in Missouri's offense, but Crockett has gained ground quickly, and I would be surprised if he didn't end up carrying a little bit more of the load this week.

Regardless of who's going the carrying, Missouri's backs need to outpace MTSU's. The run is a secondary part of both attacks, but if one team finds a distinct advantage in this department, that team will also likely find the lead.

Key stat(s): RB rushing yards (and yards per carry, an rushing success rate)

3. Field position

In theory, the punters won't play a huge role in this game -- the over/under is 73 points, after all. Still, with two defenses pretty good at preventing big plays, the difference between having to go, say, 65 yards for a touchdown and 75 could become significant. Who's tilting the field in their favor?

Key stat: Average starting field position

4. Havoc

Missouri ranks a disappointing 78th in havoc rate this year (tackles for loss + passes defensed + forced fumbles / total plays), down drastically from 10th in 2015. MTSU, meanwhile, ranks 41st, but against a mostly lower grade of competition. Meanwhile, both offenses have been mostly successful at preventing losses.

If one defense is able to get players into the backfield and/or get hands on passes, that could sway both the turnover and field position battles, among other things. In theory, Missouri has a higher ceiling in this matchup, but ... in theory, I'd have thought there was no way the Tigers would rank 78th right now.

Key stat: Havoc rate

***

I'm feeling strangely confident about this one, despite the one-possession spread and the barely-a-field-goal-ahead S&P+ projection. And I think I feel that way because of what I wrote on Sunday.

Drew Lock’s reads are pretty simple a good portion of the time. The routes in a given play will open up space for one individual matchup. This isn’t unique to Heupel, obviously, but it requires Receiver A to beat Defensive Back B. When it happens, it happens again about 10 seconds later, and 10 seconds after that. Tempo maximizes matchup advantages ... when they exist.

Against lesser teams, Receiver A has been beating DB B in droves. Mizzou’s receivers were far too much for the likes of Eastern Michigan and Delaware State; in these two games, Drew Lock completed 51 of 73 passes for 699 yards, no sacks, and no interceptions. [...]

When receivers are beating defenders, this system works pretty well, even as offensive linemen are still learning how to beat defensive linemen in run blocking. But because the run blocking is still in beginner mode, the only thing this system has right now is the passing game.

Missouri’s receivers can’t beat good defensive backs yet.

Sometimes it just comes down to athletes. MTSU's secondary is far better than that of EMU or Delaware State, but it's still a step down from Florida, LSU, WVU, and Georgia. Nothing against Jeremy Cutrer and Michael Minter, but J'Mon Moore won't be going against Tre'Davious White or Quincy Wilson. Johnathon Johnson, Dimetrios Mason, Emanuel Hall, etc., won't be going against former four-star recruits.

I think that makes the difference. Missouri's secondary will likely make a few mistakes, but I trust the Tiger DBs to tackle mostly well and force MTSU to dink and dunk its way down the field. And I trust Missouri's skill guys to make just enough big plays to carry the day.

It's very, very easy to see how this goes wrong, but this feels like a two-touchdown Mizzou win to me. Here's to hoping, anyway.