Rock M Nation - 2014 SEC Championship: Alabama pulls away for 42-13 win over MissouriA Blog for Ol' Mizzouhttps://cdn.vox-cdn.com/community_logos/50319/rmn-fav.png2014-12-09T08:30:02-06:00http://www.rockmnation.com/rss/stream/70775842014-12-09T08:30:02-06:002014-12-09T08:30:02-06:00Mizzou-Alabama: BTBS
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/EjApDtVrI3Cepmmu2YWXm6QZQzw=/0x0:3802x2535/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/44301202/usa-today-8257132.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Kevin Liles-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Mizzou needed luck, nearly perfect execution, and some Alabama lapses in the SEC Championship game. The Tigers got none of the three.</p> <h3 style="text-align: center;">Alabama 42, Missouri 13</h3>
<p><i>Confused? <a href="http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/10/5389226/college-football-advanced-stats-glossary" target="_blank">Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here</a>.</i></p>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center;"><b>Basics</b></th> <th width="25%" style="text-align: center;"><b> Alabama </b></th> <th width="25%" style="text-align: center;"><b> Missouri </b></th> <th width="20%" style="text-align: center;"><b>Nat'l Avg</b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Total Plays</td>
<td align="center">76</td>
<td align="center">57</td>
<td align="center"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Close Rate (non-garbage time)</td>
<td align="center" colspan="2">89.5%</td>
<td align="center"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Avg Starting FP</b></td>
<td align="center"><b> 29.4 </b></td>
<td align="center"><b> 21.7 </b></td>
<td align="center"><i><b> 30.0 </b></i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Possessions</td>
<td align="center">12</td>
<td align="center">11</td>
<td align="center"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Scoring Opportunities*<br>
</td>
<td align="center">7</td>
<td align="center">3</td>
<td align="center"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Points Per Opportunity</b></td>
<td align="center"><b> 6.00 </b></td>
<td align="center"><b> 4.33 </b></td>
<td align="center"><i><b> 4.65 </b></i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Leverage Rate**</td>
<td align="center">77.9%</td>
<td align="center">54.9%</td>
<td align="center"><i> 68.3% </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Close S&P***</td>
<td align="center">0.626</td>
<td align="center">0.422</td>
<td align="center"><i> 0.506 </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4">
<i>* A scoring opportunity occurs when an offense gets a first down inside the opponent's 40 (or scores from outside the 40).<br>** Leverage Rate = Standard Downs / (Standard Downs + Passing Downs)<br></i><i>*** When using IsoPPP, the S&P formula is (0.8*Success Rate) + (0.2*IsoPPP)</i>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center;"> <b>EqPts (</b><a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/glossary#eqpts" target="_blank">what's this?</a><b>)</b> </th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b> Alabama </b></th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b> Missouri </b></th> <th></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Total</td>
<td align="center">37.1</td>
<td align="center">14.7</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing</td>
<td align="center">19.6</td>
<td align="center">1.3</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing</td>
<td align="center">17.5</td>
<td align="center">13.4</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3"></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center;"> <b>Success Rate (</b><a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/glossary#ncaa_success_rate" target="_blank">what's this?</a><b>)</b> </th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b> Alabama </b></th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b> Missouri </b></th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b>Nat'l Avg</b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>All (close)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b> 58.8% </b></td>
<td align="center"><b> 29.4% </b></td>
<td align="center"><i><b> 41.8% </b></i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing (close)</td>
<td align="center">53.9%</td>
<td align="center">19.1%</td>
<td align="center"><i> 43.2% </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing (close)</td>
<td align="center">65.5%</td>
<td align="center">36.7%</td>
<td align="center"><i> 40.3% </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Standard Downs</td>
<td align="center">64.2%</td>
<td align="center">32.1%</td>
<td align="center"><i> 47.0% </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing Downs</td>
<td align="center">40.0%</td>
<td align="center">26.1%</td>
<td align="center"><i> 30.6% </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center;"> <b>IsoPPP (</b><a href="http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/1/27/5349762/five-factors-college-football-efficiency-explosiveness-isoppp" target="_blank">what's this?</a><b>)</b> </th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b> Alabama </b></th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b> Missouri </b></th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b>Nat'l Avg</b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>All (close)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b> 0.78 </b></td>
<td align="center"><b> 0.93 </b></td>
<td align="center"><i><b> 0.86 </b></i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing (close)</td>
<td align="center">0.65</td>
<td align="center">0.28</td>
<td align="center"><i> 0.74 </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing (close)</td>
<td align="center">0.92</td>
<td align="center">1.17</td>
<td align="center"><i> 0.99 </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Standard Downs</td>
<td align="center">0.76</td>
<td align="center">0.65</td>
<td align="center"><i> 0.77 </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing Downs</td>
<td align="center">0.92</td>
<td align="center">1.35</td>
<td align="center"><i> 1.13 </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="4"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center;"><b>Line Stats</b></th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b> Alabama </b></th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b> Missouri </b></th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b>Nat'l Avg</b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Line Yards/Carry (<a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/glossary#aly" target="_blank">what's this?</a>)</td>
<td align="center">2.94</td>
<td align="center">0.90</td>
<td align="center"><i> 2.92 </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Std. Downs Sack Rt.</td>
<td align="center">0.0%</td>
<td align="center">0.0%</td>
<td align="center"><i> 4.7% </i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Pass. Downs Sack Rt.</td>
<td align="center">25.0%</td>
<td align="center">0.0%</td>
<td align="center"><i> 7.7% </i></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center;"><b>Turnovers</b></th> <th width="25%" style="text-align: center;"><b> Alabama </b></th> <th width="25%" style="text-align: center;"><b> Missouri </b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Turnovers</td>
<td align="center">0</td>
<td align="center">1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Turnover Points (<a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/varsity-numbers/2009/varsity-numbers-talks-turnovers" target="_blank">what's this?</a>)</td>
<td align="center">0.0</td>
<td align="center">4.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Turnover Margin</td>
<td align="center" colspan="2">Alabama +1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Exp. TO Margin</td>
<td align="center" colspan="2">Alabama +0.37</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>TO Luck (Margin vs. Exp. Margin)</td>
<td align="center" colspan="2">Alabama +0.63</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>TO Points Margin</b></td>
<td align="center" colspan="2"><b> Alabama +4.0 points </b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th style="text-align: center;"><b>Situational</b></th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b> Alabama </b></th> <th style="text-align: center;"><b> Missouri </b></th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Q1 S&P</td>
<td align="center">0.578</td>
<td align="center">0.246</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Q2 S&P</td>
<td align="center">0.654</td>
<td align="center">0.425</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Q3 S&P</td>
<td align="center">0.547</td>
<td align="center">0.560</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Q4 S&P</td>
<td align="center">0.822</td>
<td align="center">0.330</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>1st Down S&P</td>
<td align="center">0.658</td>
<td align="center">0.311</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>2nd Down S&P</td>
<td align="center">0.658</td>
<td align="center">0.268</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>3rd Down S&P</td>
<td align="center">0.642</td>
<td align="center">0.615</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3"><b></b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" style="text-align: center;"><b>Projected Scoring Margin: Alabama by 26.5 </b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="3" style="text-align: center;"><b>Actual Scoring Margin: Alabama by 29 </b></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>The dam did eventually break after the game reached garbage-time status. <span>Derrick Henry</span> scored on a 26-yard run to make the score 35-13 (and trigger the garbage-time alarm), then he ripped off a 45-yard run to set up a short touchdown and a 42-13 final. But while the game was in question, Missouri did a strong job of keeping big plays to a minimum -- <span>T.J. Yeldon</span> averaged 3.4 yards per carry, <span>Amari Cooper</span> averaged 5.5 yards per target -- and forcing Alabama to consistently gain four to six yards at a time to move the football. The problem was, Alabama was able to do just that. <a href="http://www.columbiatribune.com/blogs/behind_the_stripes/game-rewind-alabama-missouri/article_d9f279e8-7efd-11e4-a269-3b4e6d490450.html" target="_blank">From David Morrison's Game Rewind</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Alabama came into the SEC title game against, statistically, the best defense in the conference in league play and just shredded it. The Crimson Tide didn't put up the video-game numbers that Auburn did against Missouri last year. Largely, it didn't have to. What it did do was gain at least four yards on 60.5 percent of its plays which, if you can do math, tells you it was doing a good job just clicking off those first downs and methodically gaining ground. The Tide got a first down every 2.7 plays. They converted 9 of 13 on third down -- the best for a Missouri opponent since Texas A&M's 12 of 16 in 2012 -- and 8 of 10 after the first quarter. The ground game played rope-a-dope, basically, for the first three quarters (108 yards, 3.1 a carry), then exploded on a tenderized Missouri defense in the fourth (134 yards, 9.6 a carry). It was a masterful plan from Lane Kiffin executed with brutal aplomb by his players.</p>
</blockquote>
<h3>Keys revisited</h3>
<p><a href="http://www.rockmnation.com/2014/12/5/7337197/alabama-missouri-football-preview-sec-championship" target="_blank">From Friday's preview</a>:</p>
<h4>1. Standard downs success</h4>
<blockquote>
<p>The defense always holds the overall advantage on passing downs, and ... well, Alabama already holds enough defensive advantages. If Missouri can keep the Tide off-balance between run and pass, the Tigers might be able to find ways to consistently gain six yards here and seven there. But there will be only so many rabbits in <span>Maty Mauk's</span> hat in this game. Conserve them.</p>
<p>Similarly, if Alabama is finding Amari Cooper for solid gains on first down, and if T.J. Yeldon and <span>Derrick Henry</span> are gaining six or seven yards instead of three or four, there's really no way Mizzou wins this game. Mizzou must win on standard downs.</p>
<p><i>Key Stat: Standard downs success rate.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>Standard Downs Success Rate: Alabama 64.2%, Missouri 32.1%</b></p>
<p>Well <i>that </i>tells a pretty clear story, doesn't it? Alabama's SD success rate was perfectly double Missouri's. And that was how the Tide won. That Missouri was able to get to within 21-13 in the third quarter says a lot about defensive resiliency (and Jimmie Hunt), and power to the Tigers for winning the third quarter, but Bama's game plan was strong and its execution was stronger.</p>
<h4>2. Turnovers</h4>
<blockquote>
<p>Turnovers are stolen possessions. Whatever Alabama scores per possession, Mizzou will probably need more possessions to match. If Mizzou gets some bounces and creates some easy points (or prevents some), the Tigers can absolutely stick around. If the bounces are going Alabama's way, however...</p>
<p><i>Key Stat: Turnover margin and turnovers luck</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>Turnover margin: Alabama +1<br>Turnovers luck: Alabama +0.63 (which is about 3.2 points)</b></p>
<p>Bama's TO luck wasn't as high as I thought, mainly because the Tide defensed four passes and ended up with zero interceptions (while Missouri defensed zero passes). But Alabama still recovered four of five fumbles; the Tide got exactly the fumbles luck that Missouri needed, especially when you factor in the Jalston Fowler fumble that was neither called nor reviewed. This alone wouldn't have been enough for Missouri to win the game, but it hurt in the exact way it needed to help.</p>
<h4>3. Little Things™</h4>
<blockquote>
<p>I've said it for basically all of conference play, and for the beginning of Mizzou's six-game win streak, the Tigers were among the best LIttle Things teams in the country. Over the last three weeks, they've done Big Things better and completely lost ground in terms of field position and finishing drives. The upset script all but mandates a Tiger win in at least one of these two categories.</p>
<p><i>Key stats: points per scoring opportunity and average starting field position.</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>Points per Scoring Opportunity: Alabama 6.0, Missouri 4.3<br>Average Starting Field Position: Alabama 29.4, Missouri 21.7</b></p>
<p>Yeah. Missouri won none of the categories it needed to win.</p>
<h4>4. Maty vs. Blake</h4>
<blockquote>
<p>In a lot of ways, Maty Mauk and <span>Blake Sims</span> are pretty similar quarterbacks. They have both shown one-read-and-scramble tendencies at times, and they can both do damage to your defense with their legs. Neither is a run-heavy QB, but they pick their spots well.</p>
<p>Sims has been quite a bit more efficient than Mauk this year, and while the reason for that could be as simple as "He has Cooper, and Mauk doesn't," I also think Sims has underrated accuracy and, when his line is protecting him, solid, quick decision-making ability. I've been talking about Sims as a pretty underrated guy all season ... and here's where I hope I'm wrong about him. If Mizzou wins the first three keys on this list, then in theory the Tigers can win even if Sims plays quite a bit better than Mauk. But Mauk probably needs to at least break even here.</p>
<p><i>Key Stat: Passer rating, I guess? INT and sack rates? Really, the eyeball test will work. Just ask yourself who played better at the end of the game. #stats</i></p>
</blockquote>
<p><b>Passer Rating: Sims 191.1, Mauk 124.0</b></p>
<p>I actually thought Maty Mauk played pretty well. He had no receivers open, and he had guys dropping catchable passes early on. He had a couple of bad throws, sure, but he threw some gorgeous deep balls and minimized mistakes for the most part. He took no sacks and threw no picks, and his 124.0 rating (due mostly to said deep balls) was actually his third-highest in nine SEC games.</p>
<p>Mauk was fine, but Sims was great. The game plan gave him a lot of clean, easy passes, but when he needed to make tough passes, he did. His sidearm sling around a rushing <span>Markus Golden</span> was awesome, and when Missouri cut Bama's lead to 21-13, Sims put together one of the best drives you'll ever see. He rushed for six yards on third-and-2, then he hesitated perectly and found Christion Jones for 17 yards on second-and-9. Jones did the work for him on a 17-yard screen pass two plays later, then Sims found Jones again in the flat for what was basically the game=icing touchdown.</p>
<p>Sims had a couple of shaky moments in the first half, but only marginally so. He fed Amari Cooper early and often, and whenever Missouri's attention would drift, he would find Jones or DeAndrew White for bigger gains. He was almost perfect, and there was nothing Missouri could do about it, especially after Shane Ray got sent off.</p>
<h3>Havoc</h3>
<p><b>Havoc Rate: Alabama 19.3% (11 in 57 plays), Missouri 7.9% (6 in 76 plays)</b></p>
<p>Pretty sure that's a season low for Missouri.</p>
<p><b><u>Missouri</u><br>Lucas Vincent 2 (1 sack, 1 non-sack TFL)<br><span>Michael Scherer</span>: 1 (1 FF)<br>Josh Augusta: 1 (1 TFL)<br>Matt Hoch: 1 (1 TFL)<br>Harold Brantley: 0.5 (0.5 sacks)<br><span>Shane Ray</span>: 0.5 (0.5 sacks)</b></p>
<p><b>DL 5, LB 1, DB 0</b></p>
<p>Again, the game plan was strong and well-executed. Alabama negated Missouri's pass rush with a steady stream of quick passing and screens. Missouri had no chance of defensing any of those short passes, and the cumulative effect of those passes was that receivers could occasionally find more open space downfield. And Sims' accuracy assured that Missouri had no Havoc effect whatsoever beyond the line of scrimmage.</p>
<p><b><u>Alabama<br></u><span>A'Shawn Robinson</span>: 3 (3 TFL)<br><span>Landon Collins</span>: 2 (1 TFL, 1 FF)<br><span>Jarran Reed</span>: 2 (2 TFL)<br><span>Geno Smith</span>: 1 (1 PBU)<br><span>Trey DePriest</span>: 1 (1 PBU)<br><span>Eddie Jackson</span>: 1 (1 PBU)<br><span>Nick Perry</span>: 1 (1 PBU)</b></p>
<p><b>DL 5, LB 1, DB 5</b></p>
<p>Alabama's and Missouri's respective front sevens produced the same amount of havoc (though, granted, Bama's did it in fewer plays). The difference was the secondary. The only separation Mizzou receivers could find was 40 yards downfield. And because A'Shawn Robinson was a monster at the line of scrimmage, that left the Tigers with no easy options.</p>
<h3>Targets & Catches</h3>
<p><b><u>Missouri<br></u>Jimmie Hunt: 6-for-9, 169 yards (18.8)<br><span>Bud Sasser</span>: 5-for-9, 31 yards (3.4), 1 TD<br><span>Darius White</span>: 3-for-7, 56 yards (8.0)<br><span>Marcus Murphy</span>: 1-for-3, 11 yards (3.7)<br><span>Sean Culkin</span>: 1-for-4, 5 yards (1.3)<br><span>Russell Hansbrough</span>: 0-for-1<br><span>J'Mon Moore</span>: 0-for-1</b></p>
<p><b>WRs: 14-for-26, 256 yards (9.8)<br>TEs: 1-for-4, 5 yards (1.3)<br>RBs: 1-for-4, 11 yards (2.8)</b></p>
<p>The receivers weren't efficient (54 percent catch rate), but thanks mostly to Hunt, they did their part to some degree. But eight passes to tight ends and running backs gained 16 yards. Meanwhile...</p>
<p><b><u>Alabama<br></u>Amari Cooper: 12-for-15, 83 yards (5.5)<br><span>DeAndrew White</span>: 4-for-5, 101 yards (20.2), 1 TD<br><span>Christion Jones</span>: 3-for-3, 40 yards (13.3), 1 TD<br><span>O.J. Howard</span>: 2-for-2, 20 yards (10.0)<br><span>Jalston Fowler</span>: 1-for-1, 13 yards<br><span>Brian Vogler</span>: 1-for-1, 5 yards</b></p>
<p><b>WRs: 19-for-23, 224 yards (9.7)<br>TEs: 3-for-3, 25 yards (8.3)<br>RBs: 1-for-1, 13 yards</b></p>
<p>...four Alabama passes to tight ends and running backs gained 38 yards. Alabama had the big plays <i>and</i> the bailout options. Oh yeah, and the best receiver in the country. That adds up.</p>
<p>***</p>
<p>Missouri made mistakes and got some unlucky bounces. This result could have been closer had the Tigers held onto passes, not committed a stupid late hit/targeting penalty, and actually fallen on loose balls. But Alabama was just better. Obviously. The Tide have been the most consistently good team in the country this year, and they played like it on Saturday. Mizzou needed luck, nearly perfect execution, and some Alabama lapses. The Tigers got none of the three.</p>
https://www.rockmnation.com/2014/12/9/7354135/alabama-missouri-football-score-stats-recapBill Connelly2014-12-07T13:49:59-06:002014-12-07T13:49:59-06:00Missouri Heads to the Who Gives a Damn Bowl
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/fuPXBNHitgqpv7duYIgI9RQDSAI=/6x0:2697x1794/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/44290780/460070734.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Scott Cunningham/Getty Images</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>"Not quite ready to punch with the heavyweights" edition.</p> <p>Today is for licking wounds. Since I'm also an Arizona alum I am already in a fairly philosophical place after being on the ass end of a conference title game beat down on Friday.</p>
<p>I can't blame anyone who isn't exactly jubilant about Missouri football right now, but it's hardly a day for hanging heads. There is work yet to be done. The game itself should be easily enough dispensed with; Missouri is not a program in the same league as Alabama. We can quibble about plays not made here or there (poor <span>Charles Harris</span>, in the open field with <span>Amari Cooper</span>; rotten fumble luck) but a blowout was always the most likely outcome. But consider this.</p>
<h4>2014 Was Supposed To Be A Re-Tooling Year</h4>
<p>Let that sink in for a second.</p>
<p>Following the 2013 SEC title game loss to Auburn many of us were saying that after a magical season when everything kind of came together 2014 had the potential to be something of a take-a-step-back-while-inexperienced-guys-develop kind of year. I mean, sure, we knew <span>Markus Golden</span> and <span>Shane Ray</span> would be good. But what about their backups? Who could replace <span>E.J. Gaines</span> at corner? Mauk-to-DGB would just have to be unstoppable for Missouri to be decent.</p>
<p>In many ways 2014 really has been precisely about developing inexperienced guys. We didn't know <i>exactly</i> what we'd get from guys like <span>Michael Scherer</span>, <span>Aarion Penton</span>, Tayor Chappell, et al. in expanded roles, and they're the difference between six, eight, and 10 flawed wins. When those guys play their last game for Mizzou (barring the unforeseen) we'll be saying, "Seems like they've been here nine years." Well, <i>that's</i> what player development looks like. It's easy to take for granted.</p>
<p>Living in Columbia East I can tell you first hand the Gamecock faithful would have crawled over broken glass for the season Mizzou just had. That is to say nothing of Georgia fans. Seems ages ago, but South Carolina began the season No. 9 with unproven guys stepping into new or expanded roles. It went how those kinds of seasons can go. They have some talent, but the young guys on defense really took their lumps. It can happen. Georgia lost guys to suspension expected to contribute, just like Mizzou. The Dawgs played just inconsistently enough to be left scratching their collective head about what might have been.</p>
<h4>Lots Left to Play For</h4>
<p>I am not a playoff proponent. In fact, I refuse to even call what college football has a playoff. When a committee invites participants based on criteria that are not known a priori, and without automatic bids for conference champions, what you have is a <i><b>post-season invitational </b></i>not a playoff.</p>
<p>If nothing else though, college football's rampant inequality is now entirely de-mystified. College football showers royalty programs with ENORMOUS legacy benefits while layering on disadvantages for middle-class programs. Things like recruiting, which is the lifeblood of the sport, can turn based on the program doing the recruiting. Three-stars become four-stars based on who is recruiting, which is a function of being seen in the first place. Then those rankings become self-propelling (if not self-aware) markers of program quality.</p>
<p>I used to get so annoyed by fans of royalty programs. But, in an odd way their obnoxiousness and seeming arrogance is the natural outgrowth of so much built-in advantage. Why would they be interested in anything less than a conference title, and eventually even kinda take that for granted? Even when royalty programs fall on legitimately hard times, like at Michigan, college football can be very forgiving. Who doubts that with a prudent hire they can't be back in the hunt for a B1G title in 3-5 years?</p>
<p>College football is far more hostile to solidly middle-class programs like Missouri. Every winning (i.e., bowl eligible) season is precious. Fans certainly do not have the luxury of taking any 9 or 10 win season for granted. Winning and developing pro talent are the only ways middle-class programs get to move to a better neighborhood, and even then it's not a sure thing.</p>
<p>Look at Auburn, an upper-middle-class program that's never been quite accepted by the blue bloods. On the other hand, not winning guarantees slippage. Texas can afford a down season while Charlie Strong cleans house. Even if he doesn't work out they'll bounce back if they hit on a QB. I'd go so far as to say Missouri had to win the East in 2013 to offset 2012, which was a near fatal blow to everything Pinkel had built.</p>
<p>For a program like Missouri, every trip to the Who Gives a Damn Bowl is invaluable in the program's development. Fans of this kind of program have to help build it. They have to show out when Game Day comes to campus, and sell out the bowl games. They don't get to sit back and grouse about why the championships aren't just rolling in. So, shake it off. Get your game faces back on. It doesn't matter who the team plays in the bowl game or where. We ain't got it like that yet. It's all about getting that extra win. That could be the difference in getting one more recruit's eyes on the program, or from straying.</p>
<p>(And would it kill you to send a note to Terry Beckner, Jr. to wish him luck on final exams?)</p>
https://www.rockmnation.com/2014/12/7/7347509/alabama-missouri-football-recap-thoughtsdcrockett172014-12-07T07:40:13-06:002014-12-07T07:40:13-06:00Game plans, Jimmie, and 2015
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/Z06qKMzklKJzcjfjpAftIwzr9ug=/0x72:2643x1834/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/44289392/usa-today-8254804.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Jason Getz-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Alabama's defense forces you to pick your poison while drawing up an offensive gameplan, and Mizzou picked a particularly poisonous poison. Plus, Jimmie Hunt is finishing incredibly strong, and 2015: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯</p> <p>I'm almost thankful to Alabama for putting the game away the moment Missouri got it back to eight points. I had held off on getting my hopes up to any major degree yet, but if Mizzou had gotten the ball <i>back</i> down just one possession, my brain would have taken me to places I wasn't prepared to go. But Blake Sims put together a <i>ridiculously</i> good drive to put Bama up 28-13, and that was that.</p>
<p>Some thoughts:</p>
<h3>1. The wide run wasn't there (and was never going to be there)</h3>
<p>On both offense and defense, Nick Saban's Crimson Tide are really good at forcing you to beat them, to outman them, to win the game. You aren't going to simply trick your way to success, you have to make plays. They <i>can</i> be beaten, of course, but it takes a lot. They might occasionally beat themselves if you stop them enough times (Auburn 2013). Or maybe your quarterback simply goes nuts (A&M 2012) or your pass rush overwhelms their offensive line (OU 2013). But you need a bunch of guys making huge plays. Mizzou had ... one? Two?</p>
<p>Lane Kiffin's offensive game plan focuses on getting the ball to five-star athletes as quickly as possible and forcing you to stop them over and over again. It's hard to do, especially when one of your two best players misses the last 40 minutes of the game. But the defense is even harder to beat, especially on the ground. You can't run straight at them, and you <i>really </i>can't beat them to the corner. Gameplanning against this defense basically comes down to a few "Well, this probably won't work, but I guess we'll probably need to try it" ideas.</p>
<p>The Missouri staff seemed to decide that the only way the Tigers were going to score enough points to beat Alabama was if the offensive line was able to hold its blocks for a super-human amount of time. I can't blame them for this. When you suffer three drops (I think) in the first three drives, you learn pretty quickly that you're not going to win by throwing the ball. But the number of run plays that seemed to be intentionally strung out wide confused me a bit. There were some others that seemed UNintentionally strung out wide, as well, but it seemed that Mizzou was hoping its tackles could seal the edge long enough for <span>Marcus Murphy</span> or <span>Russell Hansbrough</span> to poke around the corner. Didn't happen.</p>
<p>Again, nothing else really worked either, besides "Have Maty run around, then heave the ball to <span>Jimmie Hunt</span>." But this was an aspect of the plan that surprised me. And considering Mizzou all but removed it from the playbook at halftime, it seems the staff was at least a little bit surprised that it didn't work.</p>
<p>I don't know if this is a complaint, critique, or something else. We'll just call it an observation. Mizzou didn't have the manpower on offense to beat Alabama no matter what it did.The offensive line couldn't beat Alabama's defensive line, the running backs couldn't break the linebackers' tackles, and the receivers couldn't beat Alabama's defensive backs within 40 yards of the line of scrimmage. And "heave it to Hunt" was probably not going to work much longer. Still, I was surprised that they even attempted to beat Bama out wide with the run. I was hoping for three to five yards at a time between the tackles (which didn't happen), but I could have guaranteed wide runs weren't going to work. Alas.</p>
<h3>2. I'm really, really happy for Jimmie Hunt</h3>
<p>Passes to Jimmie Hunt were 6-for-9 for 169 yards. Passes to everybody else were 10-for-23 for 103 yards. Mizzou needed quite a few players to step up if they were going to score the 20- or 30-plus it was going to take to win the game. Marcus Murphy had his moments, but really, Hunt was the only one who came up big. And while it came in a losing effort, wow, am I happy for Jimmie.</p>
<p>I took up residence in the front car of the Jimmie Hunt bandwagon way back in 2011. He didn't get many touches in his first two seasons, but he made the most of them. One catch for 54 yards in 2011, 11 catches for 199 yards plus a kick return in 2012. Missouri's coaches aren't idiots, so clearly if he wasn't seeing the field much, there was a reason, be they bad practice habits, drops, blocking, or simply not being as consistently good as the guys ahead of him. Still, he was tantalizing, and I hoped he would put everything together at some point.</p>
<p>In 2013, he got hurt in the offseason, put on a little weight, and carved out a niche as a blocker and, basically, the No. 5 receiver. He had a big catch against Florida and ended up with 22 catches for 253 yards, but he struggled with drops at times, and his top-end speed seemed a lot lower than it had been.</p>
<p>This year started out as you always hope your senior year will. With Mizzou's offense averaging 38 points per game in non-conference play, Hunt caught 16 passes for 198 yards and five scores. Projected over 14 games, that's a pace for 56 catches, 700 yards, and 20+ TDs. That's a solid senior season for a team that was desperately in need of guys stepping up in the receiving corps. But he suffered an injury in practice before the South Carolina game, and while he only missed one game, he caught just five balls over the four games that followed. Either because he wasn't completely past the injury or he lost concentration, he started dropping quite a few balls -- one of <span>Maty Mauk's</span> interceptions against Georgia went right through his hands.</p>
<p>Then, redemption. After Mizzou's second bye week, Hunt went off. Five catches for 85 yards against A&M. Three for 106 and what was eventually the game-clinching touchdown against Tennessee. Five for 61 against Arkansas in a game that featured both regression (bad early drops) and redemption (a huge, late, 44-yard catch). And, of course, six for 169 in the SEC Championship game. (Remember Dorial Green-Beckham's huge SECCG game against Auburn last year? DGB had six catches for only 144 in that game.)</p>
<p>Hunt has one more game left in his Missouri career, but wow, what a way to finish up. He caught 19 balls for 421 yards in his final four regular season games, and while he couldn't beat Alabama by himself, his late-season improvement was one of the primary reasons why Mizzou was able to win the last three games to reach the SECCG in the first place. His is a story of perseverance, and I'm happy the entire nation got to see him playing so well in his second-to-last game.</p>
<h3>3. I have no idea what to think about next year</h3>
<p>You know how I operate by now. The moment a late-season loss more-or-less sets Missouri's postseason fate, my mind begins to drift toward the future. And I'm pretty sure the first thing I always say when thinking about next year is, "I have no idea what to think about next year." Still ... I have no idea!</p>
<p>I'm struggling to think of a Missouri team that has been as strange a mix of experience and inexperience as the one that will take the field next year. Barring transfer/discipline, the Tigers are going to head into 2015 with...</p>
<ul>
<li>A quarterback who has started 18 games.</li>
<li>A 1,000 yard rusher (assuming Russell Hansbrough gains 30 yards in the bowl game).</li>
<li>Nine offensive linemen from the year-end two-deep and five with starting experience (97 career starts).</li>
<li>Two of the SEC's best play-making defensive tackles (<span>Harold Brantley</span> and <span>Josh Augusta</span>).</li>
<li>All three starting linebackers, including leading tacklers <span>Kentrell Brothers</span> and Mike Scherer.</li>
<li>Every cornerback.</li>
<li>A safety with two years of starts and/or starter minutes (<span>Ian Simon</span>).</li>
</ul>
<p>That's a lot! That's a HELL of a lot, actually!</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and Missouri will also be hitting the field with...</p>
<ul>
<li>Wide receivers who have, to date, a combined nine receptions to their name.</li>
<li>No Markus Golden and (we assume) <span>Shane Ray</span>.</li>
</ul>
<p>Missouri is going to be loaded with experience in nearly every unit ... and is going to have almost no experience whatsoever at wide receiver and defensive end. From a pure assets perspective, the Tigers are going to have a lot of them as they try to win a third straight division title. But they have two voids they're going to have to work around. It's a non-rebuild rebuild. And I have no idea what that means for expectations as a whole.</p>
<p>It is, of course, going to mean that most are going to predict Mizzou fifth or sixth in the East again. But by this point, I assume you would expect no less. What it means for <i>reality</i>, though, I'm honestly not sure.</p>
<p>At the very least, it's nice to realize that Maty Mauk has eight months to develop a rapport with <span>Nate Brown</span>, Wes Leftwich, <span>J'Mon Moore</span> (who managed to pack an egregiously awful performance into just a handful of snaps yesterday), and the trio of reshirting freshmen, and that he did a pretty good job of doing the same with <span>Bud Sasser</span>, Hunt, and <span>Darius White</span> this past offseason. Still ... yikes. The running game should be strong, the run defense should be strong, and the secondary should be as active and deep as ever despite losing <span>Braylon Webb</span> and Duron Singleton. But the entire personality of the defense is going to change without Golden and Ray (and Webb), and ... at some point you're going to have to pass. It's going to be an interesting spring. (It usually is.)</p>
<p>But that's enough 2015 talk! Mizzou has one more game left in the 2014 season, and we'll find out who and where the Tigers will be playing in a few hours.</p>
https://www.rockmnation.com/2014/12/7/7347483/missouri-alabama-sec-championship-jimmie-hunt-maty-maukBill Connelly2014-12-06T18:38:00-06:002014-12-06T18:38:00-06:00Bama pulls away to win SEC
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/R35ZaGUIxDcVB4NbjLVdN1-_X2c=/0x112:1964x1421/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/44288112/460065008.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Scott Cunningham/Getty Images</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It went without saying that Missouri needed a good start if the Tigers wanted a chance to win the 2014 SEC Championship game against Alabama. Instead, Missouri's offense went three-and-out three times in four possessions, the Tigers got destroyed in the early field position battle, and when <span>Blake Sims</span> found <span>DeAndrew White</span> on a play-action touchdown bomb, <span>Shane Ray</span> got penalized for targeting and ejected from the game. It was 14-0 at that point, and it was 21-3 at halftime.</p>
<p>To Missouri's credit, the Tigers bounced back. They scored 10 third-quarter points to make it 21-13 heading into the fourth quarter, but they were out of tricks. The offense stalled, the defense wore out, and Alabama pulled away for a 42-13 win. <span>Jimmie Hunt</span> (six catches, 169 yards) had a career game, and for the second straight year, Mizzou was within one possession heading into the fourth quarter, but the Tigers just didn't have enough weapons to keep up for 60 minutes.</p>
<p>Basically, Missouri needed to win the field position battle and didn't, needed a huge game from Shane Ray and <span>Markus Golden</span> and didn't get it, needed consistent three- to five-yard gains from the running game and didn't get them, and needed the breaks of the bouncing balls and didn't get them. That's how you lose by 29 points to the No. 1 team in the country.</p>
<p>Missouri is a tough-as-hell team, one that will get a chance to finish 11-3 in what will likely be a pretty good bowl game. But Alabama has been the best team in the country to date and played like it today. Missouri fought, scrapped, and came up short.</p>
<p>More thoughts tomorrow. For now, be nice to each other. The better team won, but your team is full of fighters.</p>
https://www.rockmnation.com/2014/12/6/7346231/alabama-missouri-sec-championship-score-recapBill Connelly2014-12-05T10:58:44-06:002014-12-05T10:58:44-06:00The Mizzou-Alabama preview
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ofmNrx9Fmfy3-PxNoEV8pRkz-Lc=/0x362:3456x2666/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/44278440/454207039.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Using weekly F/+ odds, Missouri had only a 2.5 percent chance of winning six in a row to reach the SEC Championship game. The Tigers have a 10 percent chance of beating Alabama -- might as well just give 'em the rings now.</p> <p><i>Confused? <a href="http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/10/5389226/college-football-advanced-stats-glossary" target="_blank">Visit the Advanced Stats glossary here</a>.</i></p>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">Alabama vs. Missouri<br>
</h3>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td align="center"><b></b></td>
<td align="center"><b>Record</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>CFP<br>Rank</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>F/+ Rk</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>Off. F/+ Rk<br></b></td>
<td align="center"><b>Def. F/+ Rk</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>ST F/+ Rk</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Alabama</td>
<td align="right">11-1</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
<td align="right">1</td>
<td align="right">4</td>
<td align="right">3</td>
<td align="right">92</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Missouri</td>
<td align="right">10-2</td>
<td align="right">16</td>
<td align="right">31</td>
<td align="right">57</td>
<td align="right">14</td>
<td align="right">43</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/12/4/7333805/college-football-projections-predictions-championship-weekend"><b>F/+ projection: Alabama 33, Missouri 4 (win probability: Alabama 89.5%)</b></a></p>
<p>So ... Alabama is probably going to win this game. No matter where we want to start with the analysis, we should very much keep that in mind. Even though the F/+ win probabilities have had a bit of a shaky performance in recent weeks, a 90% chance of winning is really high. At worst, we're talking more like 80-85%. Missouri is good, Alabama is really good.</p>
<p>It is reassuring, however, to see that the Beating Alabama script for Missouri is pretty clear. Mizzou has a really, really good defensive line. Alabama has a quarterback who can be rattled. Missouri does have a run game that can carve out three to five yards at a time even if it isn't breaking off big plays. And while Missouri's special teams unit has taken a nose-dive recently, Alabama's own special teams (sans punting) has been at a low level all year. You can pretty easily craft a scenario in which Missouri slows the Bama run game down, forces turnovers, and holds its own in the field position battle. Finish drives well, avoid turning the ball right back over, and voila. You're in position for an upset.</p>
<p>Alabama will likely win, but at least Missouri knows exactly how it <i>can</i> win. That's a serious plus, especially from an analysis perspective.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">When Alabama Has The Ball…</h3>
<p><i>NOTE: Below, I'm using IsoPPP instead of PPP, as I have used in the past. For more on IsoPPP, <a href="http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/1/27/5349762/five-factors-college-football-efficiency-explosiveness-isoppp" target="_blank">click here</a>. The idea was to create an explosiveness measure that is separated from Success Rate, an efficiency measure. It basically asks, "When a team is successful, how successful are they?" It measures the magnitude of the big plays, and I love it ... but early in the season, a very small number of big plays can skew things pretty dramatically.</i></p>
<p><i>ONE MORE NOTE: Keep in mind when you look at these numbers that Success Rate carries more weight than IsoPPP. Before the size of the successful play matters, you have to have successful plays. When I come up with an effective way to incorporate IsoPPP into my overall S&P+ formulas, Success Rate will likely carry 70-85% of the overall weight of the formula. If you can be good at either Success Rate or IsoPPP, you're going to choose Success Rate.</i></p>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr align="center">
<td colspan="4"><b>Standard Downs</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><b></b></td>
<td align="center"><b>UA Offense</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>MU Defense</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>Advantage</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SD % Run</td>
<td align="center">59.3% (60th)</td>
<td><br></td>
<td align="center"><br></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>S&P+</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>135.3 (2nd)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>118.5 (17th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>push</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Success Rate</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>53.4% (12th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>43.1% (27th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>push</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>IsoPPP</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>0.88 (16th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>0.68 (24th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>push</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing Success Rate</td>
<td align="center">53.2% (17th)</td>
<td align="center">40.2% (20th)</td>
<td align="center">push</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing IsoPPP</td>
<td align="center">0.72 (44th)</td>
<td align="center">0.65 (59th)</td>
<td align="center">push</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing Success Rate</td>
<td align="center">53.5% (16th)</td>
<td align="center">47.2% (81st)</td>
<td align="center">UA big</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing IsoPPP</td>
<td align="center">1.12 (19th)</td>
<td align="center">0.72 (6th)</td>
<td align="center">push</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>It's pretty incredible this matchup is. Any matchup where the two units are ranked within 20 spots of each other is deemed a push, and almost every matchup here is a push. Now, one has to remember that Alabama suffered some line injuries in October and were pretty unstable there for a couple/few games; of course, one also has to remember that <span>Markus Golden</span> was less than full strength for half the year. We'll consider that a wash, I guess. Both of these units looked awfully good last week.</p>
<p>The primary concern from these numbers comes in Alabama's standard downs passing game. Mizzou's passing success rate here has improved in recent weeks, but it's still easily the lowest rated aspect of Mizzou's defensive attack. The Tigers don't give up big plays, but they'll give you the short stuff. And the Tide will take a <i>ton</i> of short stuff if you let them. And by "short stuff," I mean "short stuff to Amari Cooper."</p>
<p><u>Targets & Catches</u><br><span>Amari Cooper</span>: 96 targets, 65 catches (68%), 1,072 yards (11.2 per target), 12 TD<br><span>DeAndrew White</span>: 36 targets, 22 catches (61%), 203 yards (5.6), 3 TD<br><span>Christion Jones</span>: 18 targets, 12 catches (67%), 195 yards (10.8)<br><span>T.J. Yeldon</span> (RB): 13 targets, 7 catches (54%), 65 yards (5.0)<br><span>Jalston Fowler</span> (FB): 13 targets, 7 catches (54%), 93 yards (7.2), 2 TD<br><span>Chris Black</span>: 12 targets, 9 catches (75%), 115 yards (9.6)<br><span>O.J. Howard</span> (TE): 10 targets, 7 catches (70%), 126 yards (12.6)</p>
<p>That really is an incredible distribution. White, Jones, Yeldon, Fowler, Black, and Howard have combined for 99 targets on standard downs ... three more than Cooper. I called this a Bellcow offense yesterday, and Cooper is the chief steer. Alabama will still run the ball as frequently as you allow, but as good as Yeldon and <span>Derrick Henry</span> are, that is, to me, a secondary concern to what Bama does with Cooper. The big plays come from the passing game.</p>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr align="center">
<td colspan="4"><b>Passing Downs</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><b></b></td>
<td align="center"><b>UA Offense</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>MU Defense</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>Advantage</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>PD % Run</td>
<td align="right" style="text-align: center;">36.6% (37th)</td>
<td align="right"><br></td>
<td align="center"><br></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>S&P+</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>140.4 (10th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>144.8 (8th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>push</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Success Rate</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>38.6% (8th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>23.4% (9th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>push</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>IsoPPP</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>1.05 (92nd)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>0.99 (14th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>MU big</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing Success Rate</td>
<td align="center">32.4% (32nd)</td>
<td align="center">22.4% (36th)</td>
<td align="center">push</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing IsoPPP</td>
<td align="center">1.13 (57th)</td>
<td align="center">0.97 (30th)</td>
<td align="center">MU</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing Success Rate</td>
<td align="center">42.2% (5th)</td>
<td align="center">23.8% (8th)</td>
<td align="center">push</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing IsoPPP</td>
<td align="center">1.01 (95th)</td>
<td align="center">1.00 (30th)</td>
<td align="center">MU big</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><u>Targets & Catches</u><br>Amari Cooper: 50 targets, 38 catches (76%), 501 yards (10.0), 2 TD<br>DeAndrew White: 19 targets, 11 catches (58%), 135 yards (7.1)<br>O.J. Howard (TE): 11 targets, 6 catches (55%), 100 yards (9.1)<br>T.J. Yeldon (RB): 11 targets, 8 catches (73%), 115 yards (10.5)<br>Christion Jones: 9 targets, 4 catches (44%), 29 yards (3.2)</p>
<p>Hey look: more pushes! Alabama makes a concerted effort to protect <span>Blake Sims</span>, giving him quick looks as often as possible. That tamps down opponents' sack rates, but it also prevents most big-play potential. Cooper is averaging 16.5 yards per catch on standard downs, but he's getting just 13.2 per catch on passing downs.</p>
<p>The big plays come on first down or on second-and-short. On third-and-9, Alabama's looking to get nine yards. And that's fine -- the Tide are pretty good at getting just that. They're eighth in the country in passing downs success rate despite minimal efficiency. But it will be interesting to see how this approach meshes with Missouri's; the Tigers have managed to combine strong efficiency (thanks mostly to an effective pass rush) and strong big-play numbers (thanks mostly to strong tackling across the board). Does Mizzou have to take some risks to prevent passing downs conversions? If so, does that open up big-play opportunities for an offense bereft of them in these situations?</p>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">When Missouri Has The Ball…</h3>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr align="center">
<td colspan="4"><b>Standard Downs</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><b></b></td>
<td align="center"><b>MU Offense</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>UA Defense</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>Advantage</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>SD % Run</td>
<td align="right" style="text-align: center;">59.3% (60th)</td>
<td align="right"><br></td>
<td align="center"><br></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>S&P+</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>100.6 (69th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>132.7 (5th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>UA big</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Success Rate</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>46.7% (69th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>40.0% (8th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>UA big</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>IsoPPP</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>0.72 (91st)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>0.62 (7th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>UA big</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing Success Rate</td>
<td align="center">50.0% (39th)</td>
<td align="center">35.2% (1st)</td>
<td align="center">UA</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing IsoPPP</td>
<td align="center">0.61 (96th)</td>
<td align="center">0.38 (1st)</td>
<td align="center">UA big</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing Success Rate</td>
<td align="center">41.8% (102nd)</td>
<td align="center">46.2% (65th)</td>
<td align="center">UA</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing IsoPPP</td>
<td align="center">0.90 (68th)</td>
<td align="center">0.86 (53rd)</td>
<td align="center">push</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Yeah ... fewer pushes now. Safe to say, Missouri won't be ripping off many big runs against Alabama, huh?</p>
<p>One of the keys to this game will be standard downs success rate. Mizzou has rebounded significantly on passing downs; the Tigers were woeful in that regard for much of the year and have gotten back to figuring out ways to move the chains on third-and-6. That's great. But you're probably not going to want to test Alabama on third-and-6 (or more) very often. Maty Mauk can dig his way out of some passing downs, but not a <i>ton</i> of passing downs. So however you choose to attack Alabama, you need to make sure you're getting four or five yards pretty frequently. If Marcus Murphy and Russell Hansbrough are carving out some space between the tackles, great. If Sean Culkin catches 15 passes for 68 yards, fine.</p>
<p>Along these same lines ... no false starts, please. You got them all out of your system over the last couple of months, guys, right? If Gary Pinkel is saying "That's just Missouri beating Missouri" in the post-game show, Mizzou lost. No way does Missouri beat Missouri <i>and</i> Alabama on Saturday.</p>
<p><u>Targets & Catches</u><br><span>Bud Sasser</span>: 68 targets, 42 catches (62%), 514 yards (7.6 per target), 5 TD<br><span>Jimmie Hunt</span>: 28 targets, 17 catches (61%), 211 yards (7.5), 5 TD<br><span>Darius White</span>: 28 targets, 17 catches (61%), 193 yards (6.9), 3 TD<br><span>Marcus Murphy</span> (RB): 22 targets, 16 catches (73%), 120 yards (5.5)<br><span>Sean Culkin</span> (TE): 22 targets, 9 catches (41%), 68 yards (3.1), 1 TD</p>
<p>Mizzou's pass efficiency on standard downs has had some ... hiccups this year. Part of that is, as we've discussed before, <span>Maty Mauk's</span> own mechanics and his struggles to throw shorter passes with the accuracy they need. Part of it is that his supporting cast of underneath-the-coverage receivers hasn't been great. Whatever the reason ... it can't be a reason on Saturday. If Mizzou elects to throw short, quick passes, Mauk has to get them to the receiver accurately, and the receiver has to catch it. No margin for error this time.</p>
<table border="1">
<tbody>
<tr align="center">
<td colspan="4"><b>Passing Downs</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td align="center"><b></b></td>
<td align="center"><b>MU Offense</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>UA Defense</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>Advantage</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>PD % Run</td>
<td align="right" style="text-align: center;">38.3% (29th)</td>
<td align="right"><br></td>
<td align="center"><br></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>S&P+</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>104.0 (57th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>127.8 (16th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>UA</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>Success Rate</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>32.4% (49th)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>29.1% (53rd)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>push</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><b>IsoPPP</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>1.08 (83rd)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>1.01 (21st)</b></td>
<td align="center"><b>UA big</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing Success Rate</td>
<td align="center">30.6% (49th)</td>
<td align="center">29.4% (82nd)</td>
<td align="center">MU</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Rushing IsoPPP</td>
<td align="center">1.02 (80th)</td>
<td align="center">0.76 (1st)</td>
<td align="center">UA big</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing Success Rate</td>
<td align="center">33.5% (57th)</td>
<td align="center">29.0% (37th)</td>
<td align="center">push</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Passing IsoPPP</td>
<td align="center">1.12 (75th)</td>
<td align="center">1.11 (61st)</td>
<td align="center">push</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>Because of a mediocre-at-best pass rush, Alabama has struggled at times on passing downs. You're not going to break a 30-yard run on them on such downs, but you can find some room to run, and you can perhaps break a big play or two. This is only a very good passing downs defense, not an elite one.</p>
<p>Again, I think Mizzou can make up ground on some passing downs ... the key is obviously not having to do it very often.</p>
<p><u>Targets & Catches</u><br>Bud Sasser: 38 targets, 23 catches (61%), 384 yards (10.1 per target), 4 TD<br>Jimmie Hunt: 30 targets, 17 catches (57%), 318 yards (10.6), 2 TD<br>Sean Culkin (TE): 17 targets, 9 catches (53%), 100 yards (5.9)<br>Marcus Murphy (RB): 16 targets, 9 catches (56%), 65 yards (4.1), 1 TD<br><span>Darius White</span>: 12 targets, 9 catches (75%), 125 yards (10.4), 1 TD<br><span>Russell Hansbrough</span> (RB): 11 targets, 6 catches (55%), 2 yards (0.2)</p>
<p>Sasser, Hunt, and White are averaging a lovely 10.3 yards per target on passing downs. They are not as athletic as Auburn's Sammie Coates and <span>Duke Williams</span>, but it's not out of the realm of possibility that the Tigers could hit on a big pass play or two. No drops, please.</p>
<h3>Summary</h3>
<p>So here are the key factors:</p>
<h4><b>1. Standard downs success</b></h4>
<p>The defense always holds the overall advantage on passing downs, and ... well, Alabama already holds enough defensive advantages. If Missouri can keep the Tide off-balance between run and pass, the Tigers might be able to find ways to consistently gain six yards here and seven there. But there will be only so many rabbits in Maty Mauk's hat in this game. Conserve them.</p>
<p>Similarly, if Alabama is finding Amari Cooper for solid gains on first down, and if T.J. Yeldon and <span>Derrick Henry</span> are gaining six or seven yards instead of three or four, there's really no way Mizzou wins this game. Mizzou must win on standard downs.</p>
<p><i>Key Stat: Standard downs success rate.</i></p>
<h4><b>2. Turnovers</b></h4>
<p>Turnovers are stolen possessions. Whatever Alabama scores per possession, Mizzou will probably need more possessions to match. If Mizzou gets some bounces and creates some easy points (or prevents some), the Tigers can absolutely stick around. If the bounces are going Alabama's way, however...</p>
<p><i>Key Stat: Turnover margin and turnovers luck</i></p>
<h4>3. Little Things™</h4>
<table style="text-align: center;" border="1">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td style="text-align: center;" colspan="3"><b>Field Position</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;" colspan="3"><b>Finishing Drives</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td></td>
<td>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Avg. FP</b></div>
<b>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>(Off)</b></div>
</b>
</td>
<td>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Avg. FP</b></div>
<b>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>(Def)</b></div>
</b>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>MARGIN</b></td>
<td>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Pts. Per</b></div>
<b>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Scoring Opp.</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>(Off)</b></div>
</b>
</td>
<td>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Pts. Per</b></div>
<b>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Scoring Opp</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>(Def)</b></div>
</b>
</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>MARGIN</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Alabama</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">30.8 (51st)</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">28.0 (33rd)</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>+2.7 (38th)</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">4.8 (33rd)</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">3.2 (3rd)</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>+1.6 (2nd)</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="text-align: left;">Missouri</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">29.6 (79th)</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">29.8 (69th)</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>-0.2 (79th)</b></td>
<td style="text-align: center;">4.7 (41st)</td>
<td style="text-align: center;">3.9 (30th)</td>
<td style="text-align: center;"><b>+0.8 (19th)</b></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>I've said it for basically all of conference play, and for the beginning of Mizzou's six-game win streak, the Tigers were among the best LIttle Things teams in the country. Over the last three weeks, they've done Big Things better and completely lost ground in terms of field position and finishing drives. The upset script all but mandates a Tiger win in at least one of these two categories.</p>
<p><i>Key stats: points per scoring opportunity and average starting field position</i>.</p>
<h4><b>4. Maty vs. Blake</b></h4>
<p>In a lot of ways, Maty Mauk and Blake Sims are pretty similar quarterbacks. They have both shown one-read-and-scramble tendencies at times, and they can both do damage to your defense with their legs. Neither is a run-heavy QB, but they pick their spots well.</p>
<p>Sims has been quite a bit more efficient than Mauk this year, and while the reason for that could be as simple as "He has Cooper, and Mauk doesn't," I also think Sims has underrated accuracy and, when his line is protecting him, solid, quick decision-making ability. I've been talking about Sims as a pretty underrated guy all season ... and here's where I hope I'm wrong about him. If Mizzou wins the first three keys on this list, then in theory the Tigers can win even if Sims plays quite a bit better than Mauk. But Mauk probably needs to at least break even here.</p>
<p><i>Key Stat: Passer rating, I guess? INT and sack rates? Really, the eyeball test will work. Just ask yourself who played better at the end of the game. #stats</i></p>
<div style="text-align: center;">*****</div>
<p>The numbers say what your brain has probably been telling you for the last week: Alabama has more advantages than Missouri and will probably win. Accept that, and you'll find yourself pretty relaxed come game time.</p>
<p>[puts homer hat on]</p>
<p>I also know this, however: Missouri wasn't supposed to get to Atlanta, either. The Tigers' offense was a pile of smoldering embers eight weeks ago, and they were tasked with winning six straight games (three of which they had a less than 40 percent chance of winning) to win the division. They won six straight games. And by simply winning the honor of taking the field on Saturday, they gave themselves a chance to win on Saturday. You can't win if you don't play, and Mizzou's playing.</p>
<p>There is no margin for error here, and there's no question that Mizzou will have to play its best game of the year to take down Alabama. But until they don't, I guess we don't know they won't. Using weekly odds, Mizzou's chances of going winning these last six games were around 2.5 percent. Ten percent? Might as well give 'em the rings now, right?</p>
https://www.rockmnation.com/2014/12/5/7337197/alabama-missouri-football-preview-sec-championshipBill Connelly2014-12-05T09:00:05-06:002014-12-05T09:00:05-06:00That this D is good is not a "change"
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/lDtxQuPx0kCirGXYCXQ2EcAj580=/0x76:1272x924/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/44280302/PH-AR-Defense.0.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Paul Halfacre</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Missouri's per-game defensive yardage and scoring totals are better this year than they've ever been. That doesn't mean good defense is a "change" in Columbia.</p> <p>Ahh, narratives. <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/8/7/5948477/missouri-tigers-football-2014-preview-schedule-roster" style="background-color: #ffffff;">From my 2014 SB Nation Mizzou preview</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When Missouri moved to the SEC, almost all of the talk was about Mizzou's unique offense and how it might be able to cope in its new conference. But at this point, perhaps Missouri's defense should become the first topic of conversation. After all, it has graded out higher than the offense in three of the last four seasons:</p>
<ul>
<li> <b>2010</b>: 10th in Def. F/+, 17th in Off. F/+</li>
<li> <b>2011</b>: 24th in Off. F/+, 34th in Def. F/+</li>
<li> <b>2012</b>: 41st in Def. F/+, 85th in Off. F/+</li>
<li> <b>2013</b>: 11th in Def. F/+, 17th in Off. F/+</li>
</ul>
<p>In 2013, Missouri's defense employed its typical bend-don't-break identity: occasionally soft zones, solid tackling, and no more blitzing than is absolutely necessary until the opponent reaches the red zone, at which point it's time to tee off. But the Tigers didn't actually bend that much, at least against teams not named Auburn, thanks to the combination of a top-30 run defense and a solid, blitz-free pass rush. Four high-caliber defensive ends allowed Mizzou to form a cloud with its back seven, and an experienced secondary was able to take advantage of quarterbacks that were harried, even when they weren't getting sacked.</p>
<p>It was a solid recipe; the national average for yards per play was about 5.8, and Mizzou went six consecutive games in conference play allowing 5.5 or fewer. And after Auburn went nuts (8.0 per play), Mizzou held Oklahoma State to a humble 5.7 in the bowl game as well.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Obviously the entire sporting universe hasn't caught on to the <i>wonder</i> of the F/+ rankings, but it's been pretty clear for a while that Missouri knows what it's doing on the defensive side of the ball. The 2010 defense featured <span>Aldon Smith</span> and an experienced secondary and was able to help Mizzou to a 10-win season despite a lack of explosiveness on offense. The 2012 defense tried as hard as it could to keep Mizzou in games despite a woeful offense, then faded late in the year. The 2013 defense had an All-American defensive end on one side, a second-round draft pick on the other, and a guy who is now one of the best rookie cornerbacks in the NFL out wide.</p>
<p>Missouri has produced defensive talent and utilized it well for quite a while. In these terms, <a href="http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fplus2014" target="_blank">it should be no surprise that the Tigers are currently in the Def. F/+ top 15</a>. They've spent a lot of time there in the last half-decade.</p>
<p>Even if you're not into advanced stats, it isn't too difficult to see that Missouri's been a pretty good defensive program. You need only a basic understanding of tempo and yards per play. Or, you can forego all context, write <a style="background-color: #ffffff;" href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/5cb5d1e9875847dbb0d6900e59131718/change-defense-missouris-strength" target="_blank">an AP story with the headline of "For a change, defense is Missouri's strength"</a>, and raise every hackle I've got.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The improvement has been remarkable just from last year.</p>
<p>Missouri is first or second in the SEC in every major defensive category in league play and held three opponents — Toledo, South Carolina and Georgia — to season lows in yards.</p>
<p>The Tigers are 16th in the nation in total defense, up from 81st. Points allowed is 13th best, up from 34th. Pass defense is 55 yards stingier at 35th, way up from 107th. The Tigers are sixth in the nation in sacks and eighth in tackles for loss after ranking 12th and ninth last year.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/510579/nflsadbrownsfan_medium.gif"> <img width="100%" src="http://cdn2.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1092021/7182565449_6047d95bd6_o.gif"></p>
<p><img width="100%" src="http://giant.gfycat.com/ThickIckyCottontail.gif"></p>
<p>Missouri has played worse offenses this year, and the offense has slowed its pace down to a crawl. That will account for a drastic change in total yardage and point totals. This is the case for any team in the country.</p>
<p>At this point, the only way you could think Missouri's defense was anything less than solid last year is if you only watched the Auburn game and nothing else...</p>
<p>...oh. I see.</p>
<p>It's great that people are noticing how good a coordinator Dave Steckel has become. And part of me feels bad about picking on what is truly a complimentary article with a great quote from Michael Scherer. But ... that headline, man. Like a dagger through this nerd's heart.</p>
<p>Then again, <a href="https://missouri.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1711788" target="_blank">not even Dave Steckel is a fan of Dave Steckel</a>, so I'm probably wasting my time trying to build a case here.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When asked about his inclusion as a Broyles finalist, Steckel referenced two seasons ago -- 2012, when those sweeping changes were thought necessary by people outside the program.</p>
<p>"I mean, just remember, two years ago you guys were getting me fired," Steckel said. "I'm still the same dumbass. I just have great assistants and great players."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(I don't think anybody was trying to get <i>you</i> fired two years ago, coach. But hey, whatever keeps that boulder on the shoulder...)</p>
https://www.rockmnation.com/2014/12/5/7338751/missouri-defense-dave-steckelBill Connelly2014-12-05T08:00:04-06:002014-12-05T08:00:04-06:00Q&A with Roll Bama Roll
<figure>
<img alt="To be the best, you gotta beat the best." src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/s788lR_9JEXEhZ370PwP_Sdefl8=/0x25:1632x1113/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/44279554/usa-today-8240080.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>To be the best, you gotta beat the best. | John David Mercer-USA TODAY Sports</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We've found this week that our sister site <a href="http://www.rollbamaroll.com/" target="_blank">Roll Bama Roll</a> is home to some friendly, hospitable folks. None more so than <a href="https://twitter.com/ErikRBR" target="_blank">Erik_RBR</a>, who was kind enough to answer my questions about the Tide.</p> <p>Yesterday, <a href="http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2014/12/4/7331307/seccg-blogger-q-a-missouri-folks-are-smart" target="_blank">I answered some of Roll Bama Roll Editor Erik_RBR's questions about the Missouri Tigers</a>. Today, he'll be returning the favor. Erik is one of the more knowledgeable guys you'll find when it comes to the game of college football, and he happens to be a hoot as well. He – and the rest of the team over at RBR for that matter – are must reads/follows not just for this weekend, but FOR THE REST OF YOUR MORTAL LIVES.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span>Alabama's defense is real good, no bones about, but I'm not sure many Mizzou fans are as acquainted with the moving parts on that meat-grinding machine. Who are the players that they need to look out for?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>Assuming Missouri tries to establish the run, as we fully know they will, then ILB Trey Depriest is primed to have a good game. His pass defense is sometimes suspect, but the man feasts on the ground. <span>Reggie Ragland</span> on the outside is the least-heralded, but perhaps best, of the Alabama linebackers. He is certainly the most versatile: he can pass rush, cover the flats, is very physical, and rarely overpursues versus the run. In the secondary, <span>Landon Collins</span> is the latest of All Americans at safety and is the captain of the defense. While he's not the most dynamic player with the ball in the air, he calls the plays, is opportunistic, and excels in run support. And, like every Alabama safety of the Saban-era, every hit he makes is a borderline targeting penalty. The defensive line is easily the best single unit of this defense, and runs ridiculously deep, with 9-10 guys regularly in the rotation. Two names to really watch out for are <span>A'Shawn Robinson</span>; last year, as a true freshman, he earned significant playing time and eventually cracked the starting lineup. He is a big, fast kid that can hold the point of attack inside, shed blocks, and is still versatile enough to move to the outside. <span>Jonathan Allen</span> is the second player to keep an eye out for. Allen is easily Alabama's best pass-rusher, commands double teams, and creates serious havoc out of a nine-tech. On the other side, Jarren Reed and DJ Pettway also excel at affecting the quarterback. There is just a cornucopia of talent on the front, all reflective of Saban's deliberate decision to get faster, more mobile, and deeper up front to combat high school offenses so many of the West teams have adopted.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span></span><span>On the offensive side of the ball, Alabama boasts the biggest star in college football. I'm talking, of course, about Lane Kiffin. How do you feel about the returns on that investment after regular season number one?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>Lane Kiffin has been a revelation, and it's not just his impact on the offense. Taking the last point first, this is the best offense Alabama has had in its storied history. It may not appear so on paper, as Alabama isn't in the Top 10 in any statistical category. In the advanced statistics, methodical drives and explosive drives are also down from the 2012-2013 offenses too. However, this is a decidedly more dynamic offense in the ways that it can attack you, and certainly in the number of players it uses. Lane Kiffin's offense doesn't necessarily line up and let the offense assert their will as with Tide teams of the past. But, what he does better than almost anyone is create and exploit mismatches and put skills players in space to make plays. For instance, prior to Kenyan Drake's injury versus Ole Miss, Kiffin often used him in motion, as a flanker or slot receiver -very similar to concepts employed with Reggie Bush in those USC years. You see a lot of Kiffin's versatility arise with playcalling for fullbacks, tackle eligible linmen, multiple TE sets, platooning running backs, and, of course, the variety of ways he has been able to get the ball to <span>Amari Cooper</span>.</span></p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>The second point is that he has made this a fun team to watch. The players absolutely love him, and it shows. I hate the word "swagger," but, yeah, he's got it, and it shows on the sideline. The offense reflects his brashness. For a team as historically stodgy as Alabama, I am delighted to see the team unbutton its collar and let its hair down. These are kids; let them play for the sheer joy of it.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span></span><span>Jokes aside, Amari Cooper is the damn truth. What does it take to stop him? Can it be done?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>I don't think it's possible to "stop" Amari Cooper; not even elite secondaries like Florida and Ole Miss were able to shut him down completely. However, he can be frustrated and slowed down, particularly if the offensive line fails to give Sims time for longer routes to develop. Arkansas and Ole Miss had perhaps the best strategy, and one I expect to see Mizzou utilize: come after the pass hard and heavy, man-up and be physical at the corner spot, and then bracket Cooper with a safety. The corner-posts and double moves that have been lethal this season, can be minimized by a fierce front and safety help. If that happens, then expect to see Kiffin try to get Amari the ball on bubble screens, stop-fades, and dig routes. Cooper is physical enough to evade defenders, and then make defenses pay for missed tackles.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span></span><span>What worries you about Mizzou's offense? Does anything worry you about Mizzou's offense?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>Two things trouble me about Missouri's offense. The first, as Jack mentioned in the Roll Bama Roll Q&A, is Maty Mauk's ability to extend plays with his feet. Alabama has occasionally been hurt by mobile quarterbacks (less so this year than in the past), but a mobile Mauk is also a Mauk that forces the linebackers to stay at home a bit more, and open the underneath routes and middle of the field. This bootstraps to my second concern, the Missouri wide receivers versus the Alabama secondary. It is no secret that the Tide corners have struggled at times this season. <span>Bradley Sylve</span> earlier in the season, and most recently, Eddie Jackson. The Alabama defense simply cannot be expected to play coverage for 5-6 seconds with unsteady corners, especially versus double-moves and fly routes, where Alabama has had some issues this season. If Missouri comes out aggressive, and hits a few over the top, the entire complexion of the game will change, as the Missouri backs will find more and more space to operate underneath on draws, swings, checkdowns etc.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span></span><span>The marquee battle of this game is most likely Alabama's OL vs. Mizzou's DL, how do you see that playing out?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>This will be a struggle for Alabama, to be completely honest, but not for reasons that you'd suspect. All season, the makeshift (and often-banged up) offensive line has done a fantastic job against pass rushers, which would seemingly negate Missouri's most talented players. Where Alabama struggles, and where I think Missouri wins more battles than they lose, is in the running game. This offensive line is simply not the unit we were accustomed to seeing in the paleo-years of 2008-2012. It is, if possible, a more finesse unit. Oh, they can open holes, and can be physical guys, but I don't see Alabama lining up and dominating the point of attack such that the runnings backs have huge days. That said, I don't see the Mizzou defensive line dirtying <span>Blake Sims</span>' jersey too often, either.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span></span><span>Did you know that Nick Saban and Gary Pinkel were teammates?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>I may have heard that once or thrice. Any time Gary mentions "roommates" or "Kent State," everyone does a bleach shot. We will be spared Verne Chortles in the second half, so it's not an awful reason to take one's life.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span></span><span>From the perspective of the bluest of the SEC blue-bloods, what's your opinion of Mizzou three years into their conference membership?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>I was actually a supporter of Mizzou back in the kerfuffle of 2009, before the bodies truly started hitting the floor: Flagship liberal arts university, a few outstanding academic programs, medium-sized endowment, stable athletics department, medium-sized student body, and -well, there<span> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is<span> </span></i>the simple matter that you started the Civil War. Athletically, SEC membership has been a boon to at least the football program, reflecting the overall talent increase and monetary payout that comes with membership. That said, as a hostage to Alabama basketball, it is good to see Mizzou has finally dropped its Midwest fixation on having an excellent program and has joined the rest of the conference in mediocrity.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span></span><span>How do you think Saban will prepare the team for a high-stakes game against a team that's obviously less talented. Is there any potential for a look-ahead letdown, or is that something that Saban-coached teams are immune to?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>Saban has let-down games; he's not perfect. We usually see these after very close emotional wins (usually LSU), huge letdowns in consolation bowl games, or the occasional sleepwalking performance versus overpowered Group of 5 patsies. However, on the biggest stages, with titles on the line, Saban's teams do not come out flat. They may be disorganized, sloppy, overly-aggressive, or initially mistake-prone, but never flat. Trust me when I say this: Nick Saban is not paying lip service to Mizzou, nor is he overlooking a <a href="https://www.rockmnation.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Tigers</a> team that has talent, is well-coached, physical, and finds ways to win. That is not in his makeup, and even if it was, I do not think his personal and professional regard for Gary Pinkel would allow him to do so.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span></span><span>If Mizzou wants to pull of the impossible and walk away from Atlanta with a win, what do they need to do?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>Missouri must excel at three things to win this game. The first is to slow the tempo way down and shorten the game. It is odd to say that as an Alabama partisan, but Missouri simply does not have the offensive firepower to keep up in a sixty minute, uptempo shootout. Obviously, this requires controlled passing, establishing the point of attack, and having success with the ground game. The second key will be shutting down one phase of the Alabama offense, and make the Crimson Tide a one-dimensional team. When Arkansas, LSU, and Ole Miss largely negated the Tide rushing attack, Blake Sims struggled. He's a better quarterback now than in October, but you want to make the passing game alone beat you. Finally, Mizzou needs to force and capitalize on turnovers and huge special teams plays. Alabama<span> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">will<span> </span></i>give Missouri the ball once or twice, or will shoot itself in the foot with a missed FG or surrendering a long return. When given this opportunity, Missouri must score, and it must put it in the end zone.</span></p>
<blockquote>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span></span><span>How do you see the game playing out?</span></p>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p style="margin-top: .1pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-bottom: .1pt; margin-left: 0in; line-height: 15.85pt; background: white;"><span>I am fully aware that the Tigers are a late-game/4<sup>th</sup><span> </span>quarter, make it ugly, muck it up, aesthetically-displeasing team. Optimally, you want it to be a one score game late, where the Tigers have been excellent. However, I think what we'll see is Alabama and Missouri trade haymakers and mistakes for the first quarter, before everyone settles down. In the second, which has been Alabama's best this season, the Tide find a way to put it in the endzone a few times. Mauk will have some moments in a dying comeback attempt, but, much like the Alabama-Mississippi State game, I suspect these will be vanity numbers, and the Tide cruises in the second half to a 38-20 win.</span></p>
https://www.rockmnation.com/2014/12/5/7338111/mizzou-vs-alabama-sec-championship-preview-q-and-aJack Peglow2014-12-05T07:00:05-06:002014-12-05T07:00:05-06:00Hope you like zone defense...
<figure>
<img alt="" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/pN8lo9whoj4dL09sXMcmCun_vYs=/0x121:2301x1655/1310x873/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/44280286/PH-AR-Mauk1.0.0.jpg" />
<figcaption>Paul Halfacre</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Both Missouri and Alabama love the zone defense, and Nick Saban likes Maty Mauk.</p> <h4>
<figure class="e-image">
<img alt="Rock M Bullet" data-mask-text="false" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/bugptDqKea5rR_9HjjHuLLmVMKU=/400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/assets/4382157/newlogo.jpg">
</figure>
Mizzou vs Bama, SECCG</h4>
<p>
<link href="http://cdn3.sbnation.com/assets/3608425/mustreads.css" rel="stylesheet">
</p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.columbiatribune.com/blogs/behind_the_stripes/stat-spotlight-missouri-vs-alabama-vs-the-sec/article_12aca23c-7b83-11e4-a159-135515783c39.html" style="background-color: #ffffff;">Stat Spotlight: Missouri vs. Alabama vs. the SEC - David Morrison</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Only once did Missouri average more yards per play than its opponent gave up to its other seven opponents: against Tennessee. Not once this year has an offense averaged more yards per play against Alabama than it did against its other seven opponents, but Tennessee and Auburn both came close.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://trumanstales.com/2014/12/03/missouri-tigers-beat-alabama/">Missouri Tigers: How to Beat Alabama - Truman's Tales - A Missouri Tigers Fan Site</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Case in point, Alabama can be beaten by a quarterback that can take off and make plays on the ground as well as through the air. Here’s why it’s possible. Bama loves zone coverages on defense. It’s zone-obsessed really. And if the Tide defensive backs are being spread across the field– as Missouri has been known to be capable of doing– there is, at times, a lot of green space in between the defensive front and the secondary. One way to beat Alabama is to get the Quarterback in rushing mode. We’ve seen that from Mauk this season. He likes to use the edges more, but if he can break a few plays over the middle, it can go a long way.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2014/12/nick_saban_senses_some_overloo.html">Nick Saban senses some overlooking Missouri, says QB is 'probably faster' than Auburn's Nick Marshall | AL.com</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>"This quarterback is really fast," Saban said. "If everybody that the guy thttp://gfycat.com/SelfishColorlessAxisdeerhat we played against last week was really good scrambling, this guy is probably faster. He has actually run the ball a lot more than what we saw last week in terms of scrambling and making first downs on third down and things like that."</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span>Maty Mauk</span> has the speed to run the ball? <a href="http://gfycat.com/SelfishColorlessAxisdeer" target="_blank">You mean like this?</a></p>
<p>Maybe if Mauk can run like that against the <strike>Alabama of the East</strike> Tennessee we'll see it in key situations Alabama. (BTW Jason Reese - nice block!)</p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2014/12/3/7316301/rbr-previews-the-missouri-offense">RBR previews the Missouri offense - Roll 'Bama Roll</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Even if the East is a scrap heap, though, it's only fair to credit the <a href="https://www.rockmnation.com/" class="sbn-auto-link">Tigers</a> for finishing the season on top. Specifically, Missouri needed two victories vs. Western division opponents - at Texas A&M, at home vs. a surging Arkansas team - plus a visit to Tennessee and gutted them all out. They earned their spot, criticisms be damned.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Jack Peglow > Wright Thompson</p>
<p><a target="_blank" href="http://www.rollbamaroll.com/2014/12/4/7331307/seccg-blogger-q-a-missouri-folks-are-smart">SECCG Blogger Q&A: Missouri folks are smart. - Roll 'Bama Roll</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>There's a reason we needed Mizzou in the SEC, and it wasn't for Wright Thompson; it was for these insights from Rock M Nation's Jack Peglow.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote data-partner="tweetdeck" data-cards="hidden" class="twitter-tweet">
<p><a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SECFilmRoom?src=hash">#SECFilmRoom</a>: SEC Championship Edition We're breaking down <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Mizzou?src=hash">#Mizzou</a> vs. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Alabama?src=hash">#Alabama</a> right now " <a href="http://t.co/4Bvxyj27GT">http://t.co/4Bvxyj27GT</a> <a href="http://t.co/LQ2vMtS5Ba">pic.twitter.com/LQ2vMtS5Ba</a></p>
— SEC Network (@SECNetwork) <a href="https://twitter.com/SECNetwork/status/540658152665255936">December 5, 2014</a>
</blockquote>
<p>
<script charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
</p>
https://www.rockmnation.com/2014/12/5/7338761/sec-championship-2014-alabama-missouri-maty-maukOscar Gamble