Mizzou-Illinois State: Beyond the Box Score

I never really shared too many thoughts about Saturday’s game; while part of that is simply because it was a relatively un-memorable affair, I’ll try to add some observations throughout this Beyond the Box Score bit.

Another note: some time in the next week or so, I’m going to analyze Mizzou’s performance as a whole through the first four weeks, comparing it to that of our next opponent, Nebraska. Anyway, on with the show...

Success Rate by Quarter

All Plays
Q1 – Missouri 52.9%, ISU 41.2%
Q2 – Missouri 61.9%, ISU 57.9%
Q3 – Missouri 60.0%, ISU 61.1%
Q4 – Missouri 58.8%, ISU 52.2%
TOTAL – Missouri 58.7%, ISU 53.2%

Close (within two possessions)
Q1 – Missouri 52.9%, ISU 41.2%
Q2 – Missouri 61.9%, ISU 30.0%
Q3 – Missouri 60.0%, ISU 58.8%
Q4 – N/A
TOTAL – Missouri 58.6%, Illinois State 45.5%

As with every other game this year, Mizzou was relatively dominant when the game was within two possessions (i.e. less than 17 points), but things evened up when the rout was on. And again, that’s not the worst problem in the world to have. Bottom line is, we’ve been up 20+ in all four games this season. Only putting up 38 points (tied for our lowest total this season) was a little disappointing, but the offense moved the ball efficiently the entire game. The missed field goal and the three INT’s (two of which came relatively deep in ISU territory, both in the fourth quarter) were the drive-killers, not offensive inefficiency.

QB Success Rate

I think I’m going to still label Daniel as the QB in all of the plays where others (Rucker, Maclin, Temple) take the direct snap. Daniel’s still on the field, and it’s still his offense—it’s just that the offense goes into quite unique formations from time to time.

That said, only two QB’s were on the field on Saturday when the game was close.

Mizzou
Chase Daniel – 34-for-58 (58.6%)

ISU
Luke Drone – 20-for-44 (45.5%)

Run Success Rate

Mizzou
Tony Temple – 9-for-15 (60.0%)
Marcus Woods – 2-for-4 (50.0%)
Derrick Washington – 1-for-2 (50.0%)
Chase Daniel – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Earl Goldsmith – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Jimmy Jackson – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Jeremy Maclin – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
TOTAL – 16-for-25 (64.0%)

ISU
Geno Blow – 8-for-13 (61.5%)
Luke Drone – 2-for-3 (66.7%)
Parrish Fisher – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Rafael Rice – 0-for-4 (0.0%)
TOTAL – 11-for-21 (52.3%)

Considering the teams we’ll be facing over the next couple of months, 52.3% is just too damn high for Illinois State. It’s like when Rice left the game, we just decided they wouldn’t run the ball anymore. Offensively, however, I don’t think you could ask for much more than this. Chase Daniel only ran once, which is fantastic for a meaningless game like this, and Tony Temple’s backups went 5-for-8. Everybody was running with confidence, and I was pleased to see the way Chase has been taking two steps forward during the handoff...something obviously designed to give the RB’s more of a running start, especially up the middle. We seem to have strayed somewhat from the ‘hand the ball to the RB while he’s standing still 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage’ plays, though they were still utilized a bit.

Receiver Success Rate

Mizzou
Jeremy Maclin – 4-for-5 (80.0%)
Martin Rucker - 3-for-4 (75.0%)
Chase Coffman - 3-for-3 (100.0%)
Will Franklin - 2-for-2 (100.0%)
Tommy Saunders - 2-for-2 (100.0%)
Tony Temple - 1-for-2 (50.0%)
Jimmy Jackson - 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Jason Ray - 1-for-1 (100.0%)
TOTAL – 18-for-21 (85.7%)

Illinois State
Meredith – 3-for-3 (100.0%)
Mickle – 2-for-2 (100.0%)
Salem – 2-for-2 (100.0%)
Geno Blow – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Chandler – 1-for-1 (100.0%)
Harcar – 0-for-2 (0.0%)
TOTAL – 9-for-11 (81.2%)

The emergence of Jeremy Maclin has pretty much allowed Mizzou to keep Will Franklin in reserve and just dust him off when necessary. The opening TD went to Franklin, then he only saw one other meaningful ball. The more I think about it, the more I like the fact that Maclin and Rucker have dominated a good portion of the non-conference action (sans Franklin’s first half against Ole Miss). Franklin and Coffman are kind of drifting under the radar right now, plus Alexander is still on pace (I believe) to return for NU. It’s pretty nice knowing that you have 5 guys who could go for 100 (or 150) yards receiving on any given Saturday.

Line Yards

Mizzou
Rushing – 25 attempts, 96.0 yards (3.84 per carry)
Total – 58 plays, 223.2 yards (3.85 per play)

ISU
Rushing – 22 attempts, 79.3 yards (3.60 per carry)
Total – 44 plays, 129.7 yards (2.95 per play)

Defensive Success Rates

Defensive Line
Tommy Chavis – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Ziggy Hood – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Lorenzo Williams – 1.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (100.0%)
Stryker Sulak – 3.0 tackles, 1.0 successful (33.3%)
Tyler Crane – 1.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL – 7.5 tackles, 4.0 successful (53.3%)

Linebackers
Brock Christopher – 3.5 tackles, 2.5 successful (71.4%)
Sean Weatherspoon – 5.5 tackles, 3.0 successful (54.5%)
Van Alexander – 1.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL – 10.0 tackles, 5.5 successful (55.0%)

Defensive Backs
Castine Bridges – 0.5 tackles, 0.5 successful (100.0%)
William Moore – 3.5 tackles, 2.0 successful (57.1%)
Pig Brown – 6.0 tackles, 2.0 successful (33.3%)
Carl Gettis – 2.0 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Justin Garrett – 1.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Hardy Ricks – 1.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
Darnell Terrell – 1.5 tackles, 0.0 successful (0.0%)
TOTAL – 16.5 tackles, 4.5 successful (27.3%)

So coming into this game, I wanted to see good things from the following players: Van Alexander, Ziggy Hood, Stryker Sulak. Alexander did next to nothing. Take the “close game” filter off, and he was outplayed by Luke Lambert. Hood did next to nothing. Sulak had a nice sack and continues to make a bunch of ‘almost’ plays...but did next to nothing otherwise. Not encouraging. Also not so encouraging: that the secondary had to make that many tackles. Once I have more data together, I’ll be able to start looking at what % of tackles you see from each unit on good defenses compared to shaky ones. Needless to say, I’m pretty sure the 48.5% made by the DB’s is way too damn high.

Turnover Costliness

Mizzou1: Q1, 14-3 MU, 1st-and-10 from the Mizzou 31 (Interception by Nelson): 4 points
Mizzou2: Q4, 38-10 MU, 1st-and-goal from the ISU 7 (Interception by Roberts): 3 points
ISU1: Q4, 38-10 MU, 3rd-and-13 from the Mizzou 18 (Interception by W. Moore): 3 points
Mizzou3: Q4, 38-10 MU, 2nd-and-10 from the ISU 37 (Interception by Nelson): 2 points

Total
Mizzou: 3 turnovers, 9 points (3.0 avg)
ISU: 1 turnover, 3 points

Statistical MVPs

Offense: Once again, the statistical MVP directly coincides with the “watched with my eyes” MVP. It’s gotta be Jeremy Maclin, who was ‘successful’ on 5 of 6 opportunities (83.3%) and scored two TD’s. Tony Temple (10-for-17, 58.8%, 1 TD) is probably the runner-up.

Defense: We’ll go with William Moore, who made 2.0 ‘successful’ tackles from the safety position and had an INT worth 3 points. Runner-up: Sean Weatherspoon, who led the team with 3.0 ‘successful’ tackles.