Football Articles
Mizzou v. Cyclones – STMP
Posted by Phenomenal Smith on November 19th, 2009 under Football
Yesterday I compared the ‘08 and ‘09 Cyclones and concluded that this game was not the slam dunk it was last year for the Tigers. The Cyclones are better – it’s not just smoke and mirrors that got them to six wins. Mizzou, on the other hand, is clearly not as good as it was last year. Still, I’m confident. Is that warranted?
The Des Moines Register submits its five ways to beat the Tigers. These are:
– Contain Danario Alexander
– Score More Points (DMR means more points than usual, not more points than the Tigers, but that’s, of course, a good way to win)
– Continue to “D” it up
– Own the Red Zone
– Get Robinson going
In order to determine whether ISU can achieve these five goals, let’s take a look at the STMP.
| Stat That Matters | MU '09 Offense | '09 ISU Defense |
|---|---|---|
| Y/PA | 7 (3) | 7.4 (10) |
| Y/Play | 5.3 (4) | 5.9 (10) |
| 3rd Down Conversion | 31% (12) | 44% (8) |
| Red Zone Conversion | 74% (8) | 65% (1) |
| Red Zone Conversion (TD) | 43% (11) | 62% (8) |
| Scoring D | 23.7 (7) | 23 (5) |
The Cyclone defense’s rate stats, yards per numbers, are not good. Teams can and do move the ball. Mizzou’s rate stats are in the top third of the conference. DMR is right in that DA must be contained, as he’s responsible for a lot of that high average per play. To DMR’s credit, it does not suggest how to contain Danario because, well, everyone knows that’s impossible. Mizzou leads the Big 12 in pass plays over 25 yards – thanks in large part to #81. Oh, and Gabbert. Blaine’s giant arm is pretty useful there.
We’ve also learned that Gabbert is excellent when the other team fails to get pressure on him. Iowa State is last in the conference in sacks and Mizzou is third in the conference in sacks allowed. As long as Gabbert can keep his cool, Mizzou should be able to move the ball just fine. When that happens, it’s just a matter of time before big plays come raining down.
ISU’s scoring defense is a decent 5th in the conference, compared to Mizzou’s 7th place scoring offense. Quite a change from yesteryear. How does ISU’s defense get away with giving up all those yards per play but not giving up points? One, turnovers. The Cyclones are second in the Big 12 in t/o margin at 1.29 per game. By the way, remove the NU game, and ISU’s margin is .17, right in the middle of the pack. The location of those turnovers is even more indicative of the stat. DMR writes:
Nine of those turnovers were obtained within the 20-yard line.
That’s pretty nice for the Cyclones. Is there a skill that enables the Cyclones to get red zone turnovers? I doubt it.
Two, red zone defense. The number one ranking is a little deceiving considering that ISU is 8th in TD%. NU and CU were both 1 for 4 in the red zone against the Cyclones. Turnovers, as mentioned above, play a big role here. Still, Mizzou struggles in the red zone, so DMR’s call for red zone domination is not outside the realm of possibility. Luckily, Mizzou scores from outside the red zone. Of its 32 offensive TDs, 17 have come in the red zone and 15 from outside. Pretty cool. Also, Grant Ressel doesn’t miss.
DMR’s call for D’ing it up is pretty much a call for getting turnovers. Yeah, we don’t want that to happen.
Mizzou’s third down conversion rate is fairly awful, but that’s balanced somewhat by the fact that Mizzou faces fewer third downs than anyone but Texas Tech. Is that a feast/famine offense?
Now for the other half of the game.
| Stat That Matters | MU '09 Defense | '09 ISU Offense |
|---|---|---|
| Y/PA | 7.1 (8) | 6 (10) |
| Y/Play | 4.8 (4) | 5 (7) |
| 3rd Down Conversion | 41% (6) | 46% (1) |
| Red Zone Conversion | 88% (10) | 76% (6) |
| Red Zone Conversion (TD) | 52% (4) | 57% (8) |
| Scoring | 28 (7) | 18 (10) |
This is where I think Mizzou separates itself. Iowa State is just not a good passing team. I know what you’re going to say – Baylor wasn’t either. Well, Baylor at least had two very good playmaking receivers. ISU doesn’t have that. Regardless, ISU’s offense can be explained by the yard per stats. 11th in yards/pass attempt but 8th in yards/play. ISU lives on the run – Alexander Robinson is a quality back. Mizzou’s D’s yards/play is also better than its yards/pass attempt, thanks to a top ten nationally ranked rush defense. Mizzou’s front seven is great and will force ISU to go to the pass more than it wants. Think KSU. In fact, I think it’ll be a lot like KSU. Unfortunately for DMR, Robinson will not get going, much like the Big 12’s leading rusher couldn’t get going last week.
Austen Arnaud will have to play extremely well for ISU to win. That’s not impossible, but not probable. His passer ratings the last two games are barely over 100. He’s completing just 55% of his passes this year. I just don’t see ISU scoring enough points to win this game.
Aside from this being a good matchup for the Tigers, I am also confident in knowing Mizzou has the superior athletes. That always helps. Further, and more importantly, there is no way the Tigers look past the Cyclones. The ‘09 fiasco has already happened and there’s no way this team believes it can win a game without bringing its “A” game. There’s a bounce in their step after the Wildcat game. There’s an urgency to reestablish the Tigers as a perennial Big 12 North power. Pinkel has this team and it will come out firing.
It won’t necessarily be easy and I fully expect to be frustrated at times, but I see this game as a 31-17 victory.
Share This
11 Responses
Leave a Reply
Related Articles
-
0
How much better are these Cyclones?
By Phenomenal Smith on November 18th, 2009 -
15
Are You Afraid of Cyclones?
By Phenomenal Smith on November 14th, 2008 -
10
Cyclones Burned. Or not.
By Phenomenal Smith on December 15th, 2008 -
11
Mizzou/ISU Post-Mortem: The Halftime Adjustment!
By Phenomenal Smith on November 22nd, 2009
Euclid said:
November 19th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Amazing that seven teams have a higher than 74% red zone conversion rate yet ISU has a 65% red zone conversion defense. Is that right? Seems like ISU must be in first place by a mile if that is the case.
Also, if we are 12th in 3rd down conversions with 31% but on the defensive side 44% is only good for 8th we must be in last place by a mile.
Gene Claude said:
November 19th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
ISU is in first by about 4% over NU, those are the only two below 70%.
Amazingly, there are 6 teams under 40% on third down conversion offense in conference play.
ISU’s red zone conversion rate is a chimera, largely a result of unsustainable fumbles.
Man, our third down offense is AWFUL. That is staggering.
Phenomenal Smith said:
November 19th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Defensive Red Zone Conversions – link
Offensive Red Zone Conversions – link
Defensive Third Down Conversions – link
Offensive Third Down Conversions – link
DocNice said:
November 19th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Nice analysis phenom. I think you’re right about Mizzou’s offense being all or nothing, but I was curious, so I looked into things a bit more.
IMHO, there are 3 factors for the success of an offense:
1. Ability to run when you have to – short yardage, red zone
2. Consistent execution – ability to get positive yards on almost every play
3. Explosiveness – the ability to turn the regular play into the big play
To judge these standards, I looked at 3rd down conversions, which illustrate each of these principles. As such, I chose a peer set. Oklahoma and Kansas are fairly average in 3rd down conversions, ranking 44th and 45th nationally. And a good, but not fantastic 3rd down conversion team in Florida State (top 10 nationally).
1. Ability to run when you have to. How often to you pick up the first down when you run on 3rd and short pickups (1-3 yards).
MU – 60%
OU – 71%
KU – 73%
FSU – 68%
Mizzou CLEARLY lacks in this area. We all know about Mizzou’s problems running this year, but beyond even this year, one problem with our running game is that we don’t seem to be able to use it when it’s needed most. We get lots of yards as a change up to the passing game, but ultimately this is a glorified Texas Tech approach, mainly because we will commit to the run when teams lineup against the pass and when we face bad run defenses.
2. Consistent execution. This, along with the running game (and really it’s a related problem) is where Mizzou is struggling. What will we do next year without the “throw it to Alexander for a TD” play? We need to get better at picking up the consistent yards instead of just the big play. I measured this by execution success on medium downs (4-6 yards). That shouldn’t be THAT hard to pick up. If you execute, you should get this a good percentage of the time.
Execution success on medium downs
MU – 24%
OU – 42%
KU – 33%
FSU – 45%
MU is shockingly behind in this area.
3. Explosiveness. I measured this two ways. What I like to call 3rd down “bailouts” (picking up a 7+ yard first down via passing) as well as percentage of total plays that are over 15 yards. Here’s how Mizzou stacks up.
3rd and long pickups via passing (I didn’t include rushing as that’s essentially a misdirection, this is about your ability to impose your will on a defense. Can you execute when you have to?)
MU – 28%
OU – 30%
KU – 27%
FSU – 38%
Aside from FSU’s remarkable conversion rate, Mizzou is right in the thick of it. But what about our explosiveness on all downs, not just 3rd down? Surprisingly, Mizzou doesn’t have an advantage here. Perhaps we have more 70+ yard plays than our peers, but as far as the percentage of total plays over 15 yards (also looked at 25+ yards with same result) Mizzou actually lags.
MU – 14%
OU – 15%
KU – 15%
FSU – 17%
What this says to me is that Mizzou isn’t necessarily better than everyone else at the big play, but a higher percentage of their offense comes from the big play.
Gene Claude said:
November 19th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Doc, great stuff, thanks….keep doing stuff like this and you can have your own column. Seriously.
The offense has been a problem for most of they year, for all the reasons you identify. I’m cautiously hopeful that Gabbert is going to take some steps forward. Losing DA is huge, but maybe one or two receivers are going to step up next year.
DocNice said:
November 19th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Gene Claude, glad you enjoyed. I know I found it interesting. I was surprised we didn’t have more big plays than others.
I do think the receivers will step up next year. Without a doubt Kemp has big play ability, and maybe Jackson, Roland and Moe will bloom with more opportunities (as well as an improved Gabbert that goes through his progressions). But I think you’d have to admit that what we really lack is a next level weapon. I don’t mean a journeyman NFL player, I mean a game changer. Maclin, Coffman, Desean Jackson, Noel Devine. You get the idea. Someone who is faster or better than everyone else on the field. That kind of player can take you from a North favorite to a top 10 or better team. Is it unreasonable to expect that we can land another one of them?
Phenomenal Smith said:
November 19th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Doc, thanks for posting that. Great stuff.
Mizzou is 8th nationally in pass plays of 25+ yards, but drop to 34th when you include 15+ yards. It’s either all or nothing. It seems we excel at 3 and outs followed by 50+ yard TD pass. Not sure if that’s just my perception or it’s backed by the numbers.
DocNice said:
November 19th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Phenom, you could be right. I might have chosen a bad peer set. FSU, KU and MU all have big play ability, and I suppose OU does as well.
Phenomenal Smith said:
November 19th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Yeah, KU, OU, and FSU are all near the top in big pass plays too.
Gene Claude said:
November 19th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Doc, I’m sort of stunned that Pinkel and staff weren’t able to parlay this offense into a very high caliber receiver. Marcus Lucas qualifies, I think, so we (hopefully) have that going for us. Jimmy Hunt is at least intriguing.
I’m not all that sold on Kemp. He reminds me of Brad Ekwerekwu for some reason. Great physical specimen, smart, hard worker, but he just doesn’t seem to have great body control. Hope I’m wrong.
Barking Carnival — Blog — Mizzou/ISU Post-Mortem: The Halftime Adjustment! said:
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
[...] game went about as I expected. My score prediction wasn’t dead on – I guessed 31-17 – but I did write: [...]