THE MIZ …ZOU REVIEW
Just a note to the readers before I get into the game review: I would like to write these Miz-zou Reviews on Sunday. But I need time to work up some of these numbers. And some data wasn’t available until Monday. Even if I get this online later than I’d like to, I wanted to pass along some of my observations and the pertinent info that could be pulled from Saturday’s 27-21 victory. When I have the proper time, these reviews will have more details.
Let’s begin …
Missouri had to overcome early trouble for a 27-21 victory over No. 24 Boston College on Saturday in CoMo. It was the first real test of tackle football this season for the Tigers, and the visitors from Chestnut Hill didn’t roll over.
On the interweb, I saw some mild complaints and low-level dissatisfaction from Mizzou backers. Nothing major, but the opinions went something like this: As the nation’s sixth-ranked team going into the game, Missouri should have dominated at home.
I have mixed feelings about that.
Sure, we’d like to see Mizzou enter the competition as a sharp, smart, maximum-performance engine. To me that seems harder to do when the first two contests of 2024 featured two no-contest walkovers against hemoglobin donors from Murray State and Buffalo.
Mizzou is plenty talented, but this isn’t supposed to be easy. Last season the Washington Huskies had a lot of close calls along the way to a spot in the national championship game and the eventual loss to Michigan. Washington’s wins included fight-club skirmishes against Arizona (31-24), Arizona State (15-7), Stanford (42-33), Oregon State (22-20) and Washington State (24-21.)
Just because a team is ranked among the top 10 teams in the land, it doesn’t ensure dominance in every game – or even most games. In my not-so-humble opinion, I think it was more beneficial for Mizzou to stay poised and work hard after being submerged in an early 14-3 deficit. Just like the perilous 30-27 win over Kansas State in Week 3 last season, the 2024 Tigers should be stronger for the experience. When your team can survive a threat and prevail, they’ll have more confidence to handle unsettling episodes that threaten their record and ranking.
I firmly believed Missouri would face a battle when Boston College came into Faurot Field. The final betting line in the game had Mizzou favored by 14 and 1/2 points. Too much. On my Friday YouTube video Friday I predicted a Mizzou victory – but with BC staying close enough to cover the point spread.
And that’s what happened. And the Eagles probably got more than a few Mizzou fans (including me) at least a little nervous by stinging the Tigers for two authoritative touchdown drives that forged an 11-point lead. OK, what’s up with this? Where is this game going? Will the Tigers panic and fold under pressure? Or would they respond in a way that actually reaffirmed their elevated status?
Well, we know the answer.
And it’s positive.
To review ….
1. Terrific response from the Mizzou defense. The new defensive coordinator Corey Batoon settled his guys down after some blown pass coverages. He began giving the Boston College offense some multiple looks to create a little confusion and uncertainty. And after BC went ahead 14-3, here’s what happened on the Eagles’ next five possessions:
- Interception, one play for minus 10 yards
- Punt, eight plays for 35 yards
- Punt, three plays for 1 yard
- Punt, six players for 8 yards
- Interception, three plays for two yards.
That’s 56 yards yielded on 21 plays – an average of 2.66 yards per play. Plus, two important takeaways. And three punts. Meanwhile, the Mizzou offense kicked in after an ineffective start. And by the time MU finished stuffing BC on five straight possessions, the home team had a 27-14 lead. That’s exactly what Mizzou fans wanted to see: an empathic response to the early challenge thrown down by the Eagles.
2. The Missouri rushing attack appears to be in good hands. No more Cody Schrader. The Mizzou legend will be missed. But Nate Noel and Marcus Carroll were impressive, combining for 178 yards rushing on 34 carries. They collectively churned for 79 yards after contact. They were stuffed only twice. And perhaps the best part of this was their decisiveness on runs. When a play is designed to attack a specific gap, you want running backs that will hit the hole instead of dancing around, or bobbing and weaving.
On Saturday, Noel and Carroll hit the designed gap on 97 percent of their rushing attempts. That’s outstanding, especially considering that Schrader had a hit-the-gap rate of 72.4 percent against Power 5 competition.
In the second and third quarters, when the Tigers turned an 11-point deficit into a double-digit lead, Noel and Carroll combined for 118 yards rushing on 20 attempts for an average of just under 6 yards per run. And they had 57 yards after contact.
Here’s another thing that stood out for me. Sports Info Solutions files running plays into three separate categories: “positive” rushes, “boom” rushes, and “bust” rushes.
Noel and Carroll did not have a single “bust” run in this game. The positive-run percentage was 27.3 percent for Noel, and an eye-opening 41.7 percent for Carroll. The “boom” run percentages were 4.5 percent for Noel, and 8.3% for Carroll. Noel got the bulk of the carries (22), but Mizzou has to be thrilled to go at opponents with two highly capable running backs. There wasn’t any fall-off when Noel was out of the game. In some ways – which I’ve pointed to – Carroll was even better. It was only one game, but this was a very good thing for the Tigers.
3. Quarterback Brady Cook must improve his downfield accuracy. I’m not going bananas on this, but so far he’s completed only 2 of 10 passes on throws that cover 20+ yards in the air. (This includes the blowouts of Murray State and Buffalo.) Last season, Cook connected on 47 percent of his throws that flew at least 20 yards – and struck for nine touchdowns with only two interceptions. Cook can do better than what we’ve seen so far … and I believe he will do better.
4. Luther Burden doesn’t have to go deep to be a dangerous receiver. He zipped Boston College for 117 yards and a touchdown on six receptions. The average target distance for Burden in this game was 14.6 yards. Last season, against Power 5 teams, Burden had an average target depth of 9.1 yards. At least for one game, offensive coordinator Kirby Moore placed Burden into a more aggressive mode. There were a couple of missed connections, but the beautiful thing about Burden is his superb ability to snatch a shorter pass and turn it into something bigger. Saturday, his six catches averaged 6.7 yards from the throw to the spot of the catch. But Burden stretched them out with his moves and his speed, averaging 13 yards after the catch. Burden’s receiver rating in this game (156.3) topped his rating (105.3) last season against Power 5 opponents. Yes, this one game … but he’s Luther Burden. And he’s a dangerous receiver, no matter where he catches the football.
5. Too many penalties. Obviously. Eight for 91 yards. That degree of self sabotage could lead to losses that should have been wins. The coaches and players know this, so hopefully for the Tigers the discipline will be tighter.
Thanks for reading …
–Bernie
A 2023 inductee into the Missouri Sports Hall of Fame, Bernie has provided informed opinions and perspective on St. Louis and Mizzou sports through his columns, radio shows, podcasts and video commentaries since 1985.
Please check out the new Bernie Miklasz Show channel on YouTube. And thank you for subscribing.
Here’s the link: TheBernieShow
Please follow Bernie on X @b_miklasz and Threads @miklaszb
Stats used in this column were from Sports Info Solutions and Pro Football Focus.
