[Numbers. I like them. Me and Paul likes them. We hope you like them too. Here's another excellent in depth look at Ole Miss' performance from this past weekend.]
I was able to knock most of this out on Sunday, meaning that there are now a few discrepancies with the official stats though. I guess the SID reviewed the tape and changed two plays from runs to passes. I know one was Macky's tap pass to Neat. It was a 2 yard and a 0 yard pass so I didn't go back and change everything, but I did change it when I game across the discrepancy under "targets vs catches".
Anyway, talk amoungst yourselves. I'll give you a topic: Ole Miss Rebel football stats. They're after the jump.
QB and Play Calling
On Standard Downs, we ran the ball 34 times out of 54 opportunities for 67%. Last year, the national average was 60%. On Passing downs, we ran the ball 11 out of 18 times for 61%. Last year, the national average was 33%. Freeze must have really felt good about running the ball against UTEP, and a 7.5 yard per carry justifies that strategy. Remember, standard downs are 1st and 10, 2nd and 6, or 3rd and 3 or anything better. A passing down is anything worse than that.
I think it’s now clear that Wallace is the clear cut number one option at QB, so I don’t think it makes much sense to track his performance vs Brunetti any longer. I did keep up with the success rate for each team by quarter.
|
Ole Miss
|
UTEP
|
1Q
|
30%
|
31%
|
2Q
|
73%
|
65%
|
3Q
|
42%
|
39%
|
4Q
|
78%
|
25%
|
Total
|
59%
|
40%
|
It’s interesting to see how poorly we did in the first quarter. Basically, we had the big touchdown pass play to Moncreif and not much else. Also, you see that UTEP really kept up with us in the 2nd quarter; they just had a few disastrous plays inside the 10 yard line. Despite losing the 3rd quarter 10-0, we kept up with UTEP in leverage – the product of UTEP being given some short fields due to turnovers. Then we really take over the final frame.
One other thing is that we didn’t seem to run as much up tempo stuff as we did against UCA. Against UCA, we ran 78 plays, verses only 69 against UTEP. Big plays can lessen your overall number and that may be the cause of it, but we just didn’t seem to hurry to the line like we did vs UCA except for one stretch in the 3rd quarter. That was to answer a score, so maybe Freeze was just saving it for Texas?
Wallace’s passing numbers by situation are:
All
|
||||||||
|
Completions
|
Attempts
|
Yards
|
TD
|
INT
|
Sacks
|
Sack %
|
Eff
|
Wallace
|
15
|
22
|
174
|
3
|
0
|
1
|
4.3%
|
179.62
|
Standard
|
||||||||
|
Completions
|
Attempts
|
Yards
|
TD
|
INT
|
Sacks
|
Sack %
|
Eff
|
Wallace
|
12
|
15
|
111
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
6.3%
|
164.16
|
Passing
|
||||||||
|
Completions
|
Attempts
|
Yards
|
TD
|
INT
|
Sacks
|
Sack %
|
Eff
|
Wallace
|
3
|
7
|
63
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
212.74
|
As you would expect, Wallace is more efficient on standard downs when the defense is having to prepare for both the threat of the run and the pass. Actual passer efficiency is higher in passing downs for Wallace due to the 2 TDs and the big play to Moncreif.
Wallace for the year:
All
|
|||||||||
|
Completions
|
Attempts
|
Yards
|
Completion %
|
TD
|
INT
|
Sacks
|
Sack %
|
Eff
|
UCA
|
20
|
24
|
264
|
83.3%
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
7.7%
|
194.90
|
UTEP
|
15
|
22
|
174
|
68.2%
|
3
|
0
|
1
|
4.3%
|
179.62
|
Total
|
35
|
46
|
438
|
76.1%
|
5
|
1
|
3
|
6.1%
|
187.59
|
Standard
|
|||||||||
|
Completions
|
Attempts
|
Yards
|
Completion %
|
TD
|
INT
|
Sacks
|
Sack %
|
Eff
|
UCA
|
13
|
17
|
126
|
76.5%
|
0
|
1
|
1
|
5.6%
|
126.96
|
UTEP
|
12
|
15
|
111
|
80.0%
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
6.3%
|
164.16
|
Total
|
25
|
32
|
237
|
78.1%
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
5.9%
|
144.40
|
Passing
|
|||||||||
|
Completions
|
Attempts
|
Yards
|
Completion %
|
TD
|
INT
|
Sacks
|
Sack %
|
Eff
|
UCA
|
7
|
7
|
138
|
100.0%
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
12.5%
|
359.89
|
UTEP
|
3
|
7
|
63
|
42.9%
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
212.74
|
Total
|
10
|
14
|
201
|
71.4%
|
4
|
0
|
1
|
6.7%
|
286.31
|
WR Targets
All
|
||||
Targets
|
Catches
|
Yards
|
TD
|
|
Moncrief
|
5
|
3
|
72
|
1
|
Mackey
|
3
|
2
|
14
|
0
|
Logan
|
5
|
5
|
44
|
0
|
Neat
|
6
|
4
|
19
|
0
|
Walton
|
1
|
1
|
51
|
1
|
Mathers
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
Scott
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
Mosley
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Greer
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
Total
|
25
|
18
|
208
|
3
|
Moncreif, Neat, and Logan were our top three options against UTEP. After having a combined 10 targets in the opening game, the TEs were only targeted once against UTEP. Really, the passing game can be boiled down to the big play to Moncreif and the wheel route to Walton – those two plays accounted for 106 of our 208 passing yards. This game seemed to have a different feel to the offensive game plan. We were more geared towards the run and didn’t throw the ball down the field as much. Yards per target fell from 11 to 8.3 – that may have had something to do with the level of competition.
Standard
|
||||
|
Targets
|
Catches
|
Yards
|
TD
|
Moncrief
|
4
|
2
|
17
|
0
|
Mackey
|
2
|
2
|
14
|
0
|
Logan
|
4
|
4
|
39
|
0
|
Neat
|
5
|
4
|
19
|
0
|
Walton
|
1
|
1
|
51
|
0
|
Mathers
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
Scott
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
Mosley
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Greer
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Total
|
18
|
15
|
145
|
0
|
Passing
|
||||
|
Targets
|
Catches
|
Yards
|
TD
|
Moncrief
|
1
|
1
|
55
|
1
|
Mackey
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Logan
|
1
|
1
|
5
|
0
|
Neat
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Walton
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
Mathers
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Scott
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Mosley
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Greer
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
Total
|
7
|
3
|
63
|
3
|
We targeted 7 different players in the 7 passing situations. We did produce 2 TDs out of these, but very little else, the other catch was on a third down that did not produce a first down.
Here are the totals for the year:
Total
|
56
|
43
|
538
|
6
|
76.8%
|
9.6
|
12.5
|
100.0%
|
|
Targets
|
Catches
|
Yards
|
TD
|
Catch Rate
|
YPT
|
YPC
|
% of Targets
|
Moncrief
|
14
|
11
|
176
|
2
|
78.6%
|
12.6
|
16.0
|
25.0%
|
Neat
|
12
|
10
|
94
|
0
|
83.3%
|
7.8
|
9.4
|
21.4%
|
Logan
|
6
|
6
|
47
|
0
|
100.0%
|
7.8
|
7.8
|
10.7%
|
Mosley
|
5
|
4
|
79
|
1
|
80.0%
|
15.8
|
19.8
|
8.9%
|
Mackey
|
5
|
4
|
20
|
0
|
80.0%
|
4.0
|
5.0
|
8.9%
|
Allen
|
4
|
2
|
25
|
0
|
50.0%
|
6.3
|
12.5
|
7.1%
|
Walton
|
2
|
1
|
51
|
1
|
50.0%
|
25.5
|
51.0
|
3.6%
|
Scott
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
50.0%
|
1.0
|
2.0
|
3.6%
|
Sanders
|
1
|
1
|
13
|
0
|
100.0%
|
13.0
|
13.0
|
1.8%
|
Moore
|
1
|
1
|
25
|
1
|
100.0%
|
25.0
|
25.0
|
1.8%
|
Greer
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
100.0%
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
1.8%
|
Mathers
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
100.0%
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
1.8%
|
OL & Running Backs
The idea for this stat is the OL is 100% responsible for running plays up to 4 yards, the OL and the RB split the credit for runs 5-10 yards, and the RB gets 100% of the credit for the yardage after that, highlight yards. I guess a perfect night for the OL would be an average of 7 yards per carry. They got 188 yards on 45 carries for an average of 4.2 yards – very impressive.
|
Highlight Yards
|
Carries
|
HLYPC
|
Neat
|
32.0
|
1
|
32.0
|
Scott
|
49.5
|
12
|
4.1
|
Walton
|
12.0
|
3
|
4.0
|
Mathers
|
8.0
|
3
|
2.7
|
Mackey
|
26.5
|
11
|
2.4
|
Wallace
|
18.5
|
11
|
1.7
|
Brunetti
|
0.5
|
2
|
0.3
|
Parker
|
0.0
|
1
|
0.0
|
Neat’s big play aside, you can see Scott and Walton’s explosiveness here – they seem to do a little more than Mackey. So far, that is carried through to the total numbers as well.
|
Carries
|
Total
|
HLYPC
|
Scott
|
12
|
49.5
|
4.1
|
Walton
|
5
|
15.0
|
3.0
|
Brunetti
|
9
|
24.5
|
2.7
|
Wallace
|
22
|
56.5
|
2.6
|
Mathers
|
7
|
15.5
|
2.2
|
Miller
|
2
|
3.5
|
1.8
|
Mackey
|
26
|
39.5
|
1.5
|
Parker
|
3
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
Thomas
|
1
|
0.0
|
0.0
|