That was a strange game. There are several oddities in the stats. Based on watching the game live, I thought that Freeze knew that Tulane was a very bad team and he had a few goals:
1) Get our stars rested after the rough Texas game and get them ready for Alabama
2) Get a lot of guys some playing time since the SEC schedule starts and we most likely will not have a chance to give guys deep on the depth chart any PT for the rest of the year
3) Find another threat at WR to compliment Moncrief and Neat
We jumped up so early and I don’t think Freeze took his foot off the gas, but I think he decided to really start to play with some things and get some different looks on film.
The leverage stat (% of plays which are successful) was fairly consistent throughout the game. It’s not like we did great in the 1Q and poorly the rest of the game. I believe this is a product of having some short fields in the 1Q, then a combination of turnovers of Tulane stepping up a little for the rest of the game.
|
Tulane |
Ole Miss |
1Q |
13.3% |
59.1% |
2Q |
25.0% |
47.1% |
3Q |
30.8% |
50.0% |
4Q |
38.9% |
53.8% |
Total |
27.1% |
52.6% |
Tulane rebounded after a horrid first quarter. I also have a sense that Freeze didn’t want the game to get too ugly after the trial that Tulane went through – maybe that’s just wishful thinking, but we only threw 1 pass in the 4Q. Overall, we had as big of a lead in this stat vs Tulane as Texas had against us.
PLAYCALLING
We relied more on the run that we have in previous games. We called run plays 80% of the time on standard downs and 42% of the time in passing downs. Those numbers were 63% - Standard and 17% - passing against Texas.
Run Percentage
|
||
|
Standard
|
Passing
|
Ole Miss
|
80.0%
|
42.3%
|
Tulane
|
45.9%
|
25.0%
|
Tulane looks like they knew they couldn’t run against us and were just hoping to hit some passes.
WR TARGETS
We gave Moncrief a little bit of a break and only threw to him 3 times against Tulane. We made sure he got a TD to keep that streak going, but didn’t want to risk getting him banged up with a big lead. It seemed like we were having auditions for the other WR spot by throwing a few balls to Sanders, Logan, and the Moore brothers. Sanders (2 catches for 27 yards on 4 targets) and Collins Moore (2 catches for 25 yards on 3 targets) probably did the best, but I don’t think we have a consistent threat to take the heat off Moncrief, especially if Neat is out.
Here are just the raw numbers for Tulane
|
Targets
|
Catches
|
Yards
|
TDs
|
Sanders
|
4
|
2
|
27
|
0
|
C. Moore
|
3
|
2
|
25
|
0
|
Moncrief
|
3
|
1
|
23
|
1
|
Logan
|
3
|
1
|
11
|
0
|
P. Moore
|
3
|
1
|
7
|
0
|
Mackey
|
1
|
1
|
30
|
0
|
Allen
|
1
|
1
|
9
|
0
|
Mathers
|
1
|
1
|
6
|
0
|
Scott
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
Core
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
Greer
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
We are a third of the way through the season. We can really start to get an idea of our passing game plan. It still may be too early because we’ve really only been tested against Texas. Against Texas, it was Moncrief, a little bit of Neat, and not much else. Another WR needs to step up as we go into SEC play.
Raw numbers for the year
All
|
||||||||
Total
|
98
|
69
|
900
|
8
|
70.4%
|
9.2
|
13.0
|
100.0%
|
|
Targets
|
Catches
|
Yards
|
TD
|
Catch Rate
|
YPT
|
YPC
|
% of Targets
|
Moncrief
|
25
|
19
|
343
|
4
|
76.0%
|
13.7
|
18.1
|
25.5%
|
Neat
|
17
|
14
|
151
|
0
|
82.4%
|
8.9
|
10.8
|
17.3%
|
Mosley
|
10
|
7
|
88
|
1
|
70.0%
|
8.8
|
12.6
|
10.2%
|
Logan
|
9
|
7
|
58
|
0
|
77.8%
|
6.4
|
8.3
|
9.2%
|
Mackey
|
8
|
6
|
50
|
0
|
75.0%
|
6.3
|
8.3
|
8.2%
|
Sanders
|
7
|
4
|
51
|
0
|
57.1%
|
7.3
|
12.8
|
7.1%
|
Allen
|
6
|
4
|
42
|
0
|
66.7%
|
7.0
|
10.5
|
6.1%
|
P. Moore
|
5
|
2
|
32
|
1
|
40.0%
|
6.4
|
16.0
|
5.1%
|
Scott
|
4
|
2
|
6
|
0
|
50.0%
|
1.5
|
3.0
|
4.1%
|
C. Moore
|
3
|
2
|
25
|
0
|
66.7%
|
8.3
|
12.5
|
3.1%
|
Walton
|
2
|
1
|
51
|
1
|
50.0%
|
25.5
|
51.0
|
2.0%
|
Greer
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
50.0%
|
1.5
|
3.0
|
2.0%
|
Mathers
|
2
|
2
|
9
|
0
|
100.0%
|
4.5
|
4.5
|
2.0%
|
Core
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
100.0%
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
1.0%
|
Standard
|
||||||||
Total
|
59
|
42
|
448
|
3
|
71.2%
|
7.6
|
10.7
|
100.0%
|
|
Targets
|
Catches
|
Yards
|
TD
|
Catch Rate
|
YPT
|
YPC
|
% of Targets
|
Moncrief
|
16
|
11
|
145
|
1
|
68.8%
|
9.1
|
13.2
|
27.1%
|
Neat
|
13
|
12
|
102
|
0
|
92.3%
|
7.8
|
8.5
|
22.0%
|
Mosley
|
3
|
2
|
12
|
1
|
66.7%
|
4.0
|
6.0
|
5.1%
|
Logan
|
7
|
6
|
53
|
0
|
85.7%
|
7.6
|
8.8
|
11.9%
|
Mackey
|
4
|
3
|
21
|
0
|
75.0%
|
5.3
|
7.0
|
6.8%
|
Sanders
|
3
|
1
|
13
|
0
|
33.3%
|
4.3
|
13.0
|
5.1%
|
Allen
|
6
|
4
|
42
|
0
|
66.7%
|
7.0
|
10.5
|
10.2%
|
Moore
|
3
|
1
|
7
|
0
|
33.3%
|
2.3
|
7.0
|
5.1%
|
Scott
|
1
|
1
|
2
|
0
|
100.0%
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
1.7%
|
C. Moore
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0%
|
Walton
|
2
|
1
|
51
|
1
|
50.0%
|
25.5
|
51.0
|
3.4%
|
Greer
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
1.7%
|
Mathers
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
0
|
100.0%
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
1.7%
|
Core
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0%
|
Passing
|
||||||||
Total
|
39
|
27
|
450
|
6
|
69.2%
|
11.5
|
16.7
|
100.0%
|
|
Targets
|
Catches
|
Yards
|
TD
|
Catch Rate
|
YPT
|
YPC
|
% of Targets
|
Moncrief
|
9
|
8
|
198
|
3
|
88.9%
|
22.0
|
24.8
|
23.1%
|
Neat
|
4
|
2
|
47
|
0
|
50.0%
|
11.8
|
23.5
|
10.3%
|
Mosley
|
7
|
5
|
76
|
1
|
71.4%
|
10.9
|
15.2
|
17.9%
|
Logan
|
2
|
1
|
5
|
0
|
50.0%
|
2.5
|
5.0
|
5.1%
|
Mackey
|
4
|
3
|
29
|
0
|
75.0%
|
7.3
|
9.7
|
10.3%
|
Sanders
|
4
|
3
|
38
|
0
|
75.0%
|
9.5
|
12.7
|
10.3%
|
Allen
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0%
|
Moore
|
2
|
1
|
25
|
1
|
50.0%
|
12.5
|
25.0
|
5.1%
|
Scott
|
3
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
33.3%
|
1.3
|
4.0
|
7.7%
|
C. Moore
|
3
|
2
|
25
|
0
|
0.0%
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
7.7%
|
Walton
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0%
|
Greer
|
1
|
1
|
3
|
1
|
100.0%
|
3.0
|
3.0
|
2.6%
|
Mathers
|
1
|
1
|
6
|
0
|
100.0%
|
6.0
|
6.0
|
2.6%
|
Core
|
1
|
1
|
4
|
0
|
0.0%
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
2.6%
|
OL AND RB PLAY
There’s not much analysis here. We were better than Tulane. This was the second highest total for OL yards per carry for the year at 3.7. It’s hard to have much complaint about the OL play with the production and only 1 sack in 24 drop backs (4.2%).
Mackey broke some big runs and the guys at the bottom of the depth chart gashed Tulane a little at the end.
Carries
|
HL Yards
|
HLYPC
|
|
Thomas
|
2
|
16.0
|
8.0
|
Parker
|
1
|
8.0
|
8.0
|
Logan
|
1
|
7.0
|
7.0
|
Mackey
|
4
|
22.5
|
5.6
|
Wallace
|
7
|
23.0
|
3.3
|
Brunetti
|
12
|
22.0
|
1.8
|
Mathers
|
6
|
9.5
|
1.6
|
Walton
|
3
|
4.0
|
1.3
|
Scott
|
11
|
13.5
|
1.2
|
Miller
|
4
|
2.0
|
0.5
|
For the year, Jeff Scott is still our most dangerous runner (I cut out Logan, Thomas, and Neat because of a small number of carries)
Total
|
|||
|
Carries
|
Total
|
HLYPC
|
Scott
|
31
|
123.0
|
4.0
|
Wallace
|
36
|
95.0
|
2.6
|
Brunetti
|
25
|
54.0
|
2.2
|
Walton
|
9
|
19.0
|
2.1
|
Mathers
|
16
|
33.0
|
2.1
|
Parker
|
4
|
8.0
|
2.0
|
Mackey
|
36
|
65.5
|
1.8
|
Miller
|
6
|
7.5
|
1.3
|
QB PLAY
I stopped tracking Wallace against Brunetti in the first game, and I still think that Wallace looks much more comfortable back there, but the numbers are pretty crappy against Tulane. He actually did a really poor job on standard downs. Brunetti did more on the ground and was not sacked. On passing downs, both QBs did a good job a moving the chains.
All
|
||||||||
|
Completions
|
Attempts
|
Yards
|
TD
|
INT
|
Sacks
|
Sack %
|
Eff
|
Wallace
|
7
|
16
|
101
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
5.9%
|
117.40
|
Brunetti
|
5
|
7
|
45
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
125.43
|
Standard
|
||||||||
|
Completions
|
Attempts
|
Yards
|
TD
|
INT
|
Sacks
|
Sack %
|
Eff
|
Wallace
|
1
|
6
|
11
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
32.07
|
Brunetti
|
2
|
4
|
18
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
87.80
|
Passing
|
||||||||
|
Completions
|
Attempts
|
Yards
|
TD
|
INT
|
Sacks
|
Sack %
|
Eff
|
Wallace
|
6
|
10
|
90
|
1
|
0
|
1
|
9.1%
|
168.60
|
Brunetti
|
3
|
3
|
27
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0.0%
|
175.60
|