Called Plays: 56
Called Passes: 42 (41 pass, 1 sack, 0 scramble)
Called Runs: 14
Time Mangum had in pocket on passes:
1st Q: 16.5/4 = 4.13 seconds
2nd Q: 42.8/10 = 4.28 seconds
3rd Q: 54.8/14 = 4.91 seconds
4th Q: 54/13 = 4.15 seconds
Game: 4.1 seconds
Time Mangum had in pocket before scrambling (avg gain on scramble):
1st Q: N/A
2nd Q: N/A
3rd Q: N/A
4th Q: 4.3 seconds (-6 yd sack)
Game: 4.3 seconds (-6 YPC)
How many man rush on scrambles:
1st Q: N/A
2nd Q: N/A
3rd Q: N/A
4th Q: 4
Tanner Mangum: 3/4 for 21 yds; Algernon Brown: 3 rushes for 15 yds; Adam Hine: 1 rush for 3 yds; Nick Kurtz: 1 rec for 13 yds, 1 tgt; Colby Pearson: 1 rec for 5 yds, 1 tgt; Mitch Mathews: 1 rec for 3 yds, 2 tgts;
Tanner Mangum: 6/10 for 96 yds and 1 INT, 2 rushes for -10 yds; Algernon Brown: 3 rushes for 15 yds, 1 rec for -1 yd, 1 tgt; Adam Hine: 2 rushes for 5 yds; Nick Kurtz: 2 rec for 54 yds, 2 tgts; Mitch Mathews: 2 rec for 8 yds, 2 tgts; Francis Bernard: 1 rec for 35 yds, 1 tgt; Devon Blackmon: 1 tgt; Mitch Juergens: 1 tgt; Colby Pearson: 1 drop, 1 tgt; 1 Thrown Away;
Tanner Mangum: 9/14 for 64 yds; Algernon Brown: 1 rush for 11 yds and 1 TD, 1 rec for 2 yds, 1 tgt; Adam Hine: 2 rushes for 2 yds, 1 fumble lost; Francis Bernard: 1 rush for 3 yds, 2 rec for 15 yds, 2 tgts; Devon Blackmon: 2 rec for 15 yds, 3 tgts; Remington Peck: 1 rec for 11 yds, 1 tgt; Mitch Mathews: 1 rec for 9 yds, 2 tgts; Colby Pearson: 1 rec for 8 yds, 1 tgt; Mitch Juergens: 1 rec for 4 yds, 2 tgts; 2 Thrown Away;
Tanner Mangum: 5/13 for 63 yds and 1 TD 1 rush for -6 yds, 1 fumble lost; Adam Hine: 1 rush for -1 yd; Remington Peck: 2 rec for 30 yds, 2 drops, 4 tgts; Colby Pearson: 2 rec for 27 yds, 2 tgts; Francis Bernard: 1 rec for 6 yds and 1 TD, 1 tgt; Mitch Mathews: 1 drop, 2 tgts; Nick Kurtz: 2 tgts; Mitch Juergens: 1 tgt; Devon Blackmon: 1 tgt;
The Cougars looked disjointed and out of sync to start the game. Coming out in the 1st Q they were very conservative and almost looked like they were worried with Mizzou’s potential physicality. There was a small sample size but a lot of throws were short completions as BYU tried to feel out the Mizzou defense and understand how tough they would be defended. As the Cougars continued in the game, it seemed like they became more and more comfortable and started to find a tempo and rhythm where they could execute passing the ball.
Tanner had an up-and-down game against Missouri. Starting out, he looked like he was out of rhythm and struggled to find his tempo with his receivers as they faced a physical Mizzou defense. When Tanner struggled, it seemed like he was sailing passes on his receivers instead of throwing it to a place where they can make an easy catch. He looked comfortable and confident during the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the game, but had some lumps where he began throwing high again in the 4th Q which made it so his receivers didn’t come down with catches.
BYU continued to struggled in the run game. The issue seemed to be the physicality of the OL which returned all starters for this game, but they still weren’t quite at 100%. One of the issues is that BYU doesn’t have an every-down back that is healthy enough to get the bulk of the carries, those are going to Bernard and Brown who are short yardage backs, one package that was installed into the offense which has been successful has been passes out of the backfield, particularly to Bernard who has been able to find success in picking up YAC. If BYU continues to struggle in the run game, this is a way that they can use the RBs as a weapon.
The Cougar WRs ebbed and flowed with Tanner. They made some big plays when they were in a rhythm but when Tanner began to struggle, the WR production dropped off as well. The Cougars did get some more use out of the TE position with Remington Peck making the move over. BYU was able to use 6 different receivers in the game and were led by Nick Kurtz who had 3 catches for 67 yds, but they all came before halftime. After that, he didn’t have much production at all. It’s tough for the Cougars to find someone that they can rely on during a game if they can’t produce for the entirety of the game.
BYU’s OL continued to struggle at the point of attack this week. While they returned their starters, they still didn’t look healthy and they weren’t able to establish a run game at all. They did do a good job in pass pro only giving up one sack and giving Tanner plenty of time, but because of the lack of a run game, BYU became predictable late in the game and were constantly throwing the ball which allowed Mizzou to prepare for what BYU was running. The Cougars face two teams that have struggled against the run the next two weeks and this should be an opportunity for them to get back on track like they were through the first 7-8 weeks of the season.
Harvey Langi: 10 tackles (8-2), .5 TFL
Bronson Kaufusi: 10 tackles (8-2), 3 TFL, 2 FF
Jherremya Leuta-Douyere: 9 tackles (7-2), 1.5 TFL
Kai Nacua: 8 tackles (4-4)
Michael Wadsworth: 8 tackles (4-4)
Manoa Pikula: 7 tackles (2-5)
Fred Warner: 6 tackles (3-3), .5 TFL
Michael Davis: 5 tackles (3-2), .5 TFL
Michael Shelton: 5 (5-0), 1 TFL
Micah Hannemann: 1 INT
Most Targeted Player:
Micah Hannemann: 2/5, 1 INT
incomplete, complete, incomplete, complete zone, INT
Michael Wadsworth: 3/4
complete zone, complete zone, incomplete, complete
Michael Davis: 2/2, 1 TD
complete TD, complete zone
Jordan Preator: 2/2
complete, complete zone
Michael Shelton: 1/2
incomplete, complete zone
Matt Hadley: 1/1
Kai Nacua: 0/1, 1 PBU
Swing/Screen/Dump Pass: 7/7
Swing: 4/4, Screen: 7/7, Dump: 2/2
Thrown Away Passes: 2
BYU’s defense played pretty well for the most part, outside of a few costly penalties. They were in a situation with their back against the wall as the offense struggled to control the clock and they were left on the field for long spurts of time. Part of this issue did come from them not being able to get stops on third down giving up 13/20 third down attempts, but Mizzou executed well using their screen game efficiently and set themselves up by running the ball well on 1st and 2nd down so they were in a position to convert on 3rd down. The Tigers were able to rely heavily on Russell Hansbrough to carry the load at RB as he had been sidelined with an ankle injury for much of the season. This made Drew Locke look a lot more comfortable as he didn’t have to focus on making all the plays on the offensive side of the ball.
The Cougar DL played a pretty good game highlighted by Bronson Kaufusi who had the best game of his career at BYU finishing with 10 tackles and 3 TFL and forcing 2 fumbles. He was all over the field making plays. As a group, they opened up holes for the LBs to make plays but the team as a whole got really worn down as they were on the field for almost 40 minutes of the game.
The LB core struggled to make plays, one of the biggest issues in the game was stopping the run and they were killed by not filling the holes and keeping containment. One interesting thing of note was that Mizzou didn’t throw the ball over the middle as no LBs were targeted in the passing game which should have allowed BYU to load the box and focus on stopping the run and matching up their DBs with Mizzou’s WRs who have struggled this year. One penalty that may have cost BYU the game came from Sae Tautu who had a late hit against Locke on a 3rd down incompletion which gave Mizzou a fresh set of downs in the RZ.
The secondary played pretty well, even tho the stats wouldn’t show it. They kept the ball in front of them and made tackles, very rarely did they get beat. One of the major issues from this game was a pass interference penalty that came on a pass interecepted in the EZ. While BYU didn’t make many mistakes, this one was a killer which really set them back as it allowed Mizzou to score a TD (the same drive as Tautu’s late hit).