Blaine Gabbert and the Missouri offense executed better in the second half against Illinois, while no noticeable offensive coaching adjustment was made. (Photo by JJ Stankevitz)
Missouri went into halftime down 13-3 to Illinois on Saturday. In the second half, MU out-scored Illinois 20-0 to pull out a 23-13 victory.
That screams halftime adjustments, right? MU didn’t play well in the first half, but did in the second half. The defense stymied Nathan Scheelhaase and Mikel LeShoure while the offense carved up the Illinois’ defense for two touchdowns and two field goals.
But before you start to believe that MU’s second-half success on the field was due to success in a coaching game plan, take heed of coach Gary Pinkel’s comments Monday:
Obviously, Pinkel is going to do whatever he can to not take away from his team’s effort. But he wasn’t just trying to do the right thing—in this case, it appears MU just executed better in the second half, especially on offense.
MU passed 20 times and ran 12 times in the first half for 137 total yards and three points. In the second half, MU passed 28 times and rushed 17 times for 242 total yards and 20 points.
There’s nothing significant about the differences in play selection. MU’s pass-to-run ratio was essentially the same in both halves (1.67 pass-run in the first half, 1.64 in the second), and while MU did have one run-heavy possession near the end of the fourth quarter, that’s neither here nor there.
What happened offensively was that Blaine Gabbert, T.J. Moe, Michael Egnew, etc. all executed better, and as a result, MU had a better offensive second half.
Defensively, there is a valid argument that an adjustment was made. Specifically, that adjustment was going a four-defensive-end front in an effort to put more pressure on Scheelhaase. Aldon Smith mentioned that as the key adjustment MU’s defense made from half to half, and the defensive line did put more pressure on Scheelhaase as Illinois failed to score in the second half.
If you’re looking for a positive coaching adjustment, it was going to that four-end front in the second half. But there didn’t appear to be any significant offensive coaching change outside of success in executing plays.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
This is the essence of the problem with Pinkel – his comments on “executing better” may be true and against a lesser team, actually worked. However, this stance and lack of adjustments has cost them in so many games or the chance to come back in when down at halftime – As an example, there were zero adjustments made to put pressure on 3rd string QB and get in the face of the Baylor receivers. Result, record day for 3rd string QB and an embarrassing loss. What is Pinkel’s record when trailing at the half? Not sure but remember at one time (loss to Troy on National TV), he was 5-24 when trailing at the half. Can only remember a few “wins” since then….Anyone else?
For what it’s worth, Pinkel’s teams won eight games last season, three of which were won despite Missouri trailing at the half. The three wins:
Bowling Green — Trailed 13-6 at half, won 27-20
Iowa State — Trailed 17-10 at half, won 34-24
Kansas — Trailed 21-13 at half, won 41-39
For what it’s worth, I think the adjustments criticism may have run true in the early part of the 2000s, but since then, I think the Missouri fan base has clung to it as a crutch.
Thanks for the research and I admit, I am somewhat surprised that there were three last year – means 4 of past 9 wins so pretty good ratio. That is a nice trend but still stand behind Pinkel not being a great X and O’s coach – even Christenson questioned the play calling in the bowl game vs Navy when he was in the booth. That was horrible! Regardless, he has recruited well, been to 5 bowl games, one behind Devine and Mizzou is competitve again. Better than the 25 yrs of MIZZERI from Powers through Larry Smith! Thanks again for research.