Who comes back counts, but WHAT comes back is the important part
The 2023 Postmortem series is officially done and we can begin looking into the 2024 team! Rejoice! The best way to project 2024 success is by looking at the remains of the 2023 team and figuring out how much production returns on the offensive and defensive sides.
The gentleman who created both Rock M Nation and the SP+ metric system, Bill Connelly, has a measurement called “returning production”, a metric that attempts to quantify the value of production coming back, rather than the value of individuals coming back. His pieces are paywalled, but to me, it’s worth checking out every year as high returning production (roughly 80%) tends to lead to a 5-6 point jump in SP+. In fact – at this time last year – I pointed out that a 5-6 point jump in SP+ for Missouri would mean an increase from a 9.4 in ‘22 to a 14.4 or 15.4 in ‘23; at the end of the ‘23 season that featured a Missouri squad returning 78% of the prior years’ production, said Mizzou team finished with a 19.3 rating in SP+, nearly a full 10 point jump!
The 2024 season is one year closer to the roster normalization that the COVID bonus year threw out of whack. To be sure, there are still lingering super seniors and, of course, the ever-active transfer portal will continue to make roster management much more different than what we were used to even five years ago. While that could mean that Bill C’s returning production number might not be 100% accurate, it’s certainly as close as you can get in a given timeframe and he’s done better, more thorough work than anyone else out there. Here’s how his formula projects Missouri:
- Overall Returning Production: 68% – 31st
- Offensive Returning Production: 79% – 16th
- Defensive Returning Production: 58% – 68th
Again, as a reference point, at this time last year the 2023 Missouri Tigers’ returning production was 78% overall (9th), 77% offense (25th), and 80% defense (9th). So, yeah, this year’s squad features more returning offensive production and quite a bit less returning defensive production.
The current national average for returning production is 58.66%, almost ten points lower than where Missouri is coming in. As far as the SEC goes, only Texas A&M (72%, 18th) and Texas (70%, 25th) return more production from last year’s team than Missouri does. Outside of that, Florida (68%) is tied with Mizzou in overall returning production, ranking 32nd in the nation. Georgia’s 65% ranks 47th in the country with Auburn (50th) and South Carolina (59th) ranking in the mid-60s.
The strength of last year’s Missouri squad was that it brought back a ton of production in 2023 to an SEC that was losing a lot of production, specifically at quarterback. This year, Missouri once again ranks near the top of the league in production (and once again boasts a proven quarterback) to a league that once again is losing a bunch of production and quarterbacks.
Again, returning production talks about improvement or regression, not an increase or decrease in wins, but the good-news-take-away here is that Missouri returns the third-most production in a conference that’s averaging a returning production of 59% and half of which are returning less than 62%.
Here’s Missouri’s 2023 end-of-season two-deep based off of production and snap counts. The gaps are players that were on the 2023 roster that won’t be on the 2024 roster:
Boy, that 1st string defense cleared out thoroughly, huh?
Today let’s break down Missouri’s returning offensive production! On offense, returning production looks at the following metrics and is given the following weights:
- Returning Quarterback Passing Yards: 24% weight
- Returning Running Back Rushing Yards: 5% weight
- Returning Wide Receiver/Tight End Receiving Yards: 23.5% weight
- Returning Offensive Line Snaps: 47.5% weight
Bill C has said it countless times and I’ve echoed it: experience in the passing game (i.e. quarterbacks and receivers) matters the most. But, given Bill’s updated weight allocation, the only thing that isn’t a good predictor of future success is running back rushing yards. Let’s break down what’s coming back and from whom (italicized players are not on the 2024 roster).
Quarterback Passing Yards – 24% weight – 100% returning production
Yes, I know Sam Horn is injured and probably not playing football in 2024. But until he’s actually ruled out I’m counting him here. Besides, removing his 54 yards takes it from 100% returning production to 98%. The point is that Brady Cook is back for another year and that’s objectively a good thing.
Running Back Rushing Yards – 5% Weight – 53% Returning Production
Losing a 1,600+ yard rusher and replacing him with a 1,300+ yard rusher is about as good as you can get given the circumstances. Adding another guy who has also rushed for 1,000 yards in a single season before is a bonus. But again, returning rushing yards isn’t a noticeable harbinger in overall offensive improvement or regression.
Receiver/Tight End Receiving Yards – 23.5% Weight – 100% Returning Production
I’m not sure how often you’ll see 100% returning production from a position group as good and talented (and NFL Draft eligible) as Missouri’s. Dannis Jackson is the lone loss but, despite 3 targets, contributed 0 yards to last year’s efforts. This is a huge deal and one of the main reasons national pundits are feeling lofty about Missouri: returning quarterback plus THIS receiving corps staying in tact? Scrumptious.
Offensive Line Snaps – 47.5% Weight – 63% Returning Production
And this is the position group that could potentially hold back a massive leap on offensive evolution. That’s not a slight on Connor Tollision, Armand Membou, Cam’Ron Johnson, or any of last year’s guys; it’s just a simple fact that breaking up a five-man cohesion can potentially hamstring further offensive development, especially when two starters are of NFL caliber. Adding Cayden Green was a MASSIVE help in this regard but all eyes will be on the guy who fills in the right guard slot and how the new five-man unit works together.
Conclusion
Missouri returns essentially 100% production from the quarterback and receivers, has two strong replacement candidates for its Heisman-finalist running back, and has talented options to fill in the two gaps in the offensive line. The ‘23 campaign was the first time that a Drinkwitz offense seemed to actually be a consistent threat to opposing defenses but will be relied upon to do so again in ‘24 for their defensive brethren who are nearly starting over (more on that next week). If the offensive line can repeat last year’s performance this unit will be nigh unstoppable.