Furman

Anyone wanna have ‘fun’ and analyze these Furman/Mercer ‘head-to-head’ stats for us?

These are stats in SoCon games only - 5 common opponents (UTC, CIT, ETSU, VMI, WCU) and 1 ‘uncommon’ opponent each - FU has not played Wofford & Mercer has not played Samford. FU is 5-0 vs. common opponents. Mercer is 4-1, losing to Chattanooga 41-21.

SCORING OFFENSE G TD FG XPT 2XP DXP Saf Points Avg/G
1. Mercer 6 32 5 32 0 0 0 239 39.8
4. Furman 6 23 9 22 0 0 0 187 31.2

SCORING DEFENSE G TD FG XPT 2XP DXP Saf Points Avg/G
2. Mercer 6 11 8 11 0 0 0 101 16.8
3. Furman 6 15 6 13 0 0 0 121 20.2

TOTAL OFFENSE G Rush Pass Plays Yards Avg/P TD Avg/G
1. Mercer 6 1232 1682 409 2914 7.1 30 485.7
5. Furman 6 1354 1128 431 2482 5.8 21 413.7

TOTAL DEFENSE G Rush Pass Plays Yards Avg/P TD Avg/G
1. Mercer 6 539 987 372 1526 4.1 10 254.3
5. Furman 6 680 1693 434 2373 5.5 15 395.5

RUSHING OFFENSE G Att Yards Avg. TD Yards/G
1. Furman 6 249 1354 5.4 11 225.7
3. Mercer 6 241 1232 5.1 11 205.3

RUSHING DEFENSE G Att Yards Avg. TD Yards/G
1. Mercer 6 191 539 2.8 6 89.8
3. Furman 6 198 680 3.4 5 113.3

PASS OFFENSE G Comp Att Int Pct. Yards Avg. TD Avg/G
3. Mercer 6 116 168 8 69.0 1682 10.0 19 280.3
7. Furman 6 119 182 3 65.4 1128 6.2 10 188.0

PASS DEFENSE G Comp Att Int Pct. Yards Avg. TD Avg/G
1. Mercer 6 98 181 11 54.1 987 5.5 4 164.5
9. Furman 6 136 236 9 57.6 1693 7.2 10 282.2

PASS EFFICIENCY G Comp Att Int Pct. Yards TD Effic.
1. Mercer 6 116 168 8 69.0 1682 19 180.9
4. Furman 6 119 182 3 65.4 1128 10 132.3

PASS DEFENSE EFFIC. G Comp Att Int Pct. Yards TD Effic.
1. Mercer 6 98 181 11 54.1 987 4 95.1
4. Furman 6 136 236 9 57.6 1693 10 124.2

KICKOFF RETURNS G No. Yards TD Avg.
1. Furman 6 16 382 1 23.9
2. Mercer 6 12 269 0 22.4

PUNT RETURN AVG G No. Yards TD Avg.
1. Mercer 6 10 166 1 16.6
4. Furman 6 11 102 0 9.3

INTERCEPTIONS G No. Yards TD Avg.
1. Mercer 6 11 92 1 8.4
2. Furman 6 9 144 1 16.0

PUNTING G No. Yards Avg/P Ret. Avg. TB Net/P
2. Mercer 6 17 761 44.8 91 5.4 1 38.2
7. Furman 6 30 1189 39.6 51 1.7 5 34.6

KICKOFF COVERAGE G No. Yards Avg. Return TB Net Avg.
2. Furman 6 37 2319 62.7 262 21 41.4
5. Mercer 6 42 2016 48.0 514 0 35.8

FIELD GOALS G Made-Att Pct.
2. Mercer 6 5-6 .833
4. Furman 6 9-11 .818

PAT KICKING G Made-Att Pct.
1. Mercer 6 32-32 1.000
7. Furman 6 22-23 .957

SACKS BY G No. Yards
2. Furman 6 13 78
7. Mercer 6 9 53

SACKS AGAINST G No. Yards
1. Mercer 6 3 24
4. Furman 6 9 57

FIRST DOWNS G Rush Pass Pen Total Avg/G
1. Mercer 6 65 73 3 141 23.5
3. Furman 6 64 56 11 131 21.8

OPPONENT 1ST DOWNS G Rush Pass Pen Total Avg/G
2. Mercer 6 22 48 8 78 13.0
5. Furman 6 40 66 12 118 19.7

3RD-DOWN CONVERSIONS G Conv. Att. Pct.
1. Mercer 6 40 75 53.3
6. Furman 6 34 88 38.6

OPP 3RD-DN CONVERT G Conv. Att. Pct.
1. Mercer 6 21 86 24.4
2. Furman 6 28 91 30.8

4TH-DOWN CONVERSIONS G Conv. Att. Pct.
1. Mercer 6 8 9 88.9
6. Furman 6 3 7 42.9

OPP 4TH-DN CONVERT G Conv. Att. Pct.
3. Furman 6 5 14 35.7
7. Mercer 6 9 14 64.3

PENALTIES G No. Yards Avg/G
4. Mercer 6 29 269 44.8
6. Furman 6 39 334 55.7

OPPONENT PENALTIES G No. Yards Avg/G
4. Furman 6 37 327 54.5
9. Mercer 6 20 187 31.2

TIME OF POSSESSION G Poss. Time Avg/G
2. Furman 6 191:52 31:58
5. Mercer 6 181:59 30:19

———————————————Gained————————Lost
TURNOVER MARGIN G Fumb Int Total Fumb Int Total Margin Per/G
4. Furman 6 3 9 12 8 3 11 +1 0.17
7. Mercer 6 3 11 14 10 8 18 -4 -0.67

—————————————————Red Zone Touchdowns Field Goals Lost possession
RED ZONE OFFENSE G Scores-Chances Pct. TDs Rush-Pass Made-Att Fumb Int. Downs Other
2. Mercer 6 24-28 85.7 20 8-12 4-4 1 1 0 2
3. Furman 6 22-26 84.6 15 6-9 7-8 1 0 1 1

——————————————————Red Zone Touchdowns Field Goals Lost possession
RED ZONE DEFENSE G Scores-Chances Pct. TDs Rush-Pass Made-Att Fumb Int. Downs Other
1. Mercer 6 13-19 68.4 7 6-1 6-8 1 3 0 0
1. Furman 6 13-19 68.4 7 3-4 6-9 0 2 1 0

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

If either Team comes out ‘tight,’ instead of just having fun doing what they do, that Team will put themselves in a hole. Mercer, clearly, did this against Chattanooga. Don’t believe Furman has suffered from that affliction this year. That said, Furman showed in the Samford game, they can struggle with overcoming adversity.

FUBeAR thinks this game will be won or lost as much with the Players (and Coaches) heads as much as it will with the Players bodies.

Advanced metrics tale of the tape

FAKE NEWS!

Voice of the Paladins, Dan Scott, who does a world-class job for Furman Athletics breaks down tomorrow’s matchup from the FU perspective…

England is an interesting pick.

No Sagarin?

All the ones that have a score for each Team pick Mercer. For the ones that just show a point spread, are they all picking Mercer also?

Blocked kicks - the guy screaming in the pic on this thread - #93 - has blocked 2 or 3 of them, including the one you mentioned vs. Chatt. He’s a Paladin legacy. FUBeAR was O-Line runnin’ buddies with his Uncle, an All SoCon Player for the Paladins. #93 is a starting DE and a good Player having a very solid year. Mercer will need to contain him in order to run their O successfully.