Do you guys think the Mizzou game supports his agrument, i.e., beyond the fact that we did not score in the 3rd? We were running well in the 1st half and continued to do so in the second. There didn't seem to be much reason to change that. If Phillips had not dropped that pass in the open (clearly nobody's fault but the receiver) that would have just about been game over. I don't think Mizzou fits the argument (or, at least not as well as the other examples). The others might be more interesting.
There are other possible explanations to the apparent pattern. Maybe there's a real concern about keeping our offense on the field due to issues on our defense. Maybe it has nothing to do with a general philosophy of getting ahead and sitting on the lead.
It is interesting, but the article doesn't say much we on this board haven't already seen.