10:17:05am
| Houston Drive # | Initial Field Position | Yardage Gained | Result |
| 1 | Hou 24 | 16 | Punt |
| 2 | Hou 25 | 26 | Punt |
| 3 | Hou 20 | -1 | Punt |
| 4 | Utah 29* | 28 | TOD |
| 5 | Utah 23** | 23 | Touchdown |
| 6 | Hou 28 | 13 | Punt |
| 7 | Hou 34 | -2 | Halftime |
| 8 | Hou 39 | 58 | TOD |
| 9 | Hou 40 | -14 | Punt |
| 10 | Hou 19 | 24 | Interception |
| 11 | Hou 25 | -1 | Punt |
| 12 | Hou 15 | 85 | TD |
| 13 | Hou 25 | 9 | Punt |
| 14 | Hou 46*** | 29 | Field Goal |
Houston had the one solid drive (#12), but were otherwise basically reliant on being gifted great field position through a Fumble*, a net 21 yard punt after a terrible offensive showing***, and an interception ***.
Even their best drives relied on a 4th and 7 conversion (#12 when they got 85 yards) or a single big play (54 yard run in their 58 yard drive - #8).
The Utah defense generally held them to 30 yards or fewer. But that wasn't enough because the Utah offense kept giving Houston short fields .
They also got a lot more drives simply because Utah couldn't keep the ball. Against Kansas, for example, Houston only scored 14 points... But did so in 10 drives, for 1.4 points per drive.
Excluding the halftime drive here, Utah (despite the bad field position issues) kept Houston to 1.3 points per drive, fewer than they had against Rice, TCU, Kansas. Maybe not elite, but certainly solid if the offense wasn't completely terrible
- Bio page
- krindorr
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2020
- Last login
- Oct 27, 2024
- Total posts
- 19,260 (117 FO)
