大象APP

If true, it鈥檚 not surprising. The 2023 Wildcats were just the fourth team in program history to win 10 or more games. Many of the key players on that squad聽鈥� and most of the coaching staff 鈥� are no longer in Tucson.

It鈥檚 still early, though. Arizona has played just a quarter of its season. Last year鈥檚 club was 3-3 at the halfway point before reeling off a seven-game winning streak. This team has time to improve. This week鈥檚 bye is ideally situated to start that process.

The concern coming out of Friday鈥檚 loss at Kansas State wasn鈥檛 so much that the wrong Wildcats came out on top; it was how one-sided the result was. Arizona鈥檚 three losses last year came by a combined 16 points, including two that went to overtime. KSU beat Arizona by 24 points, and it easily could have been more.

There鈥檚 plenty of blame to go around; all three phases had critical breakdowns in the Little Apple.

But it鈥檚 the offense鈥檚 struggles that have left UA fans frustrated and worried.

That unit is trending the wrong way. Arizona scored 61 points in Week 1, then 22 (20 by the offense), then seven.

The 2023 Wildcats never scored fewer than 21 points. The 鈥�22 squad鈥檚 lowest output was 17 (in Week 2).

What鈥檚 changed? What鈥檚 missing?

The underlying statistics support what your eyes are telling you: Arizona鈥檚 passing attack isn鈥檛 clicking in the same way under Brent Brennan and Dino Babers as it did under Jedd Fisch.

In this week鈥檚 鈥淐ats Stats,鈥� we鈥檒l dig into some of those numbers and explain what they indicate about a pass offense that lacks consistency, timing and rhythm.

Time to throw

Two aspects of Arizona鈥檚 passing offense changed dramatically after Noah Fifita replaced Jayden de Laura last season: Fifita turned the ball over way less and got the ball out of his hand way faster.

In one of聽those areas, Fifita more or less has remained his usual self. He has thrown an interception in each of the first three games, but it鈥檚 not as if he鈥檚 become a turnover machine.

However, Fifita is holding onto the ball a lot longer. His average time to throw (TTT), , is 3.16 seconds. That鈥檚 the second-highest figure in the Big 12.

Last year, Fifita鈥檚 TTT was 2.55 seconds 鈥� the fourth-lowest figure in the Pac-12. De Laura鈥檚 was 3.21 鈥� tied for the highest.

Four Big 12 quarterbacks have a TTT over three seconds. The other three are dual-threat QBs: Baylor鈥檚 Dequan Finn (3.18), UCF鈥檚 KJ Jefferson (3.15) and Kansas State鈥檚 Avery Johnson (3.14). That isn鈥檛 Fifita鈥檚 game.

Fifita has the highest TTT in the Big 12 on dropbacks where he ends up scrambling, at 6.6 seconds. His TTT on scrambles last year was 4.95 seconds.

All of this suggests that Fifita isn鈥檛 seeing the field clearly and/or doesn鈥檛 have the outlets to unload the ball quickly.

It could be that Fifita is still getting used to a new offense. Or that his protection isn鈥檛 as sound. Or that something is awry structurally.

Most likely, it鈥檚 all of the above.

Pass-rush pressure

Through three games, per PFF, Fifita has been pressured on 33% of his dropbacks. That鈥檚 up from 27.8% last year.

Defenses are blitzing Fifita at a greater rate 鈥� 50.9% vs. 43.5% last year.

Fifita has not been as efficient when under pressure.

Fifita has completed 11 of 29 passes (37.9%) for 210 yards with one touchdown and one interception when pressured this season. Last year he was a 55.7% passer (44 of 79) under pressure and posted a 7-2 TD-INT ratio.

Fifita has done a much better job of avoiding sacks this year, lowering his pressure-to-sack rate from 17.5% to 8.6%. That could be attributable to him throwing the ball away more. He already has more throwaways this year (eight) than last year (seven).

Arizona鈥檚 upheaval upfront is not something to be underestimated. The Wildcats had to shuffle their offensive line in Week 2 because of injuries. Only one player, left guard Wendell Moe Jr., started in the same spot as the opener.

Arizona was able to restore the opening-week offensive line in Week 3. But it鈥檚 doubtful that left tackle Rhino Tapa鈥檃toutai was 100% coming back from a lower-leg injury. He also was making just his second career start.

The UA O-line wasn鈥檛 intact for most of training camp either. Offensive lines need time to coalesce. The bye week should help in that regard.

Passing depth

Fifita鈥檚 average depth of target (ADOT) is 9.5 yards, up from 7.8 last season. That could be the reason his completion percentage has dropped from 71.9% to 63.6%.

PFF鈥檚 data shows that Fifita is not utilizing the middle of the field nearly as much. Last year, 17.6% of Fifita鈥檚 pass attempts were thrown behind the line of scrimmage and between the numbers; 26% were thrown between 0 and 9 yards between the numbers; and 8.7% were thrown between 10 and 19 yards between the numbers.

This year, all of those rates are down: 14.1%, 20.2% and 5.1%, respectively.

Overall, Fifita has thrown a higher percentage of passes with 20-plus air yards than last year (17.2% vs. 13.4%) and a lower percentage behind the line of scrimmage (19.2% vs. 24.2%).

Throwing more bubble screens and pop passes would seem to be an easy solution. But those plays require effective blocking to work. Arizona鈥檚 blocking on bubble screens has been substandard so far this season.

Target distribution

Last year, Arizona basically had two No. 1 receivers. Tetairoa McMillan had a team-high 130 targets, while Jacob Cowing had 121.

This year, it鈥檚 T-Mac and everyone else.

McMillan has 33 targets through three games. The next-closest Wildcat is fellow wideout Montana Lemonious-Craig with 10.

Arizona鈥檚 tight ends have combined for 10 targets, or 3.33 per game. Tanner McLachlan had 55 last year, or 4.2 per game.

Cowing lined up in the slot on 331 of 472 pass snaps. Eighty-eight of his targets had an ADOT of 9 yards or less.

Getting slot receivers and tight ends more involved should boost Fifita鈥檚 efficiency. But those players have to be put in a position to succeed.

Fifita also needs to continue to build trust and rapport with pass catchers not named Tetairoa McMillan. Doing so would benefit both of them and the Wildcats as a whole.