A few Phx Posts from the past

[Campus Loop(y)]

Thanks kev. I like to browse thru the Locker Room and look at some of the usernames in addition to the posted message. So many names jump out at me and I say, "Oh yeah, I remember this person. I wonder what happened to them...". There are so many like that. I recall what it was like when the site first came online, the feud, the meltdown/craxh. Then mustering the guts to register a name. Then to actually post.

This and bbs's in general are special. Within these special places are speical people. Phx was one. I never met him that I recall but surely did at a tailgate. But I know his posts. He is what many strive to post like but they fall short. His memory is a warm one from me, a total stranger. But a fellow Hornfan. That is all needed.

Thanks again for the links. I recommend folks browsing thru both the Locker Room as well as the Classics boards. It is worth it.

 

[hellbunny]

There's something to be said for not getting straight to the point and taking the scenic route instead. My thanks.

 

[TomTerrific]

You gotta love the standard deviation of YOE.

So him.

 

[texaus]

you will never be forgotten by the Longhorn Nation. Rest In Peace good man.

 

[tsquar]

I don't know if it's by design or what, but the Locker Room is respectfully devoid of any threads. We'll miss you, PhxHorn.

 

[CarKev14]

I found another I'd saved:

PhxHorn
1000+ Posts
03/11/02 05:58 PM
Offensive Output - Projections And Reality




I amuse myself each off-season by developing my own projections of how we might fare statiscally in the upcoming season. There's not much magic to it: (1) look at how we did the prior year, (2) look at who's coming back, and (3) examing the schedule difficulty. Having done all that, I projected we might hit 500 ypg in 2001, an estimate that proved woefully inaccurate, as we managed all of 413 ypg - as estimating shortfall of nearly 18% on my part. Now, god knows, I've committed estimating errors in the past that were disastrous in the range of biblical proportions, but it always pissed me off and I always dutifully hacked away to see where the variances occured. It also didn't help that several acquaintances gave me unmitigated **** for my forecasting incompetence, especially notable sixth street buttboy Scipio.

In my simple (but clearly delusional ) manner, the projection seemed quite reasonable and quite achievable. After all, we put up 439 yards per game in 2000, and, excluding the Debacle In Dallas, we were close to 470 ypg. We returned both Williams and Johnson, who played only sparingly until post-OU, along with Sloan Thomas, who barely got his uniform dirty. We averaged 14.7 yards per catch, with the Big Three averaging almost twenty YPC. We had a schedule primarily composed of moose flatulence. Surely, improvements of the magnitude I calculated were realizable.

Like any good statistician, I had a methodology. I figured we would run about 75 offensive snaps per game, with a slight emphasis on the pass, broken down as follows:

Rushes-Yards-YPC 35-158-4.5
Sacks -Yards 2-(15)
Passes 38
Comp % 60%
Completions 23
YPC 15-16
Passing Yds - 345-368
Total Off 488-511
Yds/Play 6.5-6.8

Here's what actually happened:

Rushes-Yds-YPC 38-174-4.6
Sacks-Yds 2-(12)
Passes 34
Comp% 59.5%
Completions 20
YPC -12.3
Pass Yds 250
Plays/Yds 74/413
Yds/Play 5.6

I'll spare myself the trouble of typing the variance analysis and you the boredom of reading it. Suffice it to say that the bulk of the variance lies in the passing game - we completed three less passes per game than I estimated, partly because we threw four less times than I guessed (that due to running more), which accounts for about 37 yards of the downside. The prime culprit, however, lies in YPC - we were 2.7-3.7 ypc fewer than I guessed - at 20 completions, that amounted to 54-74 yards in shortfall. Put those two numbers together and we're not all that far off from what I originally projected.

Now, lest it appear I'm engaging in some personal rationalization, I no longer am dependent on statistical analysis for my financial well-being, but there's still pride involved. Of course, one of the salient comments about measurement systems was made early in my career by a crusty steel mill manager who opined "cost accountants exist to bayonet the wounded". Harsh words, IMO, considering I was busily engaged in implementing a comprehensive cost management system, but I decided discretion overrode valor, fearing that I might be dispatched into the electric furnace and shipped out with the next load of rebar.

Still, the interest in running the numbers has little to do with the mechanics - it's pretty easy to torture the data. Sometimes it yields, sometimes it whimpers, sometimes sometimes it shits on your shoes, while summoning the demons of irrationality, who wave the banners of Enron and Arthur Andersen and laugh at your numerical foolishness, while commandeering your first born for illicit purposes involving Muslim terrorist groups. The interesting part, of course, is trying to determine why the numbers gave you the digital digit, as it were, and using those anayses to extrapolate the future.

My opinions on what happened, in no especial order of importance, are as follows:

(1) External Factors - posters on this board are not the only owners of VCRs and videotapes - opposing coaching staffs also have budgets and procurement capabilities and use them. Likely they saw the same things we did, namely a group of rangy cheetahs frolicking all over the field and laying waste to opposing secondaries, causing a reaction of "oh, god, a plague of locusts is descending on our homeland and no seagulls are in sight - we'd best go to soft coverages and deep zones and concede the short pass" - and they did.

(2) Take What They Give You - GDs frequently articulated modus operandi, spurred by factor (1), immediately came into play and the short passing game grew in strength and multiplied, if not across the land, at least across the gridiron. Now, while this whole concept gives me a bad case of acid reflux, not to mention the redass, it's hard to pick on Greg on this one. He didn't invent the concept, but the guys who did and their numerous apostles have more than a few Super Bowl rings adorning the collective fingers.

(3) RTDB - there's little doubt Brown wants to run the ball and we tried to and did with some improved success. While not a huge factor in play distribution, it did reduce the projected number of passes we attempted, to the detriment of our overall yardage. Of course, it can easily be argued that, had we not the run the ball as we did, our completion%age and YPC would have been even less.

(4) The Simms Factor - it has been noted before and correctly, I believe, that Chris takes awhile when confronted with complex coverages. With pressure to get off the quick pass, it is possible that he opted for the frequently open short pass rather than waiting for longer routes to open up. Lest I be attacked by those who deify Simms, let me point out that I have been a Simms supporter since the spring of 2000, so spare me any grief.

(5) Other - I'm going to leave this open to speculation and/or analysis by others of you.

What happens next year? Having whiffed so poorly on my lat year projections, I'm a little gunshy about next year. We get tons of skill players back, but the schedule is considerably more manly than last year's collection of lame and halt. The OL looks to have significantly more question marks than we had last year and spring reports, while always subject to Von Neumann's zero-sum rule, have still not been completely reassuring. The run-pass mix is equally unclear, although I suspect with CB in from day one, we'll see more emphasis on the run, assuming our OL can actually create adequate room.

I'm going to save my likely futile projection efforts for next year until I get a first hand look at the spring workouts, which, thank god, happen for me next week. In the meantime,

Your thoughts?

----------------------------------------

 

[Tex Pete]

Great posts from a great poster. Adios.

 

[Bookman]

Phx was one of the main reasons I started visiting this site consistently. I doubt I'm the only one.

Although I never knew the man, I knew his posts, and they'll be missed.

 

[take7]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[bazbo]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Mrmyke709]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[CarKev14]

Several threads in the Locker Room were originated by Phx:The Link

One classic:The Link

Then here are a few I archived:
------------------------------------------
Some Ag-Horn Stats by PhxHorn 11/18/01

As some of you know, I amuse myself on occasion by torturing the data to see if it will yield, or at least whimper. I had some spare time this am and took a look at how we and the Ags stack up numerically. I looked at it two ways: (1) scoring vs common opponents, and (2) season long statistical comparison (I'm too slothful to dig up the individual game stats for common opponents).

In terms of common opponents, it looks like this:

OPP.....ATM.............UT
OSU.... 21-7...........45-17
BU........16-10.........49-10
CU........21-31.........41-7
TT........0-12............42-7
OU.......10-31...........3-14 (****)
Total.....68-91.........180-55

I don't think a lot of commentary is needed for the above - the numbers speak for themselves and with considerable eloquence.

Without listing all of the thirteen statistical categories the NCAA maintains, suffice it to say that the Ags best us in one area, that being net punting where they rank 37th (36.8), while we're 64th at 34.98.

Offensively, it's a fairly one-sided picture - the Ags are 97th in total offense, we're 28th. In scoring, they're 93rd, we're 4th (go defense and special teams).

Defensively, it's closer - we're 2nd in total D at 233 ypg, while they're a very respectable 13th at 299.9. Scoring D has us 3rd, with the Aggies ranking 15th.

Does any of this matter? Who the **** knows, but the correlation between statistics and W-L record, while imperfect, is certainly on the positive side. More compelling is the common opponent records - the Ags have lost three of those five and struggled in their two victories. We basically coasted in our four wins and fell on our own sword in Dallas - still, bitter though that loss was as far as I'm concerned, holding OU to one offensive TD and 206 yards of offense would hardly be deemed a shoddy performance, at least on one side of the ball.

What does this portend for T-Day+1? Well, the past may be an imperfect predictor of future behavior, but I think the numbers would indicate a UT win and probably by a comfortable margin. Unfortunately, we still have to play the game, so we have to wait a few days to see if the data constitutes a trend line. The other key factor is the injury situation, especially for ATM. I'm not current on the status of their guys who are day to day and doubt that we'll find out anything until kickoff. Certainly, were I RC, I wouldn't be advertising potential weak spots.

Your thoughts?
-----------------------------
First Game Things to Watch (this one was posted before NMSU '01):

Every year, I read some variation of the following comment - "who can tell anything about this team? It's not like beating East Jesus State 105-3 tells us anything." Well, I respectfully beg to differ - I think a great deal can be gleaned from seeing what we do in the opener, albeit many of those conclusions may tend to the negative.

A few examples may prove illustrative - think back to Rutgers in 1997. Many of us were poised for a very good season - the schedule was favorable, the talent decent, and we expected to beat the Knights like a borrowed mule. What happens? Well, we do win by 48-14, but demonstrated we still couldn't tackle anyone and gave up a 100 yard game to a running back who likely didn't belong in Div1. Our secondary, in a harbinger of evil days to come, covered erratically. Most of the people I knew left that game with very ominous feelings about things to come, although no one expected the 66-3 fiasco that was visited on us, like some Old Testament vengeance, the following week.

Fast forward to 1998 and the Mack Brown inaugural - anyone who left that game in a bullish mood, after watching NMSU roll up 36 points and gaining about 500 offensive yards, simply redefines the term optimism. Credit to Carl Reese for his use of bandaids and baling wire to turn that group into a pretty good defense in the course of one season. Then, it's 1999 and we're treated to the spectre of our punting team, as well as watching our total futility at running the ball. Last season, we watched an outmanned LaLa team hurt us with misdirection, as well as stuff our running game, things that we were to see more frequently than any of us would have desired later in the year.

So, it's now 2001 opening day (thank god) and it's time for another potential viewing misadventure. At this stage, preseason reports, while enjoyable, are meaningless until we see it on the field. Can we actually run the ball and will the opening up of the offense, visible in practices, continue or has Davis just been toying with our expectations? Will we actually get a punt off and will it go at least thirty yards? Can we make a field goal from beyond extra point range? Will our linebackers actually fill gaps proximate to the ballcarrier or will simple tailback blasts continue to be episodes of mad adventure? Has Chris Simms, in a spasm of optical rejuvenation, actually shed the color blindness that generated much angst last year or will we be subjected to the 13,123rd post about why Applewhite is the preferred choice?

Regrettably, I know the answers to none of the above, but they number among the things that I plan to watch closely this pm. Let's hope the answers are all favorable.
--------------------------------

 

[eggroll]

test