Texas vs. Arkansas - 11:00am on ABC

[AeroHorn 793]

2 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

Yep.  And it's one of the reasons Quinn is the guy.  Do I wish we were making some more explosive things happen and him in particular with intermediate and long routes and with his legs?  Absofuckinglutely.  That said despite all the gnashing of teeth about some tipped balls at Vandy etc in 20 starts over the last two seasons QE3 has thrown 12 interceptions against 43 TDs.  Now you can argue that he has gotten away with some things and yea he has, but every QB gets away with some things and what that shows is he doesn't put the ball at risk all that often. Coaches love that shit especially when they have an outstanding defense.  The game we lost is the game he decided to be a turnover machine.  

This is the one characteristic that stands out to me, which is Quinn's apparent hesitation on throwing to anyone that is not open. Looks like either under direction or by his natural tendency, he wants to make only safe throws. He should be more confident in his receivers to make plays. This combined with him taking the 5 yards and sliding will double his QB effectiveness. 

[B00M 6725]

4 hours ago, Rickylovesweed said:

100%. 

The middle of the field is wide open the entire game. Ewers is unwilling to punish teams with his legs. The amount of space Ewers has to scramble up the middle is insane throughout our games. 

He should be rushing for 50 yards without even being touched the way teams are defending the middle of the field. 

Am I crazy? Last year didn’t QE run for 5 TDs and have multiple ~30 yard TD runs up the middle? Then he got injured, Maalik had to play 2 games, and QE has been hesitant ever since. Seemed more willing to run last game, maybe the game ending keeper lights a fire…

[B00M 6725]

6 minutes ago, AeroHorn said:

He should be more confident in his receivers to make plays. This combined with him taking the 5 yards and sliding will double his QB effectiveness. 

I mean, it is an ENTIRELY new receiving group. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a Texas team with so little receiving continuity from one season to the next. It was a risk for QE to come back for that reason alone. Hell even NFL teams run worth a fuck drafting a top QB try to get his favorite receiver too. It could explain why helm is our leading receiver. QE doesn’t trust that he’ll make the perfect throw AND doesn’t trust these guys to win 50/50 balls. We’ve still got a few games for the trust to grow. In the mean time, we’re extremely disappointed with the #14 rated QB … 

[CycleTex87 3003]

3 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

That's not even close to accurate. 1968 and 1977 in addition to 1963, 1969, and 1970 without even having to think about it. 

1983 says Holla!

[Surly Bevo 25655]

15 minutes ago, B00M said:

Am I crazy? Last year didn’t QE run for 5 TDs and have multiple ~30 yard TD runs up the middle? Then he got injured, Maalik had to play 2 games, and QE has been hesitant ever since. Seemed more willing to run last game, maybe the game ending keeper lights a fire…

Oh yea he had a long run against Baylor and another against Kansas for TDs.  Beyond that if you watch this you will see that besides running at times there was much more breaking the pocket and making throws off schedule

 

[Hayduke 91]

1 hour ago, TrashMaster G said:

I was really pleased with the way the crew handled those calls, conferring and then waving them off. That is what good officiating looks like. 

Yep. No more reactions for me today, so I'll agree here.

[LonghornSean 4072]

 

[Tex Long 4616]

Fayetteville is a good place to leave, that's a fact.

A couple minutes into the 4th quarter, looking at a three-point lead against a Razorback team that really had no business hanging with us. 

Do or die time. And we did.

Praise Sark, praise Quinn. But more than those, praise PK and Nansen. 

Anyone who says he wasn't nervous at 13-10 is either a fool, or a liar.

Bigger, stronger, faster, deeper, better conditioned. Maybe mostest, though, better coached, better prepared.

[Davis Lane 5978]

4 minutes ago, LonghornSean said:

 

Outstanding!

She was good.

"You're pointing at me."

[Surly Bevo 25655]

49 minutes ago, LonghornSean said:

 

 

[Tex Long 4616]

2 hours ago, Surly Bevo said:

 

Especially when they're curly-haired and left-handed. 

[Funk Doctor Spock 13121]

11 hours ago, Alien Octopus said:

Nah, mushrooms grow in shit. Stop polishing a turd by naming them, putting them in a capsule and plugging them you fancy lad.

We grow them (well, now just me) in a grow room in plastic bins and spores. We use popcorn grain to mix it up and the fungus will grow. 

It's a huge process. Grt the spores and everything has to be sterilized. It's easy for them to spoil. 

 

Edited November 18 by Funk Doctor Spock

[Longboard Horn 41319]

[Lat22 4070]

18 hours ago, LonghornSean said:

 

FIRE IN THE HOLE!!!!

[hookem48 4808]

On 11/16/2024 at 4:26 PM, Surly Bevo said:

They all do this to a degree but his inability to pick up a block anywhere 2 yards or more past the LOS is irritating as fuck.  Just runs all around, never touches anybody.  Difference between short gains and big runs.

He's co-SEC oline man of the week. how the fuck is that possible?

[Hookem10 851]

10 minutes ago, hookem48 said:

He's co-SEC oline man of the week. how the fuck is that possible?

As fanatics we only recognize when he fucks up. I’m assuming those guys watch or get analysis from someone who watches the game and he probably did well compared to others in conference. 

[texifornia 58786]

Sucks to suck, Arkansas

 

[Dahobbs 18190]

6 hours ago, texifornia said:

Sucks to suck, Arkansas

 

I don't understand that chart. 

[Beau Vine 55824]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand that chart. 

[texifornia 58786]

52 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand that chart. 

He describes it down the chart. Essentially Arkansas ran more successful plays than we did. Unfortunately for them, their season-long turnover bug and our knack for explosive plays kept killing them.

Quote

NET SUCCESS RATE: Percent of plays with EPA > 0 on offense - Percent of plays with EPA > 0 on defense.

All net success rate does is strip out some noise and present a view of how two teams compared in the down to down business of moving the football. Games are won and lost with explosives, special teams, turnovers, etc, and looking at net success rate just shows us how close the margins were.

It's a good diagnostic to go back and look at a game and learn something: • Positive net success rate and lost? Let's identify what went wrong - were those decisive plays sustainable/likely to carry over into future performance? • Huge net success rate and didn't win by much? Where might you have failed to take advantage of good situations or made mistakes on drives that altered the score? What does that tell us about going forward? • Super even net success rate? Let's look at the weird plays! What does that tell us about the relative strength of the two teams and how they might perform going forward?

 

[Valmy77 13567]

1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

I don't understand that chart. 

That is that mysterious stat success rate that explains how you actually did better than the other team despite being outgained, outscored, and losing the turnover battle. A very advanced metric.

Edited November 19 by Valmy77

[Dahobbs 18190]

40 minutes ago, texifornia said:

He describes it down the chart. Essentially Arkansas ran more successful plays than we did. Unfortunately for them, their season-long turnover bug and our knack for explosive plays kept killing them.

 

There is no way that is accurate. For instance, the chart has half the teams at a dead even 0 net success rate. That simply isn't believable. I also don't believe that Tennessee had more successful plays than Georgia when Georgia had 3x as many tfls, won the turnover battle 1-0, had more first downs, a higher 3rd down efficiency, 130 more yards of offense, and a higher completion percentage. 

Something is messed up with the chart. 

Edited November 19 by Dahobbs

[Js1 86940]

Just now, Valmy77 said:

That is that mysterious stat success rate that explains how you actually did better than the other team despite being outgained, outscored, and lost the turnover battle. A very advanced metric.

Success rate - we won. Successful 

[Dahobbs 18190]

1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

That is that mysterious stat success rate that explains how you actually did better than the other team despite being outgained, outscored, and lost the turnover battle. A very advanced metric.

Right, but even if that is the stat, the chart doesn't make any sense. It cannot be measuring that stat for each team on there. 

[Valmy77 13567]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Right, but even if that is the stat, the chart doesn't make any sense. It cannot be measuring that stat for each team on there. 

It sets the losing team at zero and then shows how much the winning team won the success rate battle...or lost said battle for Texas and Georgia.

[Dahobbs 18190]

1 minute ago, Valmy77 said:

It sets the losing team at zero and then shows how much the winning team won the success rate battle...or lost said battle for Texas and Georgia.

That makes no sense. If the losing team is set at zero, then all it tells you is how the opposing team did. It doesn't give you the number for the losing team at all. So it tells one side of the story of a game, which isn't very much. 

[someguy 1539]

If Arkansas got 4 yards on 1st down, 4 yards on second down, and then was stuffed on 3rd down and had to punt - their success rate would be 66%.

If Texas got 3 yards on 1st down, 3 yards on second down, and then had a 15 yard completion on 3rd down - their success rate would be 33%.

It is a useful enough tool in the aggregate with enough context, but it is hardly a definitive stat that gets at the absolute heart of the game.

[Hookem10 851]

my eyes looked like we played with our food. 

[Dark Horse 2407]

40 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

That makes no sense. If the losing team is set at zero, then all it tells you is how the opposing team did. It doesn't give you the number for the losing team at all. So it tells one side of the story of a game, which isn't very much. 

It’s the net success rate between the two teams. 
 

If you won and had a positive net success rate, it’s reported as positive. 

If you won and had a negative net success rate, it’s reported as a negative. 
 

 

 

[Dahobbs 18190]

1 hour ago, someguy said:

If Arkansas got 4 yards on 1st down, 4 yards on second down, and then was stuffed on 3rd down and had to punt - their success rate would be 66%.

If Texas got 3 yards on 1st down, 3 yards on second down, and then had a 15 yard completion on 3rd down - their success rate would be 33%.

It is a useful enough tool in the aggregate with enough context, but it is hardly a definitive stat that gets at the absolute heart of the game.

But that's not actually how EPA works. At the yard line we were typically at, we would have had a positive EPA on all of those plays, which would be a 100% success rate under his definition. 

[Dahobbs 18190]

1 hour ago, Dark Horse said:

It’s the net success rate between the two teams. 
 

If you won and had a positive net success rate, it’s reported as positive. 

If you won and had a negative net success rate, it’s reported as a negative. 
 

Again, that really doesn't track when actually looking at the game play by play. We consistently had the ball in plus territory. We generated yards. And we inflicted a lot of negative plays. And we forced Arkansas to play deep from its own territory. I just don't see how are net success rate was negative.  Arkansas had all of 11 plays in the first half that at glance would have likely had a positive EPA.  Texas had double that. It was closer to even For the second half. I maintain that the chart is wrong. 

[GringoSalado 1652]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

Again, that really doesn't track when actually looking at the game play by play. We consistently had the ball in plus territory. We generated yards. And we inflicted a lot of negative plays. And we forced Arkansas to play deep from its own territory. I just don't see how are net success rate was negative.  Arkansas had all of 11 plays in the first half that at glance would have likely had a positive EPA.  Texas had double that. It was closer to even For the second half. I maintain that the chart is wrong. 

 

I hate that stat so I probably don't understand it but field position, afaik, does affect your Expected Points but the Success Rate is the CHANGE in Expected Points (Expected Points ADDED), so it is designed specifically to take shitty field position, for example, out of the equation. And of course the change in your expected points resulting from any play depends on down/distance, but not field position.

 

However I'm probably wrong about this and lots of other things.

[Dark Horse 2407]

21 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

 

I hate that stat so I probably don't understand it but field position, afaik, does affect your Expected Points but the Success Rate is the CHANGE in Expected Points (Expected Points ADDED), so it is designed specifically to take shitty field position, for example, out of the equation. And of course the change in your expected points resulting from any play depends on down/distance, but not field position.

 

However I'm probably wrong about this and lots of other things.

No, this is correct. Did the play result in an increase in expected points? If yes, it was a successful play (opposite for defense). Take the number of successful plays, divided by total plays, and you get his success rate. Subtract the two team’s success rates, and you get the chart.

It’s not considering the EPA per play. Collegefootballdata’s Explosiveness stat is EPA/play (they call it predicted points added). 

https://collegefootballdata.com/boxscore/401628419

 

[Dahobbs 18190]

I understand now. It is messed up (at least in my head) because it is comparing percentages rather than totals. That seems like a pointless stat. We ran 30% more plays than Arkansas. But because we were slightly less successful as a percentage of our plays (rather than totals plays), the net success rate ends up being negative even though we had a much higher number of successful plays. 

[Dark Horse 2407]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

I understand now. It is messed up (at least in my head) because it is comparing percentages rather than totals. That seems like a pointless stat. We ran 30% more plays than Arkansas. But because we were slightly less successful as a percentage of our plays (rather than totals plays), the net success rate ends up being negative even though we had a much higher number of successful plays. 

Yeah, to me it’s not that useful. I guess it’s a decent consistency metric. 

[Dnaguy 12572]

On 11/19/2024 at 9:06 AM, texifornia said:

Sucks to suck, Arkansas

 

[boilerhorn 1603]

Seems like it would be a useful stat if football teams played 40+ games.  And not very useful for reflection on a single game.  For example, every team on that chart w/ a (-) result won their game.
 

[Dahobbs 18190]

27 minutes ago, Dark Horse said:

Yeah, to me it’s not that useful. I guess it’s a decent consistency metric. 

Success rate on its own its a decent consistency metric for an offense. But I'm struggling coming up with anything this version of "net success rate" would be a decent metric for. I could see it being more useful if you're comparing net success over total plays rather than percentage of each team's plays. 

E.g., Texas had 40 successful plays less Arkansas' 30 successful plays over 90 total players (numbers made up). That would get you a "net success rate" of .11, which I think may actually be an interesting metric to track. It'd tell you who did more good things during a game. If you're the team that did more good things and still lost, there is something interesting going on that maybe you can fix. Alternatively, if you did less good things and somehow won, you might be concerned that it is not sustainable. 

[Tex Pete 21394]

The only metric that matters:

9-1

[n64ra 1149]

On 11/17/2024 at 3:39 PM, LonghornSean said:

 

She needs to rate aggy fans on Nov 30!

[TrashMaster G 18030]

1 hour ago, Tex Pete said:

The only metric that matters:

9-1

Graham Harmon vehemently disagrees!

[Drew 2833]

22 minutes ago, TrashMaster G said:

Graham Harmon vehemently disagrees!

Yeah well he subscribes to the almighty "success rate" scale. 

[Texasrocks 2246]

I suspect PK's defenses look worse when measured by success rate than scoring or other metrics. He'll give up yards and first downs, but the other team will have to earn them. Teams will have a bunch of 4-8 yard gains, but can't string enough of them together to score. It seems once a game the other team puts together a long TD drive where they convert several third downs and an explosive play or two. It's frustrating to watch, but not many teams can do it consistently. Arkansas only did it once. More often than not, Texas gets a turnover, a sack, a tackle for loss. That's exactly what happened when Collins forced the fumble.

[Rickylovesweed 15307]

29 minutes ago, Texasrocks said:

I suspect PK's defenses look worse when measured by success rate than scoring or other metrics. He'll give up yards and first downs, but the other team will have to earn them. Teams will have a bunch of 4-8 yard gains, but can't string enough of them together to score. It seems once a game the other team puts together a long TD drive where they convert several third downs and an explosive play or two. It's frustrating to watch, but not many teams can do it consistently. Arkansas only did it once. More often than not, Texas gets a turnover, a sack, a tackle for loss. That's exactly what happened when Collins forced the fumble.

The big thing with PK's defense is he also rotates more than anybody I've seen. 

If you compared the success rate with our 1s vs 2s, I bet it's a lot different. Not that I'm complaining. We are very healthy on D because PK is willing to play a lot of guys. 

I do wonder if PK starts to limit rotations once these games really start to matter. Especially at the 2nd and 3rd levels. 

[gmr548 16681]

3 hours ago, Texasrocks said:

I suspect PK's defenses look worse when measured by success rate than scoring or other metrics. He'll give up yards and first downs, but the other team will have to earn them. Teams will have a bunch of 4-8 yard gains, but can't string enough of them together to score. It seems once a game the other team puts together a long TD drive where they convert several third downs and an explosive play or two. It's frustrating to watch, but not many teams can do it consistently. Arkansas only did it once. More often than not, Texas gets a turnover, a sack, a tackle for loss. That's exactly what happened when Collins forced the fumble.

"I'm thinking you cannot execute your way down the field consistently over the course of a full game" is the correct bet to make against almost any college offense - Texas included, by the way - especially when you have the talent that Texas has getting after the QB and on the back end

[Dark Horse 2407]

3 hours ago, Rickylovesweed said:

The big thing with PK's defense is he also rotates more than anybody I've seen. 

If you compared the success rate with our 1s vs 2s, I bet it's a lot different. Not that I'm complaining. We are very healthy on D because PK is willing to play a lot of guys. 

I do wonder if PK starts to limit rotations once these games really start to matter. Especially at the 2nd and 3rd levels. 

Agreed, we limit opposing offenses’ explosive plays and have a high rate of defensive explosive plays (sacks, TFL, turnovers, etc). 

[Jkwellborn 7006]

The big thing with PK's defense is he also rotates more than anybody I've seen. 
If you compared the success rate with our 1s vs 2s, I bet it's a lot different. Not that I'm complaining. We are very healthy on D because PK is willing to play a lot of guys. 
I do wonder if PK starts to limit rotations once these games really start to matter. Especially at the 2nd and 3rd levels. 

I’ve said it to guys at work, I’ve never seen a team rotate as much as Texas has this year.

[msucolt45 4213]

That's not even close to accurate. 1968 and 1977 in addition to 1963, 1969, and 1970 without even having to think about it. 

Dad “played” from 60-63 seasons and NEVER lost to the Trifecta of Hate!

Yes, Arky broke the streak on a failed 2-point conversion, and went on to win the ‘64 NC. That’s the team with Jerry Jones and Jimmy Johnson.

The end of that season saw the Horns beat Bama (with Joe Namath) in the Orange Bowl. That’s where the famous picture of Nobis/Culpepper was taken from the goal line stand to win the game.

Hook’em!!!