Heinrich Haarberg

Gorillahawk said:
The pick didn't worry me at all, since obviously it was a what the hell it's the end of the half pass. I thought he looked as good or better then he ever has
Click to expand...
I agree, he looked pretty sharp. But weve been fooled by Spring Game performances in the past. 

He definitely looked quicker, the QB draws were well blocked money. Not sure how we do that in the BIG a bunch and keep him healthy. 

He had a nice toss to Manning that was dropped. Would like to see them slow it down a bit, play action more and a quick on rhythm read- then the underneath route as a backup. No more "no fear of failure" backyard football stuff. And in the name of all things holy- saving me from a stroke- PLEASE no more backward passes!!!  

 
HH looked ok but nothing to get really excited about to me.  The measurables are there so I guess we will see.    

Smoothers didn't look great throwing but he looked fast.  I'm guessing we see him burn some defenses with his legs before his time here is over.  It's unfortunate but he really reminded me of Luke 2.0.  I do agree with some posts above- spring games only tell us so much.

AM - clear #1    

 
Hilltop said:
HH looked ok but nothing to get really excited about to me.  The measurables are there so I guess we will see.    

Smoothers didn't look great throwing but he looked fast.  I'm guessing we see him burn some defenses with his legs before his time here is over.  It's unfortunate but he really reminded me of Luke 2.0.  I do agree with some posts above- spring games only tell us so much.

AM - clear #1    
Click to expand...
I don't care about QBs running, that will never win the conference and will just end up with injuries.  Scrambles and 3 or 4 change of pace draws to slides a game I can handle. But if we run any QB 10+ times a game any more that is not a sustainable winning scenario in my opinion.  RBs should be taking the bulk of carries and I want the QB upright making throws.

 
runningblind said:
I don't care about QBs running, that will never win the conference and will just end up with injuries.  Scrambles and 3 or 4 change of pace draws to slides a game I can handle. But if we run any QB 10+ times a game any more that is not a sustainable winning scenario in my opinion.  RBs should be taking the bulk of carries and I want the QB upright making throws.
Click to expand...


Do you know how the option works?

 
  • Plus1
Reactions: Toe
runningblind said:
I don't care about QBs running, that will never win the conference and will just end up with injuries.  Scrambles and 3 or 4 change of pace draws to slides a game I can handle. But if we run any QB 10+ times a game any more that is not a sustainable winning scenario in my opinion.  RBs should be taking the bulk of carries and I want the QB upright making throws.
Click to expand...


Have you watched any football over the last 20 years??

Eric Crouch in 1999, 2000, and 20001

Tim Tebow in 2008 & 2009

Michael Vick 1999 & 2000

Vince Young 2005

Braxton Miller 2012 & 2013

JT Barrett 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017

I can keep going as there are a lot more examples...  the above list of QBs averaged over 10 carries per game in each of the years listed above.  A QB who can run is a game changer and absolutely gives teams an edge.  

 
J-MAGIC said:
Do you know how the option works?
Click to expand...
Do you know it's not 1995?

Hilltop said:
Have you watched any football over the last 20 years??

Eric Crouch in 1999, 2000, and 20001

Tim Tebow in 2008 & 2009

Michael Vick 1999 & 2000

Vince Young 2005

Braxton Miller 2012 & 2013

JT Barrett 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017

I can keep going as there are a lot more examples...  the above list of QBs averaged over 10 carries per game in each of the years listed above.  A QB who can run is a game changer and absolutely gives teams an edge.  
Click to expand...
Ohio State is your example recently? As well as some of the best players to ever play college football. If we had OSUs tslent and a Heisman caliber QB I might agree.  It's much easier for a QB to rush and not get beat up if the rest of the offense is actually a threat.

We've already proven recently what rushing the QB too much at Nebraska in 2021 does fellas, it gets our QB hurt and doesn't give us a better chance of winning.

 
runningblind said:
Do you know it's not 1995?

Ohio State is your example recently? As well as some of the best players to ever play college football. If we had OSUs tslent and a Heisman caliber QB I might agree.  It's much easier for a QB to rush and not get beat up if the rest of the offense is actually a threat.

We've already proven recently what rushing the QB too much at Nebraska in 2021 does fellas, it gets our QB hurt and doesn't give us a better chance of winning.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is saying the rest of the offense doesn't need to be a threat.

 
Hilltop said:
Yes, the Ohio State that keeps winning the B1G.  
Click to expand...
I get that, but we aren't Ohio State and never will be. Using the same model without the same talent isn't going to work. 

BigRedBuster said:
I don't think anyone is saying the rest of the offense doesn't need to be a threat.
Click to expand...
If that comes to fruition and the rest of the offense is working well, running the QB more is a viable option sometimes but can't be the main source of the offense.  All I am saying is running the QB a bunch in the state we've been in where defenses don't respect anything is a bad idea.  It can't be the main yardage source, which if we went back down Hilltops list it would be crystal clear it wasn't for those teams either, especially Ohio State.

 
runningblind said:
I get that, but we aren't Ohio State and never will be. Using the same model without the same talent isn't going to work. 

If that comes to fruition and the rest of the offense is working well, running the QB more is a viable option sometimes but can't be the main source of the offense.  All I am saying is running the QB a bunch in the state we've been in where defenses don't respect anything is a bad idea.  It can't be the main yardage source, which if we went back down Hilltops list it would be crystal clear it wasn't for those teams either, especially Ohio State.
Click to expand...


Once upon a time, we very much were Ohio States equal. Nebraska and Oklahoma were to the Big 8 what Michigan and Ohio were to the Big 10. There is no doubt about that. To say we aren't now is accurate, to say we never will be? Well then, why try? Between Bear Bryant and Nick Saban, Alabama wished they had a coach that could achieve Nebraska level success. We will get there. 

 
Haarberg and smothers were well protected by the coaching staff.  They weren't thrown into the deep waters, which is to be expected.  Smothers was very unimpressive throwing it, haarberg had a lot of zip but his accuracy leaves a lot to be desired.  Just remember, he should be getting ready for state track right now.

They both need work, that's for sure.  I'd put my money on HH to break camp next year as the guy tho if both progress equally.

 
runningblind said:
I get that, but we aren't Ohio State and never will be. Using the same model without the same talent isn't going to work. 

If that comes to fruition and the rest of the offense is working well, running the QB more is a viable option sometimes but can't be the main source of the offense.  All I am saying is running the QB a bunch in the state we've been in where defenses don't respect anything is a bad idea.  It can't be the main yardage source, which if we went back down Hilltops list it would be crystal clear it wasn't for those teams either, especially Ohio State.
Click to expand...


This is completely asinine. QB run is often a tool less talented teams can leverage over teams with a talent advantage, which is why every service academy runs the flexbone and K-State manages to win seven games every year, and it "won conference titles" in the past and still is now. It was also the thing our offense was best at last year. You don't want it to be your main thing because you don't want your quarterback to take that many hits, but it has been a very important part of every successful offense SF has been involved with and will be a big part of any success we have. Just admit you said something dumb and stop digging the hole deeper.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is that Nebraska tends to entice dual threat high school quarterbacks with the promise that they can keep playing QB at Nebraska when other Power 5  programs want to convert them to other positions. That particular pool of talent tends to land us kids who are better runners than they are passers (Christian McCaffrey) and in today's NCAA you really need to flip that around (great passers who can run), or go with a straight up passing QB.  

QB prospects looking for a path to the NFL don't consider Nebraska, and although we get some really entertaining playground ballers like Tommy Armstrong and the two Martinez's, they sometimes lack the discipline of the guys who know how to plant their feet, run their progressions, and kill a play rather than force a turnover. 

 
Decoy73 said:
The one that ranked 102 out of 128 in scoring.

He didn't say anything dumb, just had a different take on it.

As @Guy Chamberlin alluded to.  This team needs a passing QB who can run more than a running QB who can pass.
Click to expand...


He said that teams with running quarterbacks don't win their conference and then that only talented teams like Ohio State can have success with QB run offenses. Those are dumb things to say, regardless of what our scoring offense ranked.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top