Purdue - What did we learn?

[Undone]

One major objective with play calling is to make the other team think you're going to do "Thing A" and then actually do "Thing B."

For all we know, Rhule told Satterfield at some point in the second quarter against Illinois to stop calling runs in short yardage situations because it just wasn't working.

If we were running inside handoffs to Dowdell on every single play inside the 10 and getting stuffed, the criticism changes from "Satterfield sucks" to "our offensive line sucks."

 

[Husker in WI]

One major objective with play calling is to make the other team think you're going to do "Thing A" and then actually do "Thing B."

For all we know, Rhule told Satterfield at some point in the second quarter against Illinois to stop calling runs in short yardage situations because it just wasn't working.

If we were running inside handoffs to Dowdell on every single play inside the 10 and getting stuffed, the criticism changes from "Satterfield sucks" to "our offensive line sucks."

Doesn't sound like it went down exactly like that, but yeah it does sound like that is some of it - in the presser today Rhule talked about how Purdue had given up 340+ rushing in back to back games, and how a defensive head coach in particular isn't going to let that happen 3 games in a row so we went in expecting to need to do something different. (Also those teams had running QBs). So as much as people hate it, if teams are going to completely sell out to stop the run the answer isn't "block better!", it's to exploit the weakness and throw it. 

Also thought it was interesting on the other side of the ball, we knew they loved outside zone and we stopped it. Partway through the game, Purdue switched to whatever Illinois was running against us and we were able to adjust to that as well. With film availability, analysts, and a whole bunch of other stuff it is just way harder to have one gameplan and always do that. 

 

[Husker in WI]

I guess to put it another way - sometimes trying to do what others have exploited in an opponent is not as effective as exploiting the weaknesses they present to you. Purdue was begging us to throw for 400 on them, and if some of those PI balls had been thrown to be catchable rather than draw PIs we might've got there. Still around 350 passing + PI yards. 

 

[Undone]

So as much as people hate it, if teams are going to completely sell out to stop the run the answer isn't "block better!", it's to exploit the weakness and throw it.

Agreed. And in my opinion we've had quite a bit of success with the high percentage swing passes to shoot around the tight boxes.

We are maybe one missed field goal away from being a 5-0 team right now. We're way better on offense than we were last year. And as far as the Purdue game goes, if we had made all three of those missed field goals it's 30 points of offense + the defensive score.

 

[Undone]

If somebody would have told me right after the Iowa game last year but before Raiola signed with us that we'd be 4-1 heading into Rutgers that included a 28-10 win over both Purdue and Colorado I would have been really excited.

Yes, there was a defensive score in both of those games but we are still so much better on offense this year over last.

If we win these next two games - and it's a big "if" - we're looking pretty amazing as it pertains to an actual turnaround of the program.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The criticism of Satterfield sounds nearly identical to the criticism of every Nebraska OC over the last 20 years. At this point I don't think it's reflective of the specific assistant coaching hires and more a reflection of how offenses have changed over the last 20 years. Even when Nebraska was running 65/35 run/pass splits a segment of Husker Nation would accuse the OC of abandoning the run and/or getting too cute with a first down pass. 

I'm not sure who these folks would like to hire, but if you're looking for a playcaller who wouldn't think of calling a pass play near the goal line, they don't exist. Every Saturday and Sunday you'll see a teams with top flight running backs call a little play-action flare pass from the two yard line because it might be smarter and safer than ramming it down their throats for zero yards. Analytics tends to back these decisions up. 

That being said, we probably won't see the Carter Nelson leap again. 

If I never see the phrase...."he got too cute..." again, it's not soon enough.

Every single short yardage down can not just be a run up the middle.  You have to still keep the defenses off balance and guessing at least some.

 

[Mavric]

If I never see the phrase...."he got too cute..." again, it's not soon enough.

Every single short yardage down can not just be a run up the middle.  You have to still keep the defenses off balance and guessing at least some.

:yeah

Basically the same play that we ran to Bonner in the first game.  

I like this look.  Probably should have just stuck his foot in the ground, lowered his shoulders and gone straight ahead.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Probably should have just stuck his foot in the ground, lowered his shoulders and gone straight ahead.

Yeah, I think he was really hoping to use his blocker and hoping he gets a good push into the endzone.  Probably the higher percentage decision.

 

[Undone]

I like this look.  Probably should have just stuck his foot in the ground, lowered his shoulders and gone straight ahead.

This is the kind of play that is probably making our staff say to themselves "we just can't execute runs inside the 5."

A big part of the problem is our backs. After the good stiff arm to fight off the first would-be tackler, like you said, he should have gotten it in there. Now he got 4 yards on 1st & goal so no real complaints.

But after he rounds the corner he just didn't seem to have much awareness of what he needed to do to get in across the goal line.

 

[Savage Husker]

The criticism of Satterfield sounds nearly identical to the criticism of every Nebraska OC over the last 20 years. At this point I don't think it's reflective of the specific assistant coaching hires and more a reflection of how offenses have changed over the last 20 years. Even when Nebraska was running 65/35 run/pass splits a segment of Husker Nation would accuse the OC of abandoning the run and/or getting too cute with a first down pass. 

I'm not sure who these folks would like to hire, but if you're looking for a playcaller who wouldn't think of calling a pass play near the goal line, they don't exist. Every Saturday and Sunday you'll see a teams with top flight running backs call a little play-action flare pass from the two yard line because it might be smarter and safer than ramming it down their throats for zero yards. Analytics tends to back these decisions up. 

That being said, we probably won't see the Carter Nelson leap again. 

And nearly every OC over the last 20 years has been…dun duh da dunnnn…fired.

Seriously though, I understand my criticism may be harsh and I’ll accept that, but it’s my opinion that he is not a good in game play caller. I’m a Seahawks fan, I get terrible goal-line play calls. 
 

Thank you for the bolded, that’s not analytics, that’s boneheaded. It’s also not the only example. 

 

[admo]

:yeah

Basically the same play that we ran to Bonner in the first game.  

I like this look.  Probably should have just stuck his foot in the ground, lowered his shoulders and gone straight ahead.

Right tackle issue.  Didn't do enough at the line before going to second level.

I love this play.  Esp with Gabe.

Since it did not work, it was "too cute" and "Satt sucks again, ZOMG !!1!!111!!!!!"   

:LOLtartar

 

[Lorewarn]

So as much as people hate it, if teams are going to completely sell out to stop the run the answer isn't "block better!", it's to exploit the weakness and throw it. 

I agree in principle. At the same time, great teams dictate rather than be dictated to, and our history as a program has a large helping of "it doesn't matter if you're going to put all 11 players in the box, we're still going to run into and over you." Not a realistic reality, but against inferior talent you should be able to outscheme but also outpower your opponent. Doesn't seem we're at a point of relying on the latter.

 

[admo]

If the team plays like they did against Colorado, they will beat Rutgers, Indiana, UCLA and possibly Iowa or Wisconsin.  Thus I see them picking up at least 3 more wins against these teams.

3-2 vs Rutgers, Indiana, UCLA, Iowa and Wisconsin ???  Hmmm, OK....

Is HH our Quarterback?, or Casey Thompson?? 

Not only do I like our chances against these teams more than you do, but if you look at what our Defense has done with points scored against, plus our QB Dylan Raiola who is growing and getting better each week, I just don't think we come out of that with less than 4 wins.  I actually see 5 wins.  But, you might be right.  So I won't even turn on the TV.  

 

[floridacorn]

One major objective with play calling is to make the other team think you're going to do "Thing A" and then actually do "Thing B."

Being unpredictable within your predictability.  This is what TO was a subtle master of.  This is what you see from all these coaches rising from the Shannahan coaching tree.  They use the O-lineman as a weapons.  I've noticed wham blocks (outside/in traps) this year for the first time in a long time.  

I like a lot of what I see NU trying to do in the run game, but I'd like to see more sustained double teams.  Whether they are holding onto their initial zone blocks longer or implementing some duo scheme.  Put the back on the LB and challenge him to get tough yards.  As they say, the enemy of good can be perfect.  

 

[Red Five]

And nearly every OC over the last 20 years has been…dun duh da dunnnn…fired.

Seriously though, I understand my criticism may be harsh and I’ll accept that, but it’s my opinion that he is not a good in game play caller. I’m a Seahawks fan, I get terrible goal-line play calls. 
 

Thank you for the bolded, that’s not analytics, that’s boneheaded. It’s also not the only example. 

How many teams are there that have fans that actually like their OC?  Less than 10?