Undone

I getcha, that's good stuff. I think you and I have talked about Fidone out there; we gotta get this kid the ball. Or Kemp - find some different ways to get him into an open field mismatch. I don't think these things are asking too much of the talent we have this season. As I said a couple posts up though, maybe the defenses we're going to face in the next four games are more like Northern Illinois and less like Minnesota's and the "keep it simple, stupid" approach is good for 28 points and we win three out of the four and we're good to go. Totally possible, I just don't know that it's smart to bank on that if you're Rhule & Satt.

You quoted a post where I responded to ZRod pushing back on the comments that Frost's playbook and Satterfield's playbook were very similar. And I'm definitely not "complaining" about anything. Yes, and I mentioned that in a different post that you didn't quote where I said: Now...maybe some of the defenses we're going to play in these next 4 games have dropped off quite a bit from where they've typically been the last few seasons, and maybe they're more like Northern Illinois and less like Minnesota. So maybe the big sets and power running is good for 28 points in those games and if the defense shows up we win most of them. About to find out!

I don't really remember Frost doing much 22 man personnel at all, outside of goal line scenarios here and there. Didn't really do that at midfield that I recall. If I'm wrong there, somebody correct me. He ran some 12 man for sure, and I definitely think any team should run a healthy dose of 12 man in the B1G. But in my opinion, Frost did creative things out of 11 man that make Satterfield's playbook look pretty lame, all in all. So like, Rhule's comments there first of all were inaccurate. And for me were also just a hair away from "whiny" and definitely in the category of making excuses. Like I said, I think the s*** they've rolled out kind of sucks and they need to get a bit more creative. Just my opinion there.

This place has a subtle way of putting some pretty insane pressure on coaches. I'm sure he's starting to feel it in ways he didn't really expect 2+ months ago. I don't want to go down a big rabbit hole of dissecting Frost's teams here, I'd rather talk about this year's team. But Frost pretty rarely had the kind of defense that showed up in that Minnesota game or the Northern Illinois game. If he would have routinely had that, he wouldn't have produced a perennial 4-8 dumpster fire. We would have won way more games. I disagree with the concept that "playing the kind of football everybody else plays in your conference" is necessary to win. No, you can win with a scheme that's different from the herd in your conference/division. Purdue is a decent example of that on offense. I had a very "wait & see" approach with the comments from Gamecocks fans about Satterfield's scheme. But honestly, a lot of what they were saying is playing out to a 'T' for us this season. But the point is, it's not hard to tweak things. It's obviously hard if you feel that your QB can't make medium/deep throws - that part is understandable. But the explicit mentality Rhule is describing is playing conservatively at all costs. Not really a big fan of that. Again...I know we're a bit limited by talent in some of that.

The usual disclaimer: overanalyzing stuff coaches say in press conferences is probably not great. But also this is a message board, etc. Rhule said something in yesterday's presser that I thought was worth talking about: I understand that "50 times a game" was intentional hyperbole to make a point. But for me the point didn't actually land. To wit, it was barely half that figure on average, probably. And we weren't constantly in a 4 wide spread look. In fact in years 2-4 I think those plays were fairly few & far between for Frost's playbook. Outside of Frost year 5, we used a big, physical QB as the workhorse and linchpin of the whole damn thing. Sound familiar? Face it, coach; your offense blows right now. It legitimately sucks. You do need to fix that right away, and you need to figure out how to keep the chains moving. Yes, mistakes have kept some points off the board in the red zone and also we've only played 5 games. But what we're doing right now on offense is just like one rung above Iowa, and like Iowa's scheme it's not going to be attractive to QB's that throw well and talented receivers. "Pay The Players More" guy will come in and say we just need to "open up the checkbook," but this scheme needs a little bit of tweaking.

Thought maybe it was a dumpster that caught on fire at the stadium...

I do think Satterfield can do a little more than he has so far in terms of getting different kinds of plays into the mix at the right time. It's not necessarily a generic complaint about "play calling" but rather a "how can we use guys differently and avoid the constant blitzes." We don't pass block well. So don't dial up slow-developing passing plays on 1st down. He thinks it's catching the other team off guard, and maybe it could - if we didn't suck in pass protection. Do something to work the ball outside quickly on early downs. Maybe that's just designed keepers out of the "I" for Haarberg.

For me the season is going roughly how I expected it to. I didn't expect to beat Minnesota and was surprised we were even in that one. We won the two easy non-con games, and now there are four winnable games left to get to a bowl. But I think this game is probably a "welp, better luck next year" one if we lose. We aren't going to beat Maryland or Wisconsin. Yeah, we could still beat Michigan State, Purdon't, Northwestern and then Iowa. But just pull out every bit of creativity and motivation that you possibly can for this one, Rhule.

I remember a guy named Ed Reed who was 5'11"...

Gotta be Chubba, right? Now, maybe much less likely if people get the feeling Sims wouldn't come back.

That's exactly the point.

And it reinforces that yes, you have to develop a QB. You can't just plant the seed and walk away from it and expect that two years later it's an amazing thing. Again with Haarberg though, not many people would have expected him to be the starter early in 2023.

But here's another crazy idea (and this is of course a different train of thought): how about just not recruiting QB's that don't have decent throwing motions as high school seniors? How about targeting kids as prospects that lean towards better completion percentages and just look like decent passers? I think that's really the issue. And another thing I've said for a while, and this goes along with what you said about "there really isn't much about playing QB that isn't difficult" (which was a good quote, btw): When you run a zone read system, your QB spends a very significant amount of his total practice time not practicing his passing game. I think that's a big detail. Whereas Wisconsin's QB's in the Gary Andersen/Paul Chryst/whatever era were recruited because they were good pocket passers in high school and I can guarantee they spent most of their practice time on throwing the ball. Now some of them wound up not being great (Hornibrook, e.g.). But they were still guys where when they were in 3rd & 6, they had the pedigree to scan the field and throw. What we're rolling out is getting harder and harder to watch. Even though I still maintain that Ricky Haarberg could be pretty decent next season or in 2025. I think his throwing motion is small potatoes.

What I saw in last night's Chiefs vs. Jets game was a Jets offensive staff that was of course really scared to see Wilson throwing the ball very much, but also knowing that they couldn't just hand the ball off to Breece Hall & Dalvin Cook all game long to actually have a shot at winning. Sound familiar? After a slow start early in the first quarter, they actually did pretty well out of both 22 and 12 man personnel. They found some surprisingly good ways to open up the field in those big sets, I was legitimately surprised. One thing they did was rolling Wilson out, and another was involving RB's in the passing game. I really wish we had Rhamir Johnson for this game.

Illinois ranks #63 in total yards per game, and 94th in points per game. We rank 85th & 111th in both of those categories, respectively. So just like against Minnesota, this one will come down to how dominant our defense can be. Highlights of their game Saturday against Purdue: They've got an explosive zone read QB. In the middle of the 2nd quarter, Illinois looks like the better team. Game is 16-13 Purdue at half. Then it looked like Purdue's QB gets all day to throw several times in the second half, and Illinois' defense just fell apart. Now I don't know much about Purdue's running backs & offensive line this season, but I'd say they're not really known for beating teams on the ground, or even for necessarily being all that balanced. But they put up 189 yards on the ground against the Illini, with one back having 21 carries for 112 yards (which makes for a 5.3 YPC average). Seems like Illinois' tough rushing defense has maybe dropped off the map? Not sure.

The single biggest recruiting move under Rhule so far was of course bringing in Sims. Like, by a mile. And really, he hasn't even played two full games for us yet. But holy s***. You look at his film from Georgia Tech and it's just like, why did these guys bring him in? What were some of those final meetings like where they made him the offer? For me it's just a really terrible start to this thing. Again, I'm saying a terrible "start." Totally believe Sims could come out against Illinois and light it up and save the season. But amidst the abject clusterf*** that is NIL and the conversation around NIL, our QB position is the focal point. That's why the conversations about Ricky Haarberg's throwing motion and those kinds of things are a headscratcher.

Can you define "doing better with NIL?" So is your theory that somebody was like "these guys are good enough - we shouldn't go after better players." Or is it that we could have spent more money while still being within the rules but just didn't because we didn't think of that?

Ok, back to this season of football though. The season basically starts this week against Illinois. We need 4 out of these last 7 to make a bowl. No, we're not going to win the West, but if we make a bowl it's the best season in 6 years. My thing with our offensive strategy is, sure, line up in 22 personnel in the first quarter and see if we can move the chains. But if it doesn't work, I just really hope that Rhule can dial up some semblance of creativity.

You know that I can't prove anything to you. I actually think that the assumption is that a team can basically pay a player any amount. I'm not sure that's really how it works.

Do our fans think that we're not stretching the limits of NIL rules to pay players? I keep seeing this recurring theme that the answer is to "oP3n Up teH cHEcKb00kS." Like, we're not doing that already?

Under normal circumstances, a fan base probably wouldn't really be expecting a sophomore like Prochazka to come in and really change everything at a position. I think it was more about how bad the other options have been. It was kind of like "well, he's gotta be better than the alternative?" But he's probably not there yet.

Haarberg's throwing motion maybe doesn't even crack the top 3 biggest problems our passing game has, IMO.

Can't say this enough: only the really, really good teams get running QB's who throw the ball super well. Frost was recruiting the same basic mold that Rhule is recruiting; the guy has to be able to run zone read. This greatly limits the kind of thrower you can get. I think Kaelin is a good prospect, he's an exciting player. But I highly doubt Rhule pulls in a QB out of the portal that's that much better than what we have right now.

The wife says the same thing about my performance.

haha, I love this.