Undone

Is he the starter though, or is Sims still not 100%? I tend to think that in Rhule's mind, Haarberg is the backup.

Both of those quips I put in quotes were loose translations of things I've heard Rhule say in pressers after the two losses. The big concern I have is the idea of supplementing pass blocking with big sets but then only having two wideouts - or even just one wideout - on a lot of plays. Schematically, I think it's looked pretty bad when it's done as drop back plays. I think we may have to run more stuff out of 11 man and roll the QB out to loosen up the passing plays. And another thing Satterfield's playbook seems to be fairly bereft of is quick-hitter passing plays. I did see one or two yesterday and they looked good. But a lot of them are slow developing plays. Then unrelated to this season (which I realize was what I brought up), I also think it potentially sets you up to get into the Iowa Doom Loop where you can't attract good QB's and good WR's because on paper what you do is pretty bland and is run-heavy anyway. I'm not saying there's some five alarm fire occurring though. But I see 4 winnable games in a row after Michigan and I'm just hoping we pull out all the stops to get 3 out of the 4.

I did, you're right.

I hope this staff really gives a s*** about winning now and doesn't just die on the hill of "this takes as long as it takes" and "it's taken us three years to get good at the two other schools." We could almost put Fidone out as a slot receiver or even out wide, the guy is really that athletic that I think he'd almost be better than any of our WR's.

Safe assumption, yes. Just hoping this staff goes for the best guy they can get instead of absolutely having to have somebody who can house it off of a zone read keeper. I'd say they're squarely 0-1 there.

It's weird to think though that this staff can get a dual threat guy that drops dimes all day though. He gets replaced by...who? Another Jeff Sims? If our offense keeps running 22 man personnel and running behind a fullback all the time with no great long & athletic receivers on the horizon, I doubt we're pulling in the dual threat guy that's lights out in the passing game. This staff requires zone read running, so you have to be realistic about who we're really going to get.

I'm just matching your tone here; I'm not taking a personal shot at you but just matching your level: I don't really think you know what you're talking about. Your criticism of his passing game is inaccurate & also overly harsh. You said in another post that he's "not a Division I QB;" I'd say he's a completely serviceable backup as a sophomore and has the potential to be a good starter by the start of next year or in 2025. Guy's a sophomore. His completion percentage against LA Tech suffered from a throwaway or two and Washington's drop where the ball hits him right in the numbers on a critical 3rd down that would have been converted if he catches it. Yeah, he had the other one that went into traffic and probably should have been picked off, but tons of great QB's have that happen almost every game, also. The TD pass to Fidone was off the mark but that's why it's nice to have guys with that kind of athleticism; Thomas comes back for it and does the rest himself. But just one more zoomed-out take: When your recruiting requirements of a QB is that he has to run and your program is a perennial dumpster fire, you're not pulling in Tua Tagovailoa's. If you want somebody that throws really, really well, then you have to change your requirements. This staff and the last one required that the QB be a runner.

I actually think Haarberg has some potential as a passer. First off, he has the height, and secondly he's clearly not afraid of getting hit. He just needs way more time in the system - which is normal to say of a lot of sophomores. Another positive for me (albeit a small thing) was calling up the jet sweep for Kemp on the TD. Loved the call and the execution on that one. That play is a keeper, and not just inside the red zone. I'd like to see a variation of that play where the jet sweep is faked to Kemp, QB rolls in the opposite direction, and Fidone sprints deep down the hash for a long ball.

I honestly really hated that play call. It's being completely unaware of what your team is actually good at executing. Blast a Conference USA school with zone read with Haarberg as a battering ram for 4 or 5 plays and see if you can move the chains and get comfortable. I get it, it's the "well you want creativity from your OC, don't you" angle. But we just can't pass block.

Totally agree, especially on Fidone. Look at this stat sheet: Fidone with one catch...glad it was a 29 yard touchdown, ha.

Our drop back passing game is pretty bad. But we're at least somewhat better than "pretty bad" with play action and RPO's where we throw. Our tackles just can't judge how to move their bodies to move pass rushers off of their line of attack. It's almost stupid how bad it is. I really tend to think it's due in large part to bad coaching, specifically not doing enough "1's vs. the 1's" under Frost. These guys just don't have the muscle memory for the speed of the game and it kind of seems like they may never get it corrected at this point. It's still possible, but probably not likely. Satterfield seems to have realized in the 3rd quarter that LA Tech was having a hard time defending our 22 man jumbo sets. And our edge blockers did well, and Grant is kind of starting to become the complete package. It's weird how much better we are at run blocking than pass blocking, and that's not just because of decent fullback blocking. The O-line is just way better at run blocking when they're working downhill.

We'll probably be lucky to even put up 7 points in garbage time against Michigan's 2nd string defense in this one. Want to be wrong so bad.

I deleted my Cade McNamara reference because they played a much, much tougher defense than we did. But still.

Emotional take. He's playing right now because, you know...the starter is injured?

@Husker in WI, I pulled this over from the "Triaging the QB Room" thread to here. Totally agree with the bold. And I think it's a good example of how badly our team (or any team) needs a good running back. The blocking on that particular play is actually good. But if a different back doesn't flow with the line and cut through the right lane and gets tackled, a lot here would decry "bad run blocking." A good running back does wonders, it's not just about having a two yard chasm on any given play for a back to just stroll through in order to have a good ground game.

If we had sealed that Minnesota game and won it, I would have said "yes." But I don't think we really have a chance. But we could make a bowl game if the defense keeps playing like this. And that would be great.

Agreed there for sure. I just think it might be like a "Husker fan fiction" type of narrative to really believe the Minnesota game is that much different with Haarberg in there. Anything is possible but my main point is that the game was totally winnable with Sims. In a situation where we got shut out or where we weren't winning with 6:00 left to go in the game, yeah, I'd be entertaining that hypothetical heavily. Now, the Colorado game? It wasn't winnable with Sims. And I hope that our coaching staff sees this and evaluates the QB situation very carefully because of it.

I've tried to make the case many times though since the Minnesota game that two major interceptions Sims threw probably wouldn't have even been passing plays that would have happened if other players around him hadn't screwed up badly first. I don't really think I can say that the Minnesota game turns out differently if Haarberg had been the starter. I think we win that game without some really dumb false starts and the fumble by Grant.

Those are good concerns. I think the answer is that this is just kind of how it goes with these 3-3-5 schemes that are so popular now. The scheme got popular probably because of how many teams are running spread offenses with 4 or 5 receivers. One thing that really helps with getting pressure in Tony White's defense is how strong & athletic the "Jack" linebacker is. In our case, the guys we're rolling out in that position are playing good right now and also have a really high ceiling for where they could be by the time we get into the thick of the winnable B1G games on our schedule.

He did that last night on a play that could have been a big gain if he hadn't. Seems like it's a muscle memory thing that he can barely shake off.

Did we even have one false start? Maybe we did have one. But huge difference when those aren't killing drives.

Matt Rhule in his post game presser said: Pretty cool to hear that. And I don't think he's just sugaring the fan base's churros with that comment.

Oh absolutely, a really good point there for sure. It's just like, hey if you can't make these passes work out into the flat, why not just ram our QB out wide with a lead blocker then? By my eye that was the better "high percentage" play all night. And the more you do that successfully, the more you set up for the play action pass over the middle. With the operative word there being "successfully." I have quite a bit of faith that Rhule will keep Satterfield in check. With how good our defense is right now and could be even better 3-4 games from now, we just really need ball control from our offense and we can make a bowl game. Really believe that.

The option plays or quick tempo outside zone reads can be a way to cover up some of the offensive line's problems. I just really hope that Satterfield isn't trying too hard to outsmart defenses. If you find a mismatch, just keep doing it until the other team stops it. The big thing with hammering the QB power run is, eventually it sets you up so well for the play action pass.

Good stuff. Yeah that tunnel screen (I think it was) was such great execution by everybody involved. I thought Fidone would break some of those. I don't really love some of our slow-developing passing plays where the target is basically just two yards out from the line of scrimmage in the flat. Defenses are all over it. Either quick hit it way outside, or just go downfield. A lot of these plays to the flat out of the heavy sets just aren't fooling anybody, but Satterfield clearly loves them.