Undone

Ervin's numbers there for 2023 come out to 5.15 yards per carry. Honestly that's pretty decent. I think there were some flashes where I thought he had made some big strides.

Rahmir at one point was considered to be one of the three fastest guys on the team. Would love to see him catching some well-thrown passes into the flat from Raiola and tearing up the outside.           

10 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

I really think the biggest thing we're allergic to as of late is quality line play.  This isnt a knock on raiola (ol coach)- but in general, we've disregarded the importance of the line to the point where no offense would be successful.

Husker fans seem to go to this blame pretty quickly. If we had put Georgia's offensive line in front of Haarberg, would the results have been that different?

Or to rephrase it, which would have given us more wins in 2023?

• Having Georgia's offensive line
• Having Michael Penix at QB in all 12 games

18 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

Kyle Shanahan has been on record many a times saying he loves seeing a stacked box because thats exactly what he wants to trick the defnese into.... have them expect the run and gash them on a pass play out of the same exact formation they've seen a run from many times in that game.

I do think this is exactly the kind of thing Rhule & Satterfield want to do.

I think  that we've had negative outcomes of playing against heavy defensive fronts when we're rolling out the B Grade or even C Grade dual threat QB's that aren't actually a threat with their arm. I could pick out specific seasons where this happened under Bo, Riley, Frost, and obviously in Rhule's first year.

You tend to get heavy pressure there because there's lots of game film that shows your QB can't stand strong in the pocket and dial in a good throw when the blitz is coming, so opposing defenses have a lot of success playing you this way.

It's probably not smart to pour over the San Francisco comments too much, but also it's the offseason. I still say we'd need better talent at running back to implement a clone of what the niners do, but then again I doubt Rhule intends to try to do exactly what Shanahan does on offense.

The bottom line to me is that once Raiola is up to speed and if his arm is as good as I think it's going to be, it'll be a waste of what he can give us if we don't toss the ball around the field quite a bit more than what our fan base probably has in their mind as their ideal run/pass ratio.

And it's like our program has some actual allergic reaction to anything considered a "spread offense." I think that's lame. But, we did go four guys wide in some 3rd down situations this season, so there's hope.     

12 minutes ago, Mavric said:

I wanted Purdy to stay.  But I think he would have been #2.  Which is why he's leaving.

I can buy this.

I think Purdy may have even transferred only based on kind of feeling like he was being used as a bridge player to get Dylan to his redshirt freshman year, also.

Personally I think you always want to redshirt a player like Raiola. But it is what it is!

Yeah. Purdy leaving hurts us quite a bit, IMO. I really expected he'd be the starter next year and Rhule would try to redshirt Raiola, probably giving Raiola his four allowable games.

57 minutes ago, GlobalHusker said:

Wait…who wouldn’t want to run what Niners run. With a Trent Williams to rely the blind side, Swiss Army knives at just about every position. How man FB’s you know that can run a wheel route like Yoos? Or with Kittle’s speed, catching, AND blocking ability. Deebo can line up in the backfield or split wide. CMC can catch run and block. They can run many sets without rotating personnel that puts pressure on the defenses to stop with what they have. Seems very distant from happening anytime soon here

To your first statement, maybe the problem is locking in on one specific type of scheme and thinking "this is the scheme that wins games." Seems like we're talking about a fan's preference? The way I'd rephrase that statement would be "who wouldn't want to be 3rd in the league in scoring?" That's what you're after.

When I look at the Niners, I see an organization that put together a roster to run a specific scheme. But not only does the talent fit the scheme, the talent is also just stupid good.

I don't really have strong preferences on what we do, I just don't want to suck anymore. But my number one concern (especially looking at having landed a QB like Raiola) is whether our offensive staff is capable of putting together a playbook during an offseason that maximizes what your personnel can do. No more round peg, square hole stuff.

San Francisco runs a relatively high amount of 21 personnel (2 backs, 1 tight end), and then a healthy dose of 22 personnel. That's lining up then with just 2 receivers. Kyle Shanahan uses some good creativity with motion and the use of two tight ends. It's kind of hard to say how that could translate to what we could do when you look at just how amazing & versatile Debo Samuel and McCaffrey are.

I think you could argue that things fall apart with whatever Shanahad would try to do without those two guys right now. But, they're 3rd in points per game in the league currently, so Shanahan's scheme is definitely doing a lot of things well.

That said, I'd rather do more of what Michigan does and be in standard 11 man personnel a ton with three wideouts. I'm referring to when Raiola actually takes the reins as the starter.

Assuming we'd have the receiver talent up to speed at that point, I personally think 3-wideouts sets would take more advantage of his elite arm talent than the big sets would, but I know that Husker fans just love having a fullback out there and lining up in the heavy formations.

I also think if we go slow pace-wise at that point it'll be a big mistake.

Also, thank you @Mavric for changing the thread title. My eye twitch has now gone away.

13 hours ago, brophog said:

 

He's not that bad. I wouldn't have hired him, certainly not at that cost, but he's average level OC.

I seem to remember you saying in the past few weeks that Satterfield "would take a good QB and make him look mediocre." Not calling you out, and honestly that sounds like it could be accurate. Just trying to decipher the takes.     

43 minutes ago, MacReady said:

I could be wrong but I don’t see us running much zone read with DR besides maybe a situational wrinkle here and there. I see a lot more RPO stuff in our future with DR’s elite awareness and decision making.

Totally hoping this is accurate. It's what I'd expect, but you don't really know with Satterfield.

Raiola is very mobile. I think our fan base might not be understanding that when they read the words "#1 rated pocket passer in his class."

He's a mobile guy that can throw as well as any other high school QB in the country. Think Marcus Mariota at Oregon, but with maybe an even better arm. We literally couldn't get a better QB to run the modified zone read system that Rhule has.

The hypothetical around a 3 star offensive lineman that gets upset about how much his QB is making isn't a dumb conversation. Any college football player could decide to quit for any reason.

The question is, is NU paying at least some kind of minimum salary for all players? I'm pretty sure that we are but I can't prove that.

Assuming we are, then it's a question of whether that same player could go out and get more in the transfer portal at another school (assuming he's not quitting just because he's butthurt). The entire conversation is pretty equivalent to differing salaries in any other workplace, really.

Man what a great friggin day for the 'skers. Seriously can't wait for this kid to be out on the field someday soon with that red 'N' on his helmet!

Just now, Big Red Viking said:

Means noting unless he produces

11 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

One of their talking heads is saying that he "thinks" Georgia is back in the mix because they countered whatever Nebraska was offering.

I'd think it would be obvious to anyone that Georgia would counter, if we're talking about NIL package stuff. There's basically no way that they wouldn't.

I could be wrong about this but I think for the top tier recruits like Dylan, the NIL money as an incoming freshman is less important than going to the school that sets them up the best for success, and success ultimately mainly means getting an NFL contract a few years later. I doubt that even several hundred thousand dollars makes a huge difference to Dylan and his dad - but could be totally wrong.

1 minute ago, Pedro G said:

Marlon Lucky was a disappointment to a certain degree. He played and was productive. But he was never the difference maker he was billed to be. Wasn’t Baker Steinkuler (SP?) a five star?  He was ok but again never a difference maker. 

I think the big difference with Raiola as a star QB and those guys though is how he might help land other skill players on offense.

1 hour ago, Hayseed said:

McCord actually said himself that the money was a problem.

Link?

1 hour ago, Hayseed said:

...he didn’t like them talking to Raiola...

Link?

6 minutes ago, Huskerfollower4life said:

Do you think that since MLB doesn't have a salary cap that it is a unfair advantage to smaller market teams?

Pretty much, yeah.

I prefer the NFL model more.

10 minutes ago, brophog said:

Sports economics don't function quite like regular economics because the values are only significant relative to each other. 10 million dollars is a lot of money but if you think you're better than the guy making 15 million then you're getting screwed.

Sports economics still adhere to the law of supply & demand just like anything else, though. And the transfer portal plays that out; if there are a bunch of "Kyle McCord's" in the portal in the offseason, the value of each probably go down. I think you're talking about something different which is that player salaries in general are on a different planet than somebody working the average job.

10 minutes ago, brophog said:

Sports organizations all over the world have had to put in spending regulations to literally keep teams from spending their way into debt. It's so easy to justify player expense in the name of competition but what happens is at the end of the day the payout doesn't always cover the expenditure.

Pretty much the same as examining the price/equity ratio of a company's valuation and then factoring in their debt, I'd say. But I see your concerns there and you went on to talk about going into debt, etc., here:

10 minutes ago, brophog said:

The NIL thing right now has no real regulation and with the way the NCAA and its member schools are set up and with the courts constantly getting involved I'm not sure how there can be, legally speaking, any sort of regulation needed to get this thing in check without a significant restructuring and collective organization by the respective parties.

From my own political philosophical standpoint, I'm not particularly uncomfortable with the government/ruling bodies not being heavily involved in this yet. But my biggest question is about whether or not there should be a salary cap of some kind similar to the NFL's.

20 minutes ago, Huskerfollower4life said:

You say he isn't worth 2 million only bc of how much you would have to pay him but it's all the other things that you don't consider or say as to why he isn't worth that much.  If Ohio State didn't have stupid expectations like us he still be the starter at Thee Ohio State the prestige program.

I think the point is that it's a head scratcher as to how anybody would come up with the exact figure of $2M.

If we had just an insane pool of funds laying around for example with the 1890 Initiative and there wasn't anything else that gets negatively impacted and that's the figure it takes to pull him in, then sure. Maybe he's worth that much because he's an upgrade.

But if that figure detracts from other players then maybe it isn't.

This is all so new still, so I don't know how anybody can say they feel sure about how much a player is worth.

You'd have to probably start with how much total money is in the slush fund. But we don't have that info.

2 minutes ago, brophog said:

The quotes are appropriate there, for sure. They're only a power team relative to what the general college football landscape is. Their passing game has a lot of Air Raid concepts, for instance.

Yes, and they're mainly doing it out of 11 man.

I think you're right that the 12 man stuff diminishes as the team starts executing better (whether that occurs through more time in the system or with better players or because of whatever).

As @floridacorn mentioned a few days ago, it could be pretty tough to keep guys like Coleman if by the end of next season our receivers are splitting 135 receiving yards across like 12 catches per game. But I know everyone will say that Satterfield will open up the floodgates at some point in time. We'll see.

17 hours ago, brophog said:

Not that the offensive line doesn't matter, they absolutely play their part and I'm poking fun at fans more than diminishing their contribution, but it is amazing how much better they seem to get with a good QB and a light box.

And I worry we won't get the light boxes with all of the 12 man personnel stuff (and even some 22 man) that Satterfield seems to want to do.

Michigan is considered by our fan base as a "power team." They run tons and tons of 11 man with one tight end. So does Ohio State. Both teams are always threatening you with the passing game despite having the ability to ram it downfield with power running.

But it isn't just because their QB's are better than almost everybody else's in the conference. It's the scheme also, as you mention. Rhule said "we're not going to be a spread offense." That's fine - but you can still spread the field in 11 man. Satterfield will have to figure out how to do it.