Undone

3 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Just one would have been huge. 

I kept saying "the longer they're behind, the bigger the chance Mordecai starts screwing up." But he played a clean game and we couldn't tackle him in the backfield.

We should have converted that 4th & 1 in the second quarter and gotten more points on the board on that drive. When that didn't happen we just gave up all the momentum.

Anyway, Purdy played a really good game. 65% completion, over 100 yards running. He can rifle passes into spaces and anticipate where a guy will be open like the other two QB's cannot.

19 minutes ago, lo country said:

Are those 3 guys game changers?  Have they been game changers?  TBH, I'd say that Liberty's skill guys and QB are better than ours.  And that's an issue.  Better talent or development?  

Here's an analogy. For the past six seasons, we can't even walk. We're crawling.

You seem to not be talking about walking or maybe even running slowly. You seem to be talking about competing in a 100 yard dash.

27 minutes ago, PaulCrewe said:

I'm sorry you lack certain senses to see the HUGE differences in the two situations.  And, sorry not an arm chair QB, played and then coached college ball.

I get it. You're taking your frustration of losing the game out on a stranger on the internet.

1st & 10 from the opponent's 12 yard line in this one. We throw on first down and it's an incompletion.

Last week, it was 1st & goal on their 7. We throw on that play for an incompletion (and obviously Rhule claimed Chubba decided to throw instead of run).

So then in this one, 7 seconds in the game from their 12. For most teams, you want to see another play, I wouldn't ever disagree with that. But, we're a bunch of complete f***-up's.

I highly doubt a run play gets into the end zone from their 12, but anything is possible. If we pass, it's pretty similar to calling the pass on 3rd & goal last week; you've got the same QB who threw a dumb pick from basically the same exact spot on the field in the same basic situation the week before. Now the stakes are lower there because it was tied whereas against Wisconsin if you don't come up with 3 points the game's over.

So yeah, the situations are similar. They're not identical, but they're similar. Coach was probably gun shy about turning it over. I wanted to see another play also, just saying that for like the third time now.

I have to just point out fans' propensity to focus on what happens in the second half of fourth quarters while simultaneously forgetting about failures that happened for the first 3.5 quarters.

Our momentum went downhill when we didn't convert the 4th & 1 in the first half. And then we couldn't shut down some of their short throws, and we couldn't tackle Mordecai in the backfield.

Maybe we punch it in on short yardage on goal to go, or maybe they stop us. For me it's just a huge problem that this offense can't even average 5 points per quarter. We should be putting up 20 points in regulation with the athletes we have, IMO.

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

The people mad about not getting a field goal are not requiring the team to call higher risk plays in this situation. You can save the clock, then run 3 moderate to low risk plays. You can run the ball on 3rd with the plan to run out the clock on 4th down before kicking the FG. The only arguments against doing it that way are maybe we fumble it or maybe Wisconsin calls a time out at 28 secs to try to score after our FG. But that’s the most conservative way you can call it. 

 

The best option if your offense is shaky is save the time out, run on 3rd down. If you get the 1st down you can try to run again. You could even run it twice and then pass it. 3 plays instead of 1. If you don’t get the 1st down, you run the clock down to 3 secs then kick the FG.

I agree, Moiraine. I also wish it had gone that way.

6 minutes ago, HuskerInLostWages said:

I do believe you can jinx yourself and whoever you support by jumping the gun, you jumped the gun the the first quarter, maybe keep your thoughts to yourself until the game is over next time.  After you said "going bowling" we went on an 0-17 unanswered.  This is not the first time I saw someone talk about the 6th win and ever since we have s#!t the bed.  STFU and if it happens it happens.

This is a legendary tier of bulls***, lol.

I haven't drank enough for this.

3 minutes ago, huskerfan74 said:

Kicking a field goal on 4th down is one thing. Wasting two downs where we obviously were able to run the ball down Wisconsin’s throat as they were gassed is another thing. I was not advocating for a pass play but if we used the timeouts wisely and used the two downs we had and ran the ball with EJ or purdy, we might have been able to score and put the game away. Going to overtime is risky and our track record with overtime games sucks to say the least. I am just upset that we wasted two downs when we could have used out timeouts better. This is not the first time Rhule mismanaged the end of the half or the game. He was not aggressive in wanting to score a touchdown in my opinion. Again, running the ball was working for us on the last drive.

I agree with everything you said but just have to point out that last week our staff was aggressive in trying to score 7 instead of 3 and we screwed up big time (with the same QB that was playing tonight) and we all lost our s***.

Please don't tell me that you won't even acknowledge this. This is a safe space.

1 minute ago, PaulCrewe said:

No the situations aren't really close at all

You can't be serious.

1 minute ago, lo country said:

I have no real idea what our scheme is.  What skill position has shined.  Who is our game on the line he needs the ball guy.....We have no identity.

What skill position has shined? Well, let's see. Here are our injuries:

-Gabe Ervin

-Rahmir Johnson

-Marcus Washington

You want Chadwell's scheme, right? How is what we did tonight appreciably different than Chadwell's stuff? We ran option, we ran zone read. We run a bunch of stuff out of the "I" (which lifelong Husker fans generally are really happy about).

We needed Chubba's game that he had tonight against Michigan State & Maryland and we're 7-4 right now. Hell, make it 8-4 if he had played like tonight against Minnesota.

4 minutes ago, runningblind said:

We have been trotting out a bloody TE to play QB, so on the bench for injuries? That's where. Sims is a head case, but I understand wanting to try him. Haarberg is not a QB, round peg in a square hole.

Can't understand the point you're trying to make. I was referring to Purdy. Apparently Purdy has had an injury basically all season.

To my eye, Chubba Purdy is exactly the kind of QB that works best for this offense. Like, exactly the right guy.

24 minutes ago, huskerfan74 said:

We kicked the field goal on second down. Had we had more time, we could have won it in regulation. You never want to go to overtime in an opponent’s home field when they need the win as much as you do.

Obviously we're all mad about this, but just to play devil's advocate: everybody was so mad about not getting the field goal last week in basically the same situation...right?

5 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Purdy was definitely hurt earlier in the year.  It would be intersting to know when he was healthy enough to play.

 

But Rhule definitely seems to get stuck on a QB.  Refused to bench Sims until he got hurt.  Refused to bench HH until he got hurt.

Yes, I know he was hurt earlier in the season.

Another thing about this game was that it was hella bad luck for us to get the game where Mordecai didn't melt down with turnovers. So unlucky.

Chadwell doesn't bring anything more to the table for this season than what we've had. We finally put in an actually good QB who does pretty well and doesn't make a ton of dumb mistakes. He runs zone read, option, scrambles...how much more "Chadwell" can it get?

The problem was not establishing the run in the second half.

There's no "What did we learn" thread to actually talk about the game so I'll just put this here: Purdy really rifles the ball in there. He looks like an actual QB when he winds up and throws the ball. Where in the actual f*** has that been all year long?

Unbelievable that Purdy comes out and plays so well and we learn that he wasn't in the mix earlier in the year because of injury. Like, the most Nebraska thing to happen. Guy throws for 65% and rushes for over 100 yards.

We just didn't establish the run in the right ways in the second half. For me that's really the bottom line. The defense played fine overall and Purdy had great stats. Just couldn't dominate the line of scrimmage in the second half.

If Purdy had started healthy against Michigan State or Maryland we probably win both of those games by 7+ points.

I just can't stand the constant dynamic of "we can actually win this game" and then just blowing it. F***.

The constant f****** dynamic of "I think we can actually win this one" and then blowing it is just beyond old.

Wouldn't be a game without a false start by Prochazka.

We gave up all of the momentum when we didn't get that 4th & 1 conversion. Downhill from there.

Hey I have a great idea though! Let's run a bunch of 7 step drop pass plays instead of those toss plays!

44 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The problem I have with this complaint is that if we always call the play that is the obvious play that should be called, we become predictable and very easy to defend.  You have to mix in some of the unpredictable.  Fans also complain about..."OMG....everyone knew what we were going to run".

Yes I was just creating a couple definitions of some things.

4 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

No no no, we have to outsmart them - first drive, only long developing play action passes!

Ha. I bet this game is a big one for you!

So Purdy getting the start then?

I just really hope that in the 1st quarter on offense we'll try to establish the run without asking him to pass much. 

13 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Of course, Satterfield critics will say “why are we even calling this play, given the fact our QB’s can’t do execute it”.  I somewhat understand that argument, but we don’t know if this play is being executed well in practice, so Satt is putting it in the game plan for a house call. This is why I am giving Satt mostly a free pass on this year.

I think we have to separate out two things under the one umbrella of "play calling:"

1. Calling a play that's a weird choice no matter what given the down & distance (which is probably the most common thing fans do).

2. Questioning why we called what we did given our ability to execute the play.

And you mentioned that. It's the second one. But there should be no gripe with item #1; totally fine to pass on 2nd & 8 where you're basically spreading the field out. I honestly love that play...but yeah, there's no QB to execute it.

Not a hill I'm gonna die on, but fun to talk about with this one:

16 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

In fact, I give Satt credit for trying to bring in some option wrinkles to take advantage of what Haarberg does well. 

I honestly think it's a part of Albert's mandate to run some option. I'll probably get a ton of disagreement that it even works like that. I know people will say "no way, Rhule is completely free to do whatever he wants." But I think the staff is running some option because we're Nebraska, damn it. And if that's true, I don't like it.

42 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

No you're right - he definitely said we should have had Kemp for a TD. He just also pointed out that the receiver Haarberg chose was open too, and all he had to do was make a decent throw.

Man. Just maddening.

1 hour ago, runningblind said:

Why isn't there 64 pages about the defense who plays good football?

12 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Last thing, the running game gets opened up more with a higher quality passing game.   Even though CT can’t run nearly as well as HH or Sims, his increased passing prowess would soften up the safety’s and prevent as much downhill pressure as the offense currently sees.  Maybe also allow the WR’s to get better blocking angles for second level runs. 

Absolutely. I have been saying this for years on this forum.

I'd be thrilled to pieces to land more of that "pass-first" guy out of the transfer portal this offseason. I'm tired of the "stacked box but you're telegraphing a run play" offensive scheme, I just really want to see something different.

And somebody's going to chime in and say "yeah but we're 32nd in the country running the ball this year in rushing yards per game" It's true, but I still think we wind up in a lot of 3rd & longs and we don't have QB's that can handle those situations much at all. 

As far as 2022 was concerned, I really think we would have made a bowl game with Thompson if anybody not named Erik Chinander had been coaching the defense for those first 4 games. It was absolutely f****** stupid to lose 45-42 to Georgia Southern.

22 minutes ago, Lorewarn said:

We would add some amount of better passing production with Thompson, but how much considering the state of our receiver room? 

It's a good point. Now maybe it's more of limiting dumb interceptions though also. That's been a pretty big problem this season also.

Another thing that's similar to your point would be how we had two key RB's get injured for the season. So maybe the running QB's filled the gaps there because if I'm looking at team stats correctly, we're actually 32nd in the nation in rushing yards per game.

Hard to say all things would have been equal with injuries if Thompson had been the starter but maybe there's something to that one.