Undone

Fru used the word "probably" in his original statement: "Probably" doesn't mean "assured" or "definitely."

Yeah and I'm really nowhere close to being in the "fire Satterfield after the Iowa game" crowd. I think the assessment that his play calling is bad across the board isn't really that accurate. There's no way we beat Colorado or Michigan with different play calling. So, there are 2 out of our current 5 losses that for me aren't on play calling at all. Michigan State was just a slug fest between two bad teams. Then in the case of the Minnesota & Maryland game the glaring problem was turnovers (and even false starts in the Minnesota game's case). But just one more time back to the point I was making: if we can't execute simple how are we going to execute "not simple?"

I can argue that putting Grant in over Ervin in the middle of the 4th was a bad coaching decision. Obviously this board has discussed that ad nauseum. So yes, referring to Minnesota as the other one. But the bigger point I was making is that keeping it simple sometimes is exactly what you need to win a game in the 4th quarter.

I think that second statement deserves some unpacking. No, you're not going to win a national championship and you're not going to beat Michigan or Ohio State in a conference title game "keeping it simple" with the athletes we have right now. That's a true statement. But he's creating a false dichotomy there. A critical late 4th quarter situation is not equal to a conversation about the bigger picture. The program has to stop screwing up late in the 4th quarter to even be in the conversation about winning at a high level. And he's had two games where this happened on his watch. I know he said over and over that he took blame for not getting points on that last drive and I love that, but that second statement in the quote is a big deflection.

Thanks for that. I had checked and really thought Maryland was his 4th - thanks!

Agreed. Maryland racked up 384 yards on offense and only came up with 13 points. We're just doomed to fail with these turnovers.

We had a 65% run/pass ratio against Maryland. That's about where we had been at. You probably can't just call 80% runs against a B1G defense. We picked up 183 yards on the ground and averaged 4.6 yards per carry. There's really nothing wrong with that, those numbers are potentially just fine...but then we only had 86 yards passing, and of course threw 4 INT's. Against Wisconsin we're going to have to probably rely on the ground game. Do we even know who's going to start at QB? People have said that Sims doesn't want to play in a 5th game so he can count this season as a redshirt year but who knows if that's even true.

I think we're better against the run than the pass, so him being even 100% doesn't worry me that much. I hear you though that if his injury is still lingering during the game it boosts out chances quite a bit either way. I'm way more worried about our inability to throw the ball and the put a QB on the field that won't turn the ball over like crazy.

I don't want Willy Korn at Nebraska. I don't want to prioritize the speed option & option variants. I want to bring in an actual QB who is good at actual QB things. You know, like reading a defense and throwing the ball? And honestly that player is probably Kaelin. Let's start there. Willy Korn just gets you another Jeff Sims in here because you're prioritizing a track star QB who likely can't hit the broadside of Lancaster county in the passing game. Definitely tired of that stuff. Husker football needs to let go of the option, IMO.

How far are we going back with this assessment? Because if you teamed up even our anemic offense of Frost's year two with this year's defense for this season, we're 7-3. Adrian Martinez was a good QB, and I'm positive that lots of fans that didn't see it before see it now. Rhule whiffed on Sims in the transfer portal and that started the chain of events we have now. It's going to be the most Nebraska thing ever if we lose the last four games when we just needed one win to have the best season in six years.

I can absolutely guarantee you that there was a second passer on the grassy knoll...

We'll probably be at least -3 in the turnover margin and blow it.

Not a good time, @Cy the Cyclone...

Almost can't even bring myself to dissect our offensive box score in this game. It's like watching Iowa on ketamine. Our "starting quarterback" has a 20% completion percentage with 1 interception. The guy who was supposed to be the starter at the beginning of the year - handpicked by the $72M coach - has a quarterback rating of 9.5. I'm not sure I've ever even seen a number that low...oh wait...Haarberg's was 0.6. The 3rd string guy comes in and attempts 3 passes. One of them is a game-ending interception. Combined, they threw for 47% and accounted for 5 total turnovers. And their combined QBR according to ESPN is 29.3. **Jack Woche has entered the chat**

A depressing amount of both bandwidth and time will be spent dissecting Purdy's interception. There's a reason he's the 3rd string QB. Just imagine how bad the kid must have consistently been in practice over the last 8 months to have been beaten out by Sims & Haarberg.

Same game again this week for the Badgers. I wonder if their fans hate games where they have 255 yards passing and 86 yards rushing. But they were -1 in the turnover margin against Northwestern and lose 24 - 10. I'm thinking they'll beat us something like 19 - 10.

Oh I thought this was pretty much the only way to watch Husker football at this point, are you guys actually watching the games??

LOL, what kind of trick plays? Hopefully not ones that involve him throwing the ball...

Yes, I'm aware that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. Yep, and I'm sure that was his exact mindset roughly 10 months ago and here we are. So you can see why I'd be worried that it might happen again. I didn't say "I'm positive he'll f*** it up again," I said the possibility worried me.

Obviously. A QB that is better than the current one on any team would make any team's receivers better. But that wasn't the point of the exchange I had with the other poster. The point I was making is that it'll be hard to draw in a pass-first guy with the receiver corps we have. We wound up with Sims because Sims couldn't get any better offers - and Sims' play is really bad. Definitely worried that Rhule brings in another sub-par player like Sims for next year, big concern.

The QB room is a pile of bodies laying on the floor. So we're way past triaging it. I know that's the low hanging fruit joke in this thread but I thought I'd pile in with one more. I'd honestly say the lack of receiver talent is the bigger deterrent for a passing QB.

Matt Rhule, in his post game presser a bit ago said: We've identified the problem. Yeah, with a good QB and a receiver at least on par with someone like Marcus Washington, you would think that. But those aren't the players out there on the field. So you have to grade the situation on that curve in-game. F***, man. Unreal.

Outside of the conversation on firing Satterfield, here's the thing. This reflects so poorly on Rhule and basically his pride. He should have been screaming in his ear to just run the damn ball. We blew the first game in the 4th quarter. We come to this game and we needed to just kick a FG to have a real chance of winning but braindead coaching decisions ruined our chances. Yeah...if Purdy lobs a TD pass to Coleman it's a different story but get your head straight, Matt: what are those odds?

Yep.

All three QB's and the way they've been coached by two different staffs are completely inexcusable. You can't put one f****** guy out there that doesn't blow a totally winnable game with dumb turnovers? These coaches had 9 games to get one guy in a spot where at a minimum he's kind of bad but at least doesn't do more harm than good when he's out there. Rhule is a great motivator and culture builder. I'm positive about that. But he should have taken over when it was goal to go with Purdy and said "we running it three times, no question."