soup

1 hour ago, SouthLincoln Husker said:

True, but 4 - 5 yr. Sr are coming back. We are currently at 95 & I'm sure we will be picking up 3 to 4 players. 

That's assuming that all that are committed are still committed.  We just saw one today move to a different school.  I'm assuming others may follow.  Getting down another 8-10 players isn't going to to tough over the summer.  (Remember this is what Husker fans have been wanting for quite awhile.  oversign, and process out the dead weight as well as we can.)

39 minutes ago, SouthLincoln Husker said:

I think this period has come & gone as this the start of Rhule 2nd yr. 

Rhule mentioned in the McAfee interview that the Retire option is still on the table for several players.  I think he said there was a week or two remaining to make that happen.  I don't recall the specifics.

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I’m totally shocked by this. It’s like he was all ready to commit, and something happened. If it was Raiola, then that’s very disappointing.  Other programs can have two highly rated QBs at the same time. 
 

However, I started scratching my head on this when his dad claimed the spotlight was too bright on him at OSU.  Well, it’s just as bright here. Maybe the fan base here scared him off some and he would rather be at Syracuse where there is less pressure. 

A couple of things in hindsight are red flags.

Didn't want to play against tOSU

Didn't care for the spotlight at tOSU

Didn't like that he was asked to battle for the starting QB for bowl game.

But, what do I know.  All three of those are probably the reason why he didn't chose Nebraska.  And everyone has said it in many different ways, but he wanted to be guaranteed a starting QB role, and once DR came into the picture that wasn't the case any more.

11 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

By all accounts Evers has been a pretty big disappointment, but guys are hesitant to transfer twice as undergrads and there is definitely still time. I think the coaches would like one of Locke or Evers to transfer but I'm not sure they will. At some point kids will realize sitting out a year at their new school is better than playing scout team at their old school though, and the multiple time transfers will pick back up to some degree.

 

There is an interesting parallel with us and Wisconsin at the QB position. Both teams had to rely on their QBs legs more than expected - we knew it was going to be part of our offense, but not to the degree it was. And now there are decent chunks of each fanbase insisting they need that mobility because it was one of the few bright spots on bad offenses. McCord and Van Dyke do not provide that, and that is worrying for some, although they do better fit what Satterfield and Longo want their offenses to be. 

There is no 2nd transfer however.  The only time a player can do a 2nd transfer is with a coaching change or Graduate transfer.  The hard luck cases have been shot down quite a bit recently. (see TE from Georgia that came here last year)

10 hours ago, lo country said:

If that's the point they wanted to go (given Satts preference) just seems odd in hindsight they go after Sims year one.  And after having run the entire season (out of necessity) with a QB ru centric offense, we might be getting the most static of the "better" QB's in the portal.Kaelin is definitely a traditional QB only running for 169 yards this season on 60 some odd attempts.  And looking at Raiola's stats, he hasn't had positive yards as a rusher since Soph year.  So you have a point that we appear to moving into the era of a static QB.....

If you look at the QBs in the portal last year.  It was not great.  And the ones that were great I don't think wanted to be apart of a year one transformation.  This year's crop of QBs in night and day different.

https://www.on3.com/transfer-portal/top/football/2023/?position=qb

5 minutes ago, Kayvan said:

I don’t know how accurate the NIL valuations are on a site like ON3, but this $1-2 million number seems higher than any quarterback listed on there. It very well could’ve been him saying that we are willing to pay more than anyone else for your services.

Or, if nothing else raise the market value so other programs are left out of the running.

15 minutes ago, Huskerfollower4life said:

Nebraska probably likes him bc of the years he could play. Not to thrilled with him but anyone is better then Jeff Sims at this point.

If this kid was coming in as a HS recruit this board would be salivating over him. But since he is in the portal he must suck. smh

10 hours ago, chamrocck said:

What happened to Coleman?

Just by looking at the arm sling.  I'm guessing shoulder, arm or hand. 

(hello captain obvious here!)

Would it have mattered if the 2020 Covid year team accepted the bowl bid that they were offered?  In hindsight was that a mistake.  I know that was a miserable year all around, but what could have been?

3 hours ago, runningblind said:

The stuff between the ears doesn't necessarily become super easy, but I would argue the physical part is quite different. It should be much easier to elude a rush against South Dakota State.  There's a reason those kids aren't starting for Ohio State.  He can win being more physically gifted at a lower level is what I am getting at, making the mental part less important.

I'm not sure using South Dakota State as the example is probably the best one.  They are probably better than half the teams in the BIG West, and he failed miserably playing against said teams.  But I get what you are saying.

I mentioned in another thread on the main football page.  But having Benhart and Scott stick around another year, possibly.  Would pay huge dividends in getting these younger guys a chance to learn and grow.  Getting back to the days that these incoming OL learned and beefed up for at least 2 years will be huge in the long run.  

Maybe I'm wrong but Rhule or anyone on the Athletic staff is not supposed to have ANY input in how the NIL money is being spent.  

I'm not sure how it all works, and to me there has to be some discussion, but they can't just go. "We want <insert QB here> go get em"

37 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Yep.  This year, Scott and Benhart played well and, my opinion, the others improved over the year.  Now, if he could find a few more that can make the jump like these two did, we could have a good O line.

If those two guys come back that is one more year of seasoning that the younger guys can get in the bag as well.  Get back to the point of having your offensive line be made up of 3rd, 4th and 5th year guys.  Not 1st and 2nd year guys.  

That's when things start to get fun on the line

45 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

We didn't abandon the run but we sure as hell abandoned a RB run first offense.  Our QBs need to cut their rushing attempts by half, imo.  Seemingly every year since 2010 this board b!^@hes about qb health and injuries yet every season we rinse and repeat and have an offense built around qb run as our first option who inevitably doesnt move the same come oct/nov, or play at all, because they get the s#!t beat out of them every week

 

Ive posted ad nauseum on these threads about how our rushing stats were a mirage this year.  You take away the massive runs Sims, HH and purdy had on broken plays and our numbers look average at best.  You look at RB avg per rush across the big ten and we ranked towards the bottom middle of the conference.

 

 

Well, of course if you take away a team's best plays then their stats will suffer.  Seems like a bad argument to make.  The reason why the RB game wasn't as successful this year as it could of been, is because we had no passing game what so ever.  The QB runs work, because he is the only one that can run free.  The few times other teams "spied" our QB we were able to hit a few big pass plays to get them right back out of that, but it didn't happen nearly enough.  That's also the reason why HH's running wasn't nearly as effective as the games went on.

1 hour ago, huskerfan74 said:

So, you actually believe that our offense did ok this year. We barely scored 17 points on Michigan state who was lit up by Ohio state, Michigan, Maryland, and Penn state. In fact, every team scored more than 20 points on Michigan state other than us, CMU and Richmond. It never ceases to amaze me how you spin mediocre into positive. You must have koolaid on tap. 
 

Our defense was solid most of the time and always gave us a chance to win. As for our offense, I cannot see how you can defend their performance. 

Can't speak for Mav, but given the situation, yes the offense did ok.  They were at 3rd string for all of the skill positions halfway through the season, and half the line was 2nd string.  Not to mention that the offense was meant to play complimentary football to the defense. IE like Iowa

The biggest and largest complaint almost everyone has, has been the turnovers.  And that is an issue that only talent will fix at this point.

I'm not able to access the tweet here at work, but Pot Roast had a nice tweet about the snub.

8 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Yes the same quote gave me pause as well.   Put it brings me pause because Rhule could have brought in just about anyone with the salary that was being offered but knowing the above results still brought in Satt based on relationship - he had coached with him before.  Loyalty and relationship is great if everyone is successful.  But this is also why Frost brought his whole staff with him from UCF - and look where that got us. 

Rhule has stated that he has never had, nor never will have a high flying offense.  It will always be defense first and a collaborative offense (not the right word, but I'm going with it)

I'd be curious, on Satterfield's offensive ranks how the corresponding defensive ranks where?

Also is an indicator of how deep the BIG10 is in defensive talent.  My goodness.

1 hour ago, Undone said:

I normally start the blame with the staff and then work down to the players. I think you could maybe lay quite a bit of blame on Satterfield for Sims' problems, but then again he only played two games. We were probably one false start by an offensive lineman and an Anthony Grant fumble away from winning that one regardless.

 

But yeah, since the staff pretty clearly saw Sims as the starter from even before the spring game, I can lay some blame on Satterfield for Sims not being ready. But also Sims is just not a very good player.

 

It's harder for me personally to lay much more blame on Satterfield for the stuff Haarberg struggled with because he was actually the 3rd string QB but played as the 2nd string guy because of Purdy's injury.

 

 

I almost believe, given all that we have heard, that was by default.  He was the only one healthy at QB in the spring and fall.  HH wasn't even on the radar at QB in spring.  

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I don't remember Grant going out of the game last week.  Was he hurt in practice?

 

Any word on Sanford?

Grant was hurt in OT.

21 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

Interesting that only 3 of those have happened at home.

3 minutes ago, Cobra Kai said:

Game management seems harder with guys who are either unproven or proven to be turnover machines.

 

We have only been able to trust one unit all year, so I'm not super surprised we played to our defense and expected to get one more stop in OT.  This year's team plays to its defense.  Unfortunately,  they weren't able to help the offense on 2 critical drives in the last 2 games....if only lol

Agreed.

You play to your greatest strength.

How many games have we lost over the past 10 years. (including against Wisconsin) where we do score, but leave to much time on the clock.  and the other team drives down in less than 90 seconds and scores to win.  My god people.

There will not be any coach fired after the season, unless said coach pulls a drunken disaster.

I wasn't pissed at any of it.  This was an out fricken standing game that Nebraska has not played in for a LONG time.  Yes it sucks to lose, but I would argue this is the first time in a very long time Nebraska lost a tight game because they just got beat by a better team.  Not because they found a way to lose it, like they have so often in the past 6 years.

Just now, Dr. Strangelove said:

The issue is that the macro game management was terrible. 

 

We went for 7 last week when 3 wins the game, we went for 3 tonight when 7 wins the game. 

 

This coaching is pathetic and is astounding that it can be this poor at this level of football. Nebraska isn't going to make a bowl game with the easiest schedule imaginable because the coaches are clueless on how to manage games. 

put down the beer and go to bed.