Wistrom Disciple

1 hour ago, lo country said:

This is what is truly mind boggling.  We have recruited in the top 25 for quite a while.  I know after adjustments we have some drop, but you'd figure we be doing better based on rankings.  But each previous coach gets blamed for the lack of  success of the predecessor.  Bo left the cupboard empty for Riley who had to go all Calibraska, who left nada for Frost who went all NOTE-I have no idea what he did and left the cupboard bare for Rhule.....Bo was mean and made people feel bad, Riley was an a$$ hat more concerned with ice cream sprinkles and werthers caramels and hip hip hooray, Frost was a complete fraud who developed no one and had most of his skill guys move on which leaves Rhule with no apparent OL back ups, no "true" QB, no receivers (past 3 years our best was a portal guy) and holes most every where.  Hope he can develop as well as advertised and he attacks the portal like nobodies business...

I would argue against the bolded pretty strongly. The best players of the Riley era were all of Bo's recruits. Hell some of the best from Frost era in Stanley Morgan, the Davis twins, and JD Spielman were all recruited heavily by the Pelini staff. Hate him or love him, Pelini was able to identify exceptional talent and developed quite a few into pretty good players. 

I'd like to think Rhule has some of that skill in identifying talent and hope to see that development come as the year(s) go on. Promising start to that with snagging Lenhardt, Van Poppel, & Princewell along the defensive front. 

Just now, ColoradoHusk said:

You want to make a decision on hypotheticals. I would prefer when coaches make decisions based on facts. Again, I’m not saying I like either one at QB, but I have embraced the fact that Nebraska is going to need to win very ugly this year. In my opinion, that means whoever isn’t turning the ball over which costs the offense scoring chances, and gives the opponent short fields. Yes, Haarberg had a bad turnover against Michigan today, but that opponent is completely different than any opponent NU has seen all season.  In the first 2 games, I defended Sims due to the lack of talent around him, but he still had 7 turnovers which were really on him, and not turnovers forced by the defense.  If I am going to try to win games by limiting teams to points, I have a hard time trusting a QB who is prone to turnovers and who isn’t healthy right now. This could all change if Haarberg starts against Illinois and stinks up the joint. But, I don’t think Sims is anywhere near healthy enough to be an option at QB right now. 

I think I get it, you prefer a game manager QB? Doesn't turn the ball over very much, but also doesn't make too many spectacular plays. Seemed to work for Iowa the past couple of years with Spencer Patras. We don't yet have the elite special teams play that they enjoy or a defense with a first or second rounder at multiple levels, but maybe a that type of QB wins us 3-4 games the rest of the way? 

If Sims is indeed as hurt as you're suggesting, I fully agree that HH is the guy we need to go with. If they're both healthy and good to go though, my personal preference is to go with Sims. I get that his performances in the first two games do not justify that opinion and that HH lost his first Power Five game against the #2 team in the country. I simply believe Sims presents a greater chance for us to win most games so long as he limits the turnovers. Then again, I choose to be overly optimistic in life so I can understand that others will disagree and that is alright. 

9 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

There is a difference in how players perform in practice and how they perform in games. For whatever reason, Sims can’t take what he does in practice into the games.

 

I am not high on either player, but if the offense is going to be so limited no matter who the QB is, I would rather go with the guy who doesn’t turn the ball over to the other team. At this point, it’s Haarberg. But, IMO, that’s a fluid situation depending on health and game by game performance. 

I understand the fear of turning the ball over again and again. Jeff's fumbling at Colorado was clearly a problem and his decision-making at Minnesota was frustrating. Haarberg's ability to make what should be easy plays difficult is also frustrating and he's lucked out that opposing defenders haven't capitalized on his miscues very often. I figure it is a matter of time before some of those errant passes get picked. 

2 minutes ago, Stone Cold said:

Why would you believe this, it could be argued that he attributed to the first two loses by turnovers alone.

I believe that Sims has a better ability to 'create' positive yards from dead end plays than Haarberg does at this point. 

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

The QB who doesn't give it to me four times per game.

 

And there really isn't anything that Sims has shown to do better than HH.  Running or throwing.

 

 

I get it.  You're going to go out of your way not to give HH any credit for anything and ignore all the bad stuff that Sims does. It is what it is.

If HH is truly the best QB in the program, I must ask why it took an injury to Sims before he saw the field at QB? Clearly, the coaches did not believe that HH was the best option for us the first two games of the year. He did succeed in the first two games after he got the starting job which is commendable. However, he continues to struggle with consistency in hitting open windows to the receivers. Additionally, his limited mobility in the pocket is concerning with an offensive line that struggles to sustain protection. 

As for Sims, I simply believe he gives us the best chance to win the games ahead despite the turnovers. 

57 minutes ago, lo country said:

Honest question as I am trying to see optimism in the future.  Our OL is all underclassmen.  Still no burners at receiver.  Maybe Coleman comes on?  Maybe the T-Bird Trio brings the sauce.  Just unsure how we improve next year with the same OL.  New coach wouldn't hurt.  D could be improved though.  

One positive is that we don't face another playoff contender this season. Though we didn't really do anything to suggest we are even a .500 club, most of the schedule the rest of the way looks fairly mediocre. So long as the team doesn't quit on each other, we should have a decent chance to win each game left on the docket. A win this Friday could do wonders for how the rest of the season goes.

-- Edit: By decent chance, I mean that no game is clearly a Loss already. 

Also learned that Prochaska needs a lot of improvement and that Corcoran may in fact be the best LT we have available. That Walter Rouse change of heart has turned out to be a much bigger deal than I expected. 

7 minutes ago, TheSker said:

3 times!  Wow!

Three times in 7 years is rather impressive considering the circumstances surrounding Rhule's previous stops. Ten wins shouldn't be the standard we are expecting, especially at this stage. Just getting to a winning record would be a solid improvement and we have a decent chance at that with the rest of our schedule this year.

Just now, TheSker said:

It's not that early.

 

Rhule is a failed NFL coach with a career college record slightly above .500

 

Riley esque.

Putting Riley and Rhule on the same level is a little wild. Riley won 10 or more games exactly once in his 17 year career. Rhule's college coaching career lists three such years in seven full seasons.

13 minutes ago, Mavric said:

You mean "home run threat" as in the two 70+ yard TD runs HH had last week?

Yes, he had a few nice runs last week against LA Tech. Unfortunately, that couldn't carry over today. Say you're an opposing DC, which QB challenges you more?

Empty reps against 3rd stringers doesn't exactly prove anything to anyone, especially the rest of the team. Without the nice run from Fleeks, leaving our starting QB in all game would have been even more embarrassing with zero points to show for it. 

3 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Pretty amazing that we're making these assumptions five games into the tenure of a coach who inherited a rough roster and lost five key offensive players in the last couple of months. I think the guy deserves an opportunity to build his program before we start condemning him.

And it's not like we have a choice in the matter anyways. So would you rather be miserable or hopeful? Your prerogative either way.

Great perspective @Enhance. 

27 minutes ago, Mavric said:

If he's not any good, what's lost if he gets hurt?

What is possibly gained by leaving him out there the entire game when we trailed by 30+? When games are firmly decided, I would much rather have the staff protect our QBs at this stage in the season. 

I think Haarberg is an asset to the team, but I do favor Sims as a starter because he has the ability to create plays for himself. The knock on Sims is obviously the turnovers which is a big deal. However, he is a legitimate home run threat. With our lack of playmakers on offense, Sims adds a dynamic that is a wildcard for opposing defenses and that ability is something HH has not yet mastered.

Just now, Enhance said:

What do you propose Nebraska do? Sims is hurt and a turnover machine. Haarberg is inexperienced. The offense in general is woefully unequipped.

Like, I get the team isn't good, the offense in particular. But I just don't know what's expected of this staff and coaches in game 5 of their transition year. I don't necessarily "believe" in Haarberg but I'm looking across this roster and not really seeing anything inspirational.

For one, sub him out in a blowout. I was trying to understand what good could come from keeping him out there all game long where he consistently struggled.

Best case - he gets consecutive passes completed and shows some flow. Inspires teammates to believe that he is still their guy and heads into a short week with a little confidence back for a beatable opponent. 

Worst case - he gets hurt by a sack from a 3rd stringer on a title contender trying to make the travel roster again later in the year.

The upside just seemed low versus the risk. And if he's our guy for the rest of the year, the staff needs to protect him in those situations.

6 minutes ago, Mavric said:

No you weren't.  You were talking about HH being hesitant, how he wasn't giving anyone hope for any future game and how he wasn't out-playing Sims.

 

Good attempt at revisionist history though.

Yes, I am not inspired by HH's play against teams at the Power 5 level. Even the basics were lacking in several instances which is why the cameras caught Rhule & Satt talking with him after several possessions. I'm not sure what you saw today from him that makes you believe in him, but I would argue that he is no better than Sims at this stage. I would have a very short trigger next week against Illinois because that game is winnable.

But I'll gladly listen to your input on why it is a good idea to let him continue to take snaps with forty seconds left in a blowout... 

1 minute ago, Mavric said:

Off the top of my head?  Six turnovers.

 

And quit acting like 0 points against the #2 team in the country is any worse than 10 points against a team that gave up 37 to Northwestern.

Sorry to hurt your feelings, but I'm not acting like Michigan is any other team. I'm simply questioning the logic of keeping our presumed starter out there against a team full of future NFL players when the game is clearly out of hand. Keeping him out there doesn't seem like a wise strategy.

Just now, ColoradoHusk said:

We don’t know if Sims is anywhere near healthy enough to play, and what has he shown that he should be the starter. Haarberg isn’t great or even good, but it appears none of our QB’s are any good. 

Fair point. Would you put Purdy out there or try anything different? Leaving Haarberg out seemed more like punishment than a reward.

6 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

This is the best defense NU will play all year. HH hasn’t been great, but he still deserves to start against Illinois. See how that game goes, and then there is a bye week before the 2nd half of the season. HH probably isn’t a long-term solution, but someone needs to start this year. 

Sure, I don't disagree. But continuing to send him out today gains nothing for either him or the rest of the team. At some point, you need to cut bait and try something else.

Just now, Mavric said:

I'm sure you wouldn't

 

There are a lot of other stats but I'm sure you'll dismiss them.

Mav, we are staring down a shutout where he has led us to exactly 8 first downs... I don't know what stats you're looking at, but he hasn't done anything today to encourage me that he is the guy the rest of the year. At this point, what do we gain by keeping HH out there? 

Just now, Mavric said:

 

Yet he is completely out-playing what Sims has shown.

This is the first Power 5 HH has faced and we still have zero points. I'm not sure I would call that out-playing Sims.

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

I question the wisdom of having Haarberg in the game at this point.

I've been wondering why they don't try Sims at some point here. HH looks hesitant and isn't inspiring anybody to think we've got a shot next week or beyond.

2 minutes ago, corncraze said:

Bad analogy. A bad date usually doesn’t lead to more dates… probably not a good idea to continue to invest in someone after 3 awful dates 

Sure, but this is our first true whooping. Colorado & Minnesota were self-inflicted issues. We looked decent against the inferior teams... hard to justify tossing out failure this early on. 

1 minute ago, huskerfan74 said:

I really thought our defense was much improved but Michigan is showing us how far we are from even being on the right trajectory. 

I believe that we're still on the right trajectory, but the true test of that comes over the next four games against fairly average teams. Using a playoff contender as the litmus test is a tall task. Before we get to that test, we need to show that we can beat the teams that don't have a bunch of future NFL players first. Gotta learn how to walk, before you can run sort of thing...

Just now, lo country said:

I think fans are tired of the getting our sh!t kicked in for what now sems like the past 8-9 years......And having the biggest asst check book available for hires and we been to the bargain bin and the dollar store for most of them....

I'm right there with ya, but calling a coach a failure five games into the first year just seems to be the wrong mindset. Seems kind of like dating someone and having five dates before deciding whether you will get married or breakup... just doesn't seem like the best strategy. 

1 minute ago, huskerfan74 said:

There is nothing to indicate that Rhule will turn this thing around in the next five years. Another failed experiment 

So we're calling it a failure five games into it? Seems a little premature, but to each their own.

3 minutes ago, huskerfan74 said:

Have you ever seen a game with three batted down balls? Shows you how trash our OL is.

Gotta put some blame on HH for these, low releases and he's had time on several passes.

True test will come on Friday against an Illinois team that looks incredibly average this year. Obviously not near the same level as Michigan, but assuming our guys don't mail things in, a win at Illinois could tell us a lot for the rest of the year.

Just now, chamrocck said:

Please no. Who else is the kid interested in?  Make it a package deal for the uncle and the nephew and we get their OL coach in return. I’ll even throw in some extra players.

I think the hate on Raiola is misguided. We've seen some improvement this year, albeit we obviously want better play, but I don't blame him to this point. I still believe our line stacks up ok with the bulk of the Big Ten. Need to see more improvement, but I wouldn't quit on them yet.