RedDenver

Huskers 45 LT 17 Rushing 305 Passing 170

Still wallowing despite claiming the contrary, I see. Keep digging though, it amuses me how confidently wrong you are.

Great post.

So you're rubber and I'm glue - good one. And you keep on wallowing with responses. Here's a reminder what the point was, which literally nothing changed due to the game:

It's amazing that you still don't know the point of discussion even after I spelled it out for you and then you replied that of course that's what we're talking about. Makes the attempted snarky comeback even more sad.

We also beat teams like Northern Illinois 44-8, like we did in 2019. I'm not waving off HH's performance so much as saying it's just one game against a team we should beat by a few scores. I think we mostly agree here. The point though is that we don't actually know if HH gives us a better chance to win games. HH might have cost us the Minn and CU games if he had been the starter, either dramatically in fashion similar to JS or just not being able to move the ball on offense. Because we haven't seen JS and HH play against similar competition, it's just speculation what the one who wasn't playing would have done. For all we know, JS could have had a monster day against NIU and beaten them by even more. That's why I think it's difficult to know. Having said all that, I think HH does give us the better chance simply because JS fumbled not 1 but 2 snaps. But maybe some competition for the starting spot will help bring out the best in JS, we'll have to wait and see.

Your point remains silly and not at all proven.

This is a thread about Sims vs HH, not about if NU has struggled against similar opponents or not. HH played NIU at home. Sims played Minn and CU both on the road. It's really hard to know whether HH is truly better than Sims.

I agree. Finally having a home game and an overmatched opponent is something this team desperately needed to work some kinks out while in control of the game. Hopefully we'll see something similar next week before we start the conference stretch.

How to tell us you don't have a good argument without telling us you don't have a good argument.

You presumed incorrectly... pretty self-explanatory. Again, you're ignoring that this is the 1st string QB vs the 3rd string RB. There are already 2 other RB's that the coaches think are better, and we can easily play with the top 2 RB's and not the 3rd stringer. I agree, HH did fine in limited action, which might mean he should be starting over Sims. I have no issue with that. That's a reasonable comparison between the 1st and 2nd string QB's. I'm arguing against the idea that the coaches should pull the 1st string QB with turnover issues simply because the 3rd string RB has fumbling issues and didn't play. That ignores all the context of why a backup might play instead of the starter. The coaches should play whichever player gives us the best chance to win, which there's a TON of variables most of which we as fans don't get a chance to even see. We all watched the game. You've got a weak argument if that's what you're resorting to.

No it wasn't. Fumbles were mentioned at the very end of fall camp by Rhule as something Grant needed to work on, but no coach said that's why he was 3rd string. There had been reports for weeks from people who had been watching fall camp that Gabe Ervin was the clear #1. But you're ignoring several major differences here. The QB and RB positions are not the same. Starters and backups are not the same. What the coaches say during press conferences is not the same as what's happening within the team. And perhaps most importantly, the RB room has several good options, while it certainly doesn't look that way for QB.

There's literally nothing that a coach can say in a press conference that will hold anyone accountable. The coaches could be critical or blame the players, but accountability happens within the athletic dept and the team, not from saying stuff to the media - that's the opposite of accountability. You're comparing the coaches not playing the 3rd string RB due to fumbles as compared to the 1st team QB. You really don't see how those are very different situations? And that's assuming that the 3rd string RB did not play due to fumbles.

Wat?

If you're going to troll, try being good at it. Your name is a dead giveaway you aren't here for any real discussion. Maybe try throwing something funny in your posts to distract from the ridiculousness of them.

I was going to say stick with shilling Nike, but you might be worse at that. No, I'm mistaken - you're much worse at lifestyle evaluations.

Whatever Nike is paying you, it's way too much. You've definitely sold me that Nike has the more annoying spammers.

So no reason then. And now for something far more pertinent:

This might be the saddest, dumbest reach for evidence I've seen on this board. Please at least tell us you're a marketing or sales person for Nike, so that there's some reason for this.

I think we're banking on Daniel Kaelin or another QB transfer next year, so the coaches are going to do whatever helps gives the best chance at games this year, which doesn't seem promising.

I think it's likely a mix of things. The coaches might have known Sims wasn't as careful with the ball as they wanted, but he probably wasn't dropping snaps and throwing picks all the time in practice either. Then there's also the issue of if Sims is playing much better in practice than in games, do the backups potentially have the same issue. Purdy and Haarberg might be just as likely to commit similar turnovers as Sims if the coaches aren't seeing them be any better at turnovers than Sims in practice. At the end of the day, I think we just don't have any good options at QB, even if Thompson had stayed, and the coaches are doing the best they can until they can get more options at QB next season.