Jump to content


hskrpwr13

Members
  • Posts

    1,743
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hskrpwr13

  1. Don't understand what the DBs are being taught to do in terms of letting these receivers get behind them.
  2. Don't know if I've ever seen a husker team this good on D and this bad on O. Closest is maybe 2010, but O wasn't this bad.
  3. New staff, some new players, and still the dumbest team in the country. SMH
  4. Finally Kemp wised up and didn't fair catch at the 5.
  5. Really wish that receiver had kept going towards the outside instead of slowing to cut inside.
  6. The OP isnt wrong. Yet, wonder if pushing them back 5 yards really changes the outcome. Hartzog made a bad play.
  7. Thought the post game presser was solid - both the questions and responses. He didn't duck anything and tried not to bad-mouth the players. Obviously, he'll run out of responses if losses in this manner continue to be the norm.
  8. I guess I'll be the dissenter in this thread too. Based on simply the play calls, I thought it was fine. Before the fire drill at the end of first half, that was a TD. On the FG drive, the play called dead on the false start, from about the 5 yard line, looked good to score or at least get them down to the 1. Then that early fourth quarter sequence,, I've seen some complain about, was there. Somehow the big strong QB limp wristed the pass. Next play, receiver wide open in the middle and pass gets tipped. Now depending on if Satterfield was responsible for the following, his GPA drops for me. The end of half fire drill was completely unnecessary. 30 seconds left, inside the 1, 1 timeout. Couldn't understand why the TO wasn't used there. Settle everyone down. Run the Jalen Hurts QB sneak for 6. Leave 20 seconds on the clock for UMs inept offense. If by some miracle Sims gets stopped, next play was already called during timeout (run it again or spike to stop clock). Understanding the capabilities of the personnel. If there was indicators of Sim's passing being that bad, then yes, needed to call better situation plays (I doubt he/staff thought Sims would be THAT poor). Then of course the idea of having a known fumbler in a crucial part of the game was a major miss. All in all, I thought player mistakes at crucial times were more the culprit on offense than the play calling.
  9. Yeah, hard for me to understand why the coaching staff felt like his run game was so much more important than what looks to be a clear inability to chuck it.
  10. I'll be the first to look like the donkey and say I expected improvement in the areas Rhule specifically called out as areas of focus: redzone offense and critical penalties/turnovers. Not only were things not better, but appeared to be even worse. After 1 game, i'm not indicting Rhule or the rest of the staff, nor has my faith been shaken long term. But last night was a bad look for those areas.
  11. Terrible game management by Rhule. Right out of Frosts management playbook.
  12. Unless what's left of the major conferences also take a 10-game schedule route, this won't move the needle for ND.
  13. Per the Athletic, ACC looking at the possibility of adding Stanford & Cal. https://theathletic.com/4756524/2023/08/07/acc-cal-stanford-expansion-discussions/
  14. I just posted in the ND thread that I dont understand the love for Stanford/Cal joining the B1G because it IS an athletic conference first (currently, driven by football), a TV consortium fast approaching #1, and far down the list a partnership of like-minded academics. I forgot the name of the person I was listening to on radio this morning, but she was explaining how sports (again mainly football) money/exposure has driven enrollment at Bama resulting in increased academic prestige, and a boon for Tuscaloosa in general (going from sleepy college town to legitimate city). For me, this sounds very plausible to why universities, ones not traditionally compared to an Ivy League school, are driven to increase their sports profiles.
  15. I get the ND love. Yet since conference realignment is really about television money (i.e. football), why the love for Stanford (and Cal)? IF ND said "we're in" IF you bring along Stanford, then fine. Two big Ifs there, and other than that I don't see the financial draw. This isn't about not-football/sports endowments.
  16. I love to see this. And with a return to winning and possibly completing for championship, this ranking likely improves. However, if there isnt a return to winning (and probably at a high level at some point), I can easily see where these numbers start slipping, and slipping rapidly, when those of us currently 40+ are the only ones who actually remember the glory years. At worst, that puts the program at Indiana/Northwestern level, and at best maybe where Minnesota is right now. We're not on this reality's doorstep, but without a return to winning, maybe 10-20 years from now? I haven't lived in Nebraska for decades now, but even the alumni association in Phoenix has seen reduction in numbers. And for those of us that actually show for some of the association events, at 50, I'm one of the youths that makes up this group. And in general outings, I see fewer people wearing Husker gear out here and CA than I did a decade ago.
  17. Would be good with Stanford if its required to land ND. Otherwise, no. I'm not that big of fan of the UO, UW adds.
×
×
  • Create New...