Enhance

Haarberg is like two sides of a coin - flip it and you get what you get. Some of it's going to be good and some of it's going to be bad. It makes him an uncomfortable prospect for the future.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if he's in a position to start again next year. Transfer QB's are hit or miss and freshman are typically going to give you just as many growing pains as they are highlights. If there is someone out there who could take the QB job in 2024, they're not on the roster at the moment, so it's just a lot of unknowns. And it's never easy to unseat an incumbent.

10 minutes ago, ndobney said:

Way to long over due thread have at

You already started an identical thread back on Sept. 17. Going to merge this one with that.

4 minutes ago, ndobney said:

I want to congratulate you for posting the dumbest post  in all of huskerboard history as there have been some pretty crazy things are here but yours was by far worst than any other post ever posted you won by unanimous consent congratulations as you are an inspiration to many

You've quoted his post three times now and made your point. We get it.

I'm guessing Sims was already planning to transfer. He's lost his job and I'm fairly confident next year's starting QB is either going to be Haarberg or someone not yet on the roster.

I do feel bad for him, though. Was really hoping he'd play well the next time he was given an opportunity, for his own sake. That was a dud.

I learned that Sims has not in fact changed from the player we saw the first two games, and that's too bad. I had hoped (for his sake) he might come out and play well the next time he was given an opportunity.

I also learned that this program is truly beginning to build confidence, and that the confidence is translating to the field. Gotta keep it going, but it's really encouraging.

Excellent route and pass. Credit where it's due!

That what we've all been talking about in the pass game - they struggle so much at getting all the parts of it to click. If it's not a bad throw it's a drop, if it's not a drop it's a bad route, etc.

1 hour ago, runningblind said:

You don't have to be heavily pass oriented to have success, you just need to be competent with a smart and capable QB. We can still focus on the run, but do well passing to complement.  It is so limiting to be one dimensional and that is something we've long struggled with.  We can get plenty of good enough athletes, don't need first round draft pick WR, to keep teams off balance and be able to pass when we need to.

 

It absolutely takes better/consistent line play, and a solid quarterback.  Doesn't have to be a 5 star like CJ Stroud, but why not a Brock Purdy or a Kenny Pickett? We can get guys like that and make this happen. 

I agree with your premise. More or less, my point was that I don't think Nebraska is in a strong position to have a high caliber passing attack to consistently compete with some of the places that recruit at a higher level. I'd much, much prefer they have a QB whose true strengths are in the passing game. Like you said, to be able to illustrate a competency. And if he's mobile/talented enough to run 3-5x per game then that's fine and probably helpful in a college offense.

Of course, that requires some better pieces around them, as well. I think people sometimes take for granted all that goes into having an effective passing attack (particularly when it comes to route running and pass blocking). The program has spent too many years where all those things don't line up enough consistently on any given play.

9 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

Minnesota (Sims) - QB Sneak

Colorado (Sims) - Ervin Run

Northern Illinois - Haarberg Run

La Tech - Pass (Sack)

Michigan - Grant Run

Illinois - QB Sneak

Northwestern - Pass (INT)

 

So yeah 0-2 on execution, with both being pretty spectacular failures. I generally like taking a shot first play, usually the worst that happens is an incompletion and if you hit it you're off to a great start. I couldn't tell whether the La Tech one was open or not (and the back/OL just missed the LB blitzing when he saw the back stay in), but the NW one was. Open to the point, IMO, that if we aren't confident Haarberg can make that read/throw he shouldn't be starting. 

 

So I dunno, it's frustrating and I would also probably err toward the easier to execute plays you mentioned. But when other teams know that's what we're going to do it gets tough, and I'm assuming Haarberg can do it. So I'm not going to be upset if we come out throwing again. 

Well stated. Plus, particularly with the bolded part, I imagine it's a tough position for the coaches. We can safely assume much of the first drive of a game is scripted and they want to keep a defense on their toes. So, first play of the game, they're probably putting in something they have high confidence will work. And then it failed spectacularly. Probably a little bit of 'hands thrown up in the air' on something like that.

But yeah, that's where I fall back on what you said - probably err on the side of caution and go with something that's a little lower risk. We know this offense can't do much and is going to have to win ugly. IMO better to keep it ugly than to risk giving the opponent incredible field position 15 seconds into the game.

18 minutes ago, KCBuc said:

2. Roll out with a run-throw option

PREACH on this.

Maybe they've run a few of these this season and I just haven't been paying attention, but I've been wishing they'd do more of them. I feel like it's a better way to get HH in a rhythm vs. relying on him to drop back, go through his progressions and fire an accurate pass.

I do tend to believe Nebraska' position in the CFB landscape, as well as the climate and weather patterns, lend itself more towards having a high powered rushing attack. Columbus, OH, isn't a hugely different from Lincoln, NE, in regards to weather (probably a bit windier in Lincoln), but tOSU also does tend to have better athletes who I think are in a better position to make a passing attack more consistently successful.

It reminds me of Green Bay of all places and their ability to have Hall of Fame quarterbacks. Green Bay's weather sucks in the fall/winter, but it's also the NFL where you get the best of the best talent, so they're able to make some of those things work consistently. I've never been particularly convinced that Nebraska can compete at a high level in a passing attack because of all of those factors, which was something that made me nervous about Frost's hiring and if he decided he wanted to be heavily pass oriented. That's not to say Nebraska could NEVER do it, I just don't think they're in a strong position for it.

I mean, Fidone had a good look. His route was also probably the first read on the play by design. Haarberg just threw a crap pass. It didn't looked forced to me. That play was almost assuredly scripted and practiced the entire week and I wager they probably felt it was going to work.

Given the fact HH isn't a great passer, I wouldn't be surprised if the coaches aren't giving him very simple progressions and just banking on him throwing a good ball. And if the pass isn't there, tuck it and run. It's probably naïve on our part to expect anything more.

I think the more interesting conversation is about the play calling. That's now the 2nd or 3rd time this season where the first offensive play call of the game was an intermediate pass. Obviously, HH is going to need to make some of those, and he should've connected on this particular one. But geesh... can't help but feel like there's just better ways to get the offense in a rhythm. Maybe a play action rollout with an underneath crossing route to a TE. Or hell, maybe test the interior of one of the worst rushing defense in the B1G. It seems like there's a pretty strong desire to get HH in a rhythm early with these 10-15+ yard pass plays despite the fact they don't execute them particularly well.

2 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

How do know the CB isn’t coached to be aggressive on the out route?  The blitzing whiffed and didn’t do its job.   If he’s soft on the outside coverage and the QB completes a quick pass before the blitz gets home, then we would be critical of the soft coverage.   

Although I don't know what the defensive play was, Hartzog was playing almost 10 yards off the WR. The linebackers and safeties are all bunched on the short side of the field. So, I'm fairly confident he's in single coverage, which to me would suggest he's intended to play that situation safe precisely because of what happened - if he gets beat on a double move, he risks a huge play.

The only possible excuse I could think of that wouldn't be his fault is if the safety was supposed to provide help over the top, but from the pre-snap, the safety is not really in a place to help.

Also, this is more of a question than an assertion, but what do we constitute as a "blitz" in this defense? Because it's 3-3-5, is anything more than three considered a blitz? Because I only see four pass rushers. I guess it could be a "blitz" but something about four pass rushers just feels normal to me, even in a 3-3-5. IDK how they classify/analyze that.

Either way, I don't put much of this on the pass rush. They had a field day against Northwestern. They can't get home every play, and as a corner, you can't just hope the pass rush bails you out.

Do we know NIL was part of the equation or are we just assuming?

Some of you have never played an honest game of Madden and it shows. 

Archy's explanations are pretty accurate though. Plays are usually designed to go to specific players, attack specific weak areas, or attack specific players in a defense, so safeties can sometimes be part of the first read. Four verts aka four vertical routes is perhaps the most obvious example because the safeties often immediately determine where you're going to go with the ball. And if you're not reading a specific player, sometimes you read an area. Like if you know your primary read on the play is about to run his route into a soft spot between two defenders, you'll read that area as opposed to just one specific defender.

Every year, fan bases debate the value of a specific qb coach, and it almost always boils down to anecdotal examples of where one apparently worked and one apparently didn't.

Realistically, we might just all have to agree that perhaps there's more nuance to it all.

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

There has been a lot of talk about should Sims get a shot again. I think that would be a horrible thing for Rhule to do.  Sims lost two games by playing bad. Then he got injured and HH has been winning. (Not playing well, but winning). The team is playing hard around him. 
 

Playing Sims risks causing a split in the locker room. 
 

Now, if HH gets injured or completely falls apart in a game, then Sims can have a shot again.  Until then, it’s the HH show. 

I agree, though perhaps for slightly different reasons. It's pretty clear to me that the entire team has shown an aptitude for winning with Haarberg at the helm. It isn't pretty, and the execution is too often nauseating, but it's resulting in wins.

It just feels like a pretty considerable risk to mess with the formula by re-injecting Sims, based on what we've seen and what we know. I don't think Sims should be condemned to some eternal dog house but the team he was a part of in week one and two isn't the team out there now. I haven't seen a convincing argument yet to this point that would make me think otherwise.

Not to mention the fact that the current offense is made up of so many hodge-podge parts that it's making Buffalo Bill's skin suit look like Bloomingdale's storefront display.

10 hours ago, soup said:

I know you are being sarcastic but I’m curious why the offense is having so many injuries but the defense isn’t? (Seems like a “normal” injury year)

 

because of that I rule out S&C. If it was SC then it should be hitting both sides of the ball. Right?

IMO, I think it's due in large part to the nature of being an offensive player. I did a quick Google search and found that there have actually been some studies on the topic. In general, running backs and wide receivers tend to suffer the most injuries. Quarterbacks and o-linemen are among the least.

It's unfortunate for the team that so many of said injuries have been season-ending ones, too. We're all used to seeing guys get dinged up and missing a few weeks but to see guys have their seasons end at this rate is pretty unfortunate. Some of it just bad luck, too.

Ahh there it is.

Yeah, definitely disagree with it "can't be fixed" or "ain't changing" angle.

I do tend to think though it gets tougher and tougher to make changes the older they get. As weird as it is to say, Haarberg isn't a spring chicken. Year three of his collegiate career and all. But, T Martinez improved his overall mechanics and accuracy after he went through his off season QB coaching program.

I wonder if anybody who knows his high school film saw this with regularity. A lot of the highlights show better footwork and throwing motions than some of the stuff he's been doing recently, but, they're also highlights so, by definition, the best of his best.

1 hour ago, Lorewarn said:

Seems abundantly clear the furthest the argument has gotten is that it's usually difficult and rarely successful; not that it's blanket statement impossible.

Yeah, I agree. I'm searching the thread and not finding many claims of people saying you explicitly "can't change" a quarterback's mechanics/throwing motion. Maybe I'm missing it.

I know this discussion has happened across a few different threads recently. My recollection of the general narrative is precisely as you put it: it's difficult/challenging, but not impossible.

I think he's had six total, three in each game he started, but might be mistaken.

Have the fans hit the point yet where the injuries on offense are making them question the team's toughness and S&C, or do we still like this coaching staff enough to not do that yet?

43 minutes ago, soup said:

And wins and the mental learning for this team this year are priority nbr 1

Couldn't agree more. This is why I'm not too caught up in the style this year. Developing a winning culture and focusing on the process is way more important than worrying about how it looks, particularly for a program that has forgotten what it's like to win.

The style points will come once all of the foundation is set and built upon. All the good looking teams around the country only look good because they do the important things right, not because they want to just look good.

Also, this offense is made up of parts that make Frankenstein's monster look like a prom queen. Some people want to bemoan the loss of Casey Thompson and all sorts of other things but right now this offense is what it is.

You have to be really careful working with an older quarterback's mechanics. I know it sounds weird to refer to Haarberg like that, but a 20-year-old in their third year of division one football isn't exactly a blank canvas.

Often times what you'll see in a situation with someone like Haarberg is more of a fine-tuning of existing mechanics, i.e. avoid making wholesale changes, but find what you can do to tweak the existing framework and improve overall performance. I don't know what his mechanical ceiling is but I do think there are some things they could work on that wouldn't compromise him too much, particularly his footwork, which makes me gag often.

3 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Or NU was able to design a play to get him open, and Satt called a perfect play at a perfect time.  Nobody knows if Coleman wasn't running deep routes before just because he wasn't thrown any.

Exactly this.

Apparently TO told Rhule sometime before the game 'if you're going to run the belly g option, you have to put in a belly g pass.'

So, it was a great play call, good protection, a great pass, a great route, and a great catch. Five things went their way. But, it doesn't necessarily mean Malachi is the new deep threat or that they'll have success finding him on deep plays moving forward. He's still a young guy and Haarberg is still an inconsistent passer. That's not to take anything away from Malachi, because he executed excellently, but this offense hasn't really shown it can consistently get those five things right on the same play.