Enhance

6 hours ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

It's not hard.  Just depends on how willing a person is to work on their mechanics.

Oh Ok. I’ll let all the coaches and experts who say it can be know they’re wrong. 

3 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

I agree that very little in football is true in all cases.  HH is 6’ 5” and has had roughly 10% of his pass attempts batted down at the line of scrimmage so far.  That’s a crazy rate.   The NFL average is like 1.5% I believe.  It’s a problem that needs corrected.  
 

HH really has no great potential as a QB moving forward as others have noted and previous coaches probably noticed too based on his depth chart positioning so changing mechanics for the better would not be detrimental to his performance going forward.   His current performance as a passer is already subpar. 
 

I understand what Kyle S is saying but that’s also talking about a 23 yr old NFL drafted player who says “ this motion got me in to the league” vs a 18/19 HS QB playing 4th or 5th string with coaches saying here’s where you need to get better.   So it isn’t apples to apples at all.    It would be similar to saying well the senior in HS is hard to change his motion so we can assume the 8th grader won’t be able to change either.  
 

Now all that said, if HH arms slot is the only one he can get his limited effectiveness with, then he needs to be taught how to find passing lanes, or pass blocking technique needs to be changed to create throwing lanes for him.  Both of which are possible.  
 

Or maybe the coaches have said “this is what we got this year and there isn’t much upside to the work it takes to change him so let it ride cause someone else is playing next year anyways”. 

I never said it was apples to apples, I said it was relatable. Objectively speaking, changing a quarterback's mechanics is a challenge. And, it gets more difficult the older a quarterback gets. That's why there's a bigger than ever emphasis these days on private quarterback coaching starting with kids in youth football and early high school so that bad habits aren't developed early and sustained into their mid-to-late teenage years.

So, his situation isn't at all "weird." To your last paragraph, there are any number of logical reasons to explain that we can only speculate about. It's more weird to find it all weird. Perhaps it's like you said and they're just riding it out for this year. Perhaps they tried to change his mechanics and it caused too many issues. Or, perhaps they have been working with him on it and this is the result of those improvements. It's also possible they've busted their a$$ to change it and he just keeps reverting back to bad habits on gameday.

It would be great to get Rhule and/or Satterfield's take on it (unsure if they've been asked about it to this point) but they've also only been able to work with the kid for about 9-10 months now so it's tough to know where they put their efforts/resources during that time.

Just now, NebraskaHarry said:

Take $10 million in NIL and put it towards getting the best 10 offensive and defensive lineman out there. Screw half a billion in stadium renovations. Start with the lines. Pretty sure Nebraska can get a half way competent o-line coach for pennies if the talent is there to carry the weight. Pun intended.

Just because they have money doesn't mean they're going to convince the best offensive and defensive linemen out there to come to Nebraska. We need to eliminate the line of thinking that directly correlates money to success.

This program has had money for decades and look what it has won them in the last 20 years. Not much.

Also, stadium renovations and NIL are not an either/or scenario. They can't even fund NIL from some of the potential sources they're going to use to fund the renovations.

11 minutes ago, Red Five said:

I don’t think selling beer at games is going to cause thousands of fans to decide to show up (and pay $12 for a Bud Light) who otherwise would stay home.

I would think alcohol is more of a revenue generator from concession sales than ticket sales.

I know a lot of people who are chagrined by the lack of alcohol at Husker football games. It may not necessarily be a deciding factor in whether someone goes to a game, but no one individual thing ever is. It's the collection of amenities and available experiences that determines someone's interest.

And alcohol pricing isn't really prohibitive, even though people sometimes like to suggest it is. I've been going to Cubs games and buying s#!tty PBR for more than a decade now, and even though I whine about the beer cost outside the stadium, it doesn't stop me from plunking three or four down before the 7th inning.

24 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

I guess I didn’t say they were actually teaching it.   The fact that it hasn’t been corrected after 2 plus years is weird.  

I don't think that's necessarily true, at least not in all cases. QB mechanics and throwing motions can be really difficult to change, perhaps even detrimental to the QB's overall potential. The below article is specifically talking about NFL quarterbacks, but I think the message its sending is relatable to a high school QB transitioning to college. Bottom line being, it can be really tough to change throwing motions/mechanics once a bad foundation has already been set.

LINK

“If a guy throws a certain way, and you think, ‘We’re going to teach him at 23 to throw it differently,’ he might do it in practice and might do it in drills, but you throw him into an NFL game in the heat of a battle, and he’s going to resort to who he is and what he’s always done,” Shanahan said.

Most teams and experts within the industry know there is a cap on how much improvement can be made, because, as Shanahan later added, throwing isn’t something you can teach. No matter how good the coaching is, a 55 percent passer isn’t going to turn into Drew Brees. If someone looks ugly throwing the football coming out of college, odds are that player will still look ugly throwing the ball in the NFL.

32 minutes ago, Ratt Mhule said:

I expected us to lose, but I was hoping we would at least put up a fight or be competitive. I wasnt at the game, but from what I hear from people who were, the team looked disinterested during the tunnel walk and it showed on the field. That is more concerning than the actual results and shows me there is a lack of buy in with this staff. 

No offense intended (because this isn't directed at you) but I call BS on the bolded. That's little more than confirmation bias resulting from the team playing poorly and being mismatched. The '07 Tunnel Walk against USC is often lauded as one of the most energetic in the stadium's history and it didn't mean a thing 20 minutes later when they were getting their asses kicked.

I understand the dejection/frustration after a loss like that, but there is almost no value to be found by turning it into some kind of hypothetical microcosm of the team's mental state and commitment to the staff.

Agreed. I'm fairly certain they'll introduce alcohol sales when the new stadium renovations are complete.

45 minutes 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 agree in that Nebraska should have absolutely had some better seasons recently at least based on the talent they brought in.

That said, I look at this current team and think their situation makes sense. #41 ranked composite recruiting class last season, five presumed offensive starters/contributors either gone or injured, not a lot of all-conference caliber talent leftover from the last regime. Some people think NIL and the transfer portal is the answer but money alone isn't going to get kids here. Recruits need to know they're going to a situation that can develop them into something bigger and better and right now Nebraska isn't that.

I know many fans feel like they've waited long enough, but I think Trev and Rhule have been pretty honest all along about what this might look like. I get the impatience on our part but immediate success isn't necessarily indicative of sustainability, either. That's why we've probably got to wait for another off-season or two until we can really see what Rhule and his staff are capable of.

1 minute ago, Nebhawk said:

I just keep hearing that we have this tremendous money pool for getting players on campus, but yet I have not seen this working for us.  We bring in players like Casey Thompson, Mathis, Simms, and Palmer (Mickey brought him).  Were not getting difference makers so to speak. I think we could or should have a huge advantage with the 1890 funds, but just haven't seen the benefits from it yet.  Do I hope we do start seeing those players come to campus?  Yes.  Until we stand behind a coaching staff and give them time to build something, I am afraid the money won't matter.  We have to commit to a staff and give it 4,5, or 6 years to see it thru. 

To the bolded, I would caution against this line of thinking. Nebraska spending money to bring in good players doesn't necessarily mean those players will turn out to be difference makers. Or, put differently - players failing to meet expectations isn't necessarily a direct indictment against the actual money being spent to acquire them. Unless we're aware of the actual dollars being spent and the efforts made to get said players, it's kind of hard to judge.

I agree that time is really the only objective way of judging what this staff can/can't do. Further, money is only a part of the equation. Nebraska needs to start winning with what it has in order to entice interest. They have absolutely recruited at a high enough level to at least be bowl eligible in recent years. The fact they haven't been is more of an indictment against coaching and development IMO.

1 hour ago, TheSker said:

Better flip that rough roster.

I agree, but it's not going to happen overnight, and the only thing anybody gains at this point in time from condemning Rhule... is heartburn.

17 minutes ago, TheSker said:

NIL and the transfer portal has made the term "transition year" a joke.

 

Rhule will not get it done at Nebraska.  College football is no longer about development.

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.

6 minutes ago, Nebhawk said:

Is that NIL bringing in any Travis Hunters?  Quin Ewers?  NO.  Its bringing in players like Jeff Simms.  Come on.  Money is just money.  Money and winning is the right combo.  We have to win some games first then maybe our suitcases of cash will do someone some good, but I keep hearing our plentiful our bags are, but not seeing it bring in difference makers.

Obviously money and winning are the right combo. I never suggested otherwise.

But, it's faulty logic to associate a lack of talent or bad recruiting decisions as an indictment against Nebraska's NIL potential, particularly in the first year of a head coach with a pretty rough inherited roster and no "Deion Sanders" brand behind his name. There's no way to prove Nebraska's talent challenges right now under Rhule as being the fault or even loosely associated with a lack of NIL potential. Let's revisit the conversation in a couple of seasons before making that claim.

If anyone else starts suggesting Nebraska return to the Big 12, my finger might just accidentally go through the multi-click process of muting you.

I'm kidding.

(sort of)

But, seriously - posts like that are incredibly obtuse. Nebraska is in one of the most stable conferences in the country with one of the most lucrative TV deals. It is incredibly advantageous for the university and the football program, even if the program hasn't been able to turn those resources into wins yet. Objectively speaking, going back to the Big 12 makes almost no sense and is a bad business deal.

2 minutes ago, Wistrom Disciple said:

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.

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.

57 minutes ago, Manny Bob said:

Idk man. In the new era of NIL, you gotta have a product that attracts the kids. It's all about the benjamins and I sincerely do not know if NU can market nostalgia anymore.

Why do you think Nebraska's current recruiting philosophy is hinged upon 25-year-old success?

Nebraska's NIL potential is definitely among the more favorable across the college football landscape. I have very little concern about them being able to come up with necessary funds if they really believe a recruit is worth their investment.

4 hours ago, JeffKinney87 said:

That's reasonable, I just tend more to err on the side of Branch Rickey: "Luck is the residue of design" . I would rather have a plan and strategy, then rely on being "more clever or lucky".  Even Alabama's population (not including adjacent states) is 2.5X Nebraska's population. 

Also, why do you think Nebraska football's rebuild strategy is based around luck and cleverness? Like, what is it about Rhule's tenure (and/or that of some recent coaches) that has led you to this opinion?

19 hours ago, JeffKinney87 said:

What can we offer a good QB or good O-line recruit, that other better Power 5 teams cannot?  Why would a good QB or O-line recruit want to come to Nebraska?  Maybe they grew up here, but I don't think we can rely on that because we have such a small population base to choose from. 

I'm not sure what this has to do with my post since I wasn't talking about recruiting.

I don't think it's necessary to continue bumping the Colorado opponent preview thread now that the game is over. We have another thread dedicated to Deion/Colorado in the Other Sports forum here:
 

I have no idea why this was posted in the Husker football forum, so I moved it to a new home.

43 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

They have to figure out how to do both.  
 

I trust they are. 

Agreed.

Also, we have to think about this logically. Fans in seats = revenue. A good experience in the stadium = fans more likely to go, and that includes a good experience both on the field AND in the stands.

Both things have to be funded, particularly in today's world. Going to football games has become less and less appetizing in recent years and the university needs to incentivize people across the entire spectrum. At it's core, gameday is entertainment. And with all the hassles associated with actually going to a game in Lincoln, I have opted to stay home several times in recent years specifically because of the whole package. Much of the stadium infrastructure itself is also just bad compared to a lot of other stadiums I've been to in the last several years.

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

This is just not true. If money wasn't an issue with NIL Nebraska would be recruiting much better players. They would be getting more than Billy Kemp out of the Portal. If you offer kids significant money to come here they will. It doesn't mean you'll land every kid, but the talent acquisition can at least get Nebraska to a much higher level.

 

And while I agree that the stadium needs upgrades to make the experience better for fans, no amount of amenities will make watching a so-so football team get beat by Ohio State worthwhile. 

I see where you're coming from philosophically, but his post is more accurate than yours. The hundreds of millions of dollars that are going to be put towards these renovations (which have been needed for a long time) are likely not going to come from sources that would allow you to just transplant the money into an NIL fund, especially if they go the public funds route. It's not an either/or situation.

Also, most people in the know about Nebraska's program and their NIL situation have said it's not a concern. Sipple was on Unsportsmanlike Conduct talking about this just a week or two ago. Nebraska's in a very fortuitous position compared to most other programs around the country, but recruiting is still about more than just how much NIL money you can throw at a player. I'm also pretty confident that if Nebraska ever identifed players they thought were worth spending a lot of money on, they'd find a way to make it happen.

When I was about 12 or 13, Eric Crouch told me I ran the option well and had a really clean pitch. That's about the peak of my football playing career because I had to stop football later that year.

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

We need a reputation as an offensive line powerhouse. That should be a top priority, rather than chasing pocket passers who won't have a pocket. 

I think you need to do both simultaneously. Probably the three most important things a team needs in order to be successful are a good QB, a good o-line, and a good pass rush. Because yeah, a really good o-line isn't going to change much if you have troubles at QB, and a really good QB can't do much if they're running for their life all day.

My personal preference for Nebraska's quarterback position in the future (assuming Rhule/Satterfield take the offense in the direction I think they want to go) would be a player that can make plays with their legs but passing is their greatest asset, as opposed to a player who is "good at both" or a good runner that we try to mold into a competent passer. We've definitely had some good dual-threat quarterbacks in the last 10-15 years, but they were too often liabilities in the passing game or just had really high volumes of turnovers because a) they weren't great passers and b) they ran a lot and fumbled.

1 hour ago, JeffKinney87 said:

My point was, and still is, that fans should take a healthy dose of skepticism regarding what is printed by local sportswriters, and trumpeted by the AD.  I think the reason you see Pelini or his rhetoric as "ugly and self-centered", or that your head flashes to angry Bo yelling at a ref, instead of seeing a coach who allowed young Jack Hoffman to run a Touchdown in the Spring game, or had a similar first few years to a young Tom Osborne is due to some of the excuse-making coming out of the ADs office and sportswriters.

 

I know you (and Enhance and others) strongly disagree with my opinions in bold, but I don't think you are going to change your opinion, or change mine.  I do respect that you think my "excuses" were "reasons" for Bo to be fired, even if I don't agree.  In that case why don't we just agree to disagree?  

FWIW I don't inherently disagree with what you put in the bold. I've just never looked at Pelini, his tenure, or his firing as an either/or situation. Meaning, that one either supports it or does not. Pelini was a polarizing figure. He did a lot of good things as head coach, and objectively speaking, did some not so great things. Really it's just a matter of perspective as to which direction one leans, and I don't think anyone who disagrees with his firing is completely wrong to feel that way.

I think my only real disagreement is with the rhetoric. I think some fans may be benignly influenced too much by the opinions of sports writers or narratives coming out of the AD, but I think most fans (or, at the very least, the average fans) are free enough thinkers to form their own opinions. I just don't really agree with the underlying (perhaps even unintentional) theme here... that if you supported Bo's firing, you bought too much into what sportswriters and athletic officials were negatively saying, and that if you didn't support Bo's firing, you were a free and independent thinker. I think that's disingenuous but, again, that may not be your intent at all. I think it's just being interpreted that way, hence some of the consternation.