brophog

When you run a lot of those compression sets you invite a lot of defenders to the party, and they don't RSVP....you don't know who is coming or going. Raiola is a phenomenally advanced QB for his age with world class personal coaching and he gets to go against all of White's gimmicks every day in practice but none of that is game reps. I'd do that stuff when appropriate, but focus more on what makes the QB comfortable. One big advantage of spreading the field is it makes it easier to control where defenders can come from. We didn't see a ton of motion in the spring, but I think we will see more as the season progresses. With the headset rules, defenses are more inclined to hold their cards until later in the clock and early motion is a good way to get them to show their hand. We won't go full Bill Callahan dance party, but I anticipate more pre-snap movement.

To be fair, you really didn't describe any of them. Untimely penalties are things like a defensive penalty on 3rd and 25 that results in an automatic first down or offensive holding overturning a long TD pass or pass interference late in the game that sets the other team up for a game winning FG. Procedure penalties are annoying, I agree, but how many times do you legitimately lose the game on a false start. And of the times you think that 5 yard penalty was meaningful, how many of them were simply signs that your offense is so poor it can't ever afford to go off schedule.

What wasn't good about it. Dude was crazy accurate throwing to safeties. Every once in a while there would even be a receiver between him and the safety and he'd just arc that thing right over the top of him.

Well this time last year I said the QB run game was just gonna be a nice little change of pace, so what the hell do I know.

The NCAA tried to make it a rule that recruits couldn't discuss NIL before enrolling and it was thrown out by the courts. NCAA NIL Injunction

I don't think you even have to be that good at passing and it is often more how you set things up. Satterfield at times in his past gets real infatuated with compression sets with 27 tight ends. You can be really good at passing out of that stuff and they're still going to load the box just because you loaded the box. Meanwhile there's more than a good chance if you put a WR on the boundary they gonna send someone out there to cover him. Obviously it helps to have a QB like Raiola that can spray the field and receivers that can threaten but there's been a lot of QBs over the years that could create enough space to run the ball and rarely threw the ball more than 10 yards down the field. It's my opinion that if you're running into 8 man boxes it's because you allowed the defense to put 8 men there.

Oh yeah. At least this spring, the QBs seem to have the freedom to make those calls at the LOS if they see something they like. I'm curious how much latitude they're given this fall, that may be more of a spring thing. All three of these QBs are pretty sharp, though. Even if the coaches do reign that in a bit, they still get until 15 seconds on the play clock to talk on the headset so if they get up to the LOS and see that kind of opportunity they can check into it and toss it out there real quick. The alignment on the long Barney TD is probably a good setup for what you describe. The LB is in the B gap, the CB is 8 yards off and the FS is playing deep center. The tackle can reach easily and the guard is uncovered. Very conceivable that a quick pitch there is running for a while.

Very much so. The spacing was way better on the offense, and we can do it in some interesting personnel packages. I'll go back to my favorite example from the game, Raiola's first TD to Bonner. 3x1 set, the single side is an inline TE. It was a receiver much of the day, but in this example it's a TE who along with the RB stay in for a 7 man protection. Bonner is in the 'big slot' about 2 gaps off the Tackle, and of course, two WR out side of him. That big slot could be a TE/HBack/WR....whatever we're calling things in this offense....but we have several athletic big bodied 220 lb-ish guys that could play there. On that play, the defense has to defend the full width of the field because as we saw Raiola can make that long throw from the far hash, and yet it's effectively out of 12 personnel where you can still run the ball with mismatches in the blocking game. Haarberg a few drives later hits Barney on the go route using the same formation, except he's the single WR on the short side. He gets 1 on 1 because the defense rotated to Cover 1 to cover the 3 man side. Here's how that formation's ability to run the ball helps the passing game. On that play, the RB is aligned to the single receiver side in Shotgun, meaning the running strength is to that 3 man side, a big reason why the defense rotates that way. Barney is going to be a helluva WR, and this formation gives him the opportunity to use those remarkable talents of his. The width was better, but the playcalling using that width was also so much better. Again, 3x1 set with the single on the short side, defense rotates wide to account for the strength and they throw a RB screen to that near side. Next play, same setup, seam route on the wide side where if that defender drops to cover it, there's a drag coming from across the field. 4 plays I listed, all some form of 3x1 to the wide side and all three stress the defense in different ways. All of those screens to slots, tight ends, hbacks, running backs, all of that stuff helps establish width and then with that width we hit Corner routes, Seam routes and Go routes.

Penalties really don't correlate with wins. Certainly some untimely ones can have a major impact, based on situation. Passive penalties, like procedure penalties, have little upside. Aggressive penalties, like pass interference or holding, could be argued to be offset by the gains made in being aggressive. Last year, the top team in penalties was Michigan, but their championship opponent, Washington, ranked 126 in flags per game. It's funny, but it doesn't mean much, there's no particularly correlative value to wins and penalties across the teams. Turnovers are why you should care about weapons and defense and blah blah blah. We all know turnovers have a high win correlation, but why? At the end of the day, they're really just explosive plays by the defense. The defending team was already going to get the ball back because it's an alternate possession game, so getting the ball back isn't what's valuable. It's the combination of your opponent not scoring and field position. We really shouldn't think of turnovers and turnover margin as what's important. It should really be explosive play margin, of which turnovers should be considered a part.

RE: Red Five Those stats show Nebraska has not been great at turnover margin over most of the past 20 years, but they show that turnovers, even for Nebraska, have a ton of year on year variance. Look at how many times in that list there is a 30 or 40 place jump one way or the other year to year. Our goal is not to regress to the mean. Our goal is to become #1 in that list every year. That list actually shows quite well what it means for turnovers as a stat to regress to the mean.

This is going to sound insane, but it's a testament to how bad things were. -10 isn't that big of an improvement. That still ranks 93rd last year in turnovers lost. That number needs to be -20 or so, and that's actually very achievable. It's hard to say on the impact of the QB run game. Yes, it helped at times to move the ball and it generated a few big plays, but it led to a lot of those turnovers. 3 fumbles in the Purdue game alone were on QB runs. Nebraska the past few years has run the ball pretty good until the opponent decides they are not. Once the other team starts rolling down defenders and loading the box the run game shuts off, and it becomes a game of hoping you pop a big play somewhere. Last year, because of the QB run game more of those popped than the year prior, but unfavorable box counts were still hugely responsible for the anemic offense. A better spaced field, like we saw this spring, I think will not only counter any gains there may have been with the QB run game, but make the overall running game better. The game becomes 6 on 6 and first contact is 3-4 yards downfield and it's up to the RB to beat someone. That scenario is more controllable for Satterfield because he's accustomed to using the screen and RPO game to control defenders much better than he is trying to sequence run plays to control defenders. I also think we have some big bodied receivers and tight ends that will create a lot of issues for those conflict linebackers and nickels and help control the Safeties. We can play like a 12 personnel team, but those two "tight ends" are a very athletic Fidone who can line up at various spots and a 220 lb receiver and then still put 2 speedsters out there that you have to somehow account for. There is a lot of room for creativity with personnel and alignment and Satterfield can be a pretty creative playcaller. I think we will see him much more in his element this year. Overall, what I think will likely happen is the run game will be more than fine against average or so defensive lines, but may struggle some against the very top end units because they can make up the numbers through talent. Man on man, though, when we're plus 1 or even against most defenses I like this line and it'll be up to Satterfield and staff to put them in the best possible position for success.

There is a lot of randomness to turnovers, that's why they fluctuate year to year so much. In terms of what you can control, you control so much more on offense than defense. There are things you can do on defense to try to help your odds, like getting more pressure with only 4 to allow yourself to play more zone so your eyes are on the QB. Getting more hats to the ball so you can have a better opportunity to strip it, those sorts of things. By and large, though, the things that increase your chances on defense are just products of playing better defense. The offense, from whichever side you look at it, has to create opportunities for a turnover to happen.

I care about fixing the things that were bad last year and making the things that were good, better. In that vein, a lot of what we did this spring were plays we ran last year. Those plays were run so much cleaner this spring. The execution was by no means perfect, but the proof of concept that we can fix these things is on tape. It's now a question of taking the confidence gained this spring in knowing we can execute and refining that through summer workouts and fall camp. I don't think securing the football is a talent issue. Put two hands on the ball, they rip it free....those things happen at times. Watching your QB dangle the football out like he's feeding a horse some carrots, that's just not acceptable on any level.

Because turnovers regress to the mean so heavily year over year, they're actually one of the best predictors for this sort of thing....in both directions. If you have a team that won more games than otherwise expected but they had a large positive turnover margin or lost more games than otherwise expected because of a large negative turnover then they are strong candidates for their record to also regress to the mean the following year.

Hill is supposed to recover in time. Don't be surprised if Bootle makes a similar transition inside one day. This staff wants more length on the outside. They train most of these DBs for multiple positions so they can play at what they are ultimately best at. Hartzog may still make an occasional start outside if needed, but ultimately you move a guy where he's best at, if at all possible. Cooper in his early spring press conference apologized for putting Hartzog where he did last year, citing injuries as a prime reason. He's said he wants him exclusively inside this year, rather than moving him around all of the time. He also flat out said moving Hartzog was about Hartzog and not a reflection of strength at the corner position. Cooper April Press Conference

I don't feel you can write them off at all. As an example, see a post of mine from after the spring game comparing the final interception in the Maryland game to Raiola's first TD of the spring game. Same play, same read, better execution by both players and coaches in the spring. Did the coaches start making bad decisions because they were scared of turnovers? At least in the Wisconsin game they did. Played super conservative for OT when the right choice was to attempt to win it in regulation. Hard to blame them based on previous games, though. Too many fumbles were just sloppy ball handling, especially by the QBs. The interceptions were a combination of not recognizing defenses, especially Safeties and underneath Linebackers, and poorly executed routes and throws. A lot of the interceptions last year were clean pocket throws. I strongly feel, based on the tape, that the number one culprit was bad execution. Not pressure from the situation, often not even because of the opponent's pass rush, but bad execution. Sims threw the game sealing INT against Minnesota right to a Safety playing Cover 1. That ball should never be thrown against that Coverage, but he did that kind of thing constantly. He just can't seem to read a defense. His third pick against Maryland comes game tied, 12 mins left, 1st and 10, cleanest pocket you could ever ask for......throws it into triple coverage.

As I said a few weeks prior, expect Nebraska to appear on these sorts of 'darkhorse' type lists because the numerical indicators are very strong. The spring only reiterated that Nebraska is fully capable of turning last year's negatives into this year's positives.

Last year Hartzog wasn't 100% corner even when he was '100% corner'. He's much better suited at his size to line up inside rather than outside.

He sits on his phone DM'ing portal guys all day. All he's ever known as a 'coach' is how to use his personal brand to out talent the other team. He has nothing of himself personally invested in most of these guys. They are, by all definition, disposable to him.

This should not be buried in that article like it's a minor obstacle. That's a federal statute that has huge ramifications.

Every time the NCAA gets sued the rules get looser and looser. We're almost at the point.....and I'm not joking....we're almost at the point you'll see a team go to the opposing team's locker room at halftime and offer their QB a bag of money.

One thing I'd like to highlight as a difference to last year is how wide our offense was this weekend. Everything played very narrow last year and it led to stacked boxes and defenders jumping routes. One play I think highlights how good Dylan is was his first TD to Bonner. Bonner is playing in "big slot' role as the 3rd receiver to that side. He runs a corner route with the two outside receivers running double ins which against man coverage are designed to hold the safety in the middle of the field. Bonner runs a really good route to create separation and Raiola throws a perfect ball with anticipation and placement so the defender has no chance. I think this is one of those plays that Raiola almost hurts his own hype because he makes that throw look so easy. He's on about the 23 yard line throwing to the right pylon....from the left hash mark. That's a very difficult throw to make and far more difficult than it is at the pro level because the narrow hash marks effectively make the field play narrower at the pro level. Lastly, other than being a great throw, why do I choose this play, in particular, as someone that is excited about what I saw this spring? Because last year we threw picks with this play. In particular, it's the play that cost us the Maryland game. Now, I didn't love the play call in that situation because we're on the 7, throwing to the short side of the field so everything is more condensed and that helps the CB drop off his man to intercept the pass. But the biggest culprit is we ran that route a little too flat and Purdy drastically under threw the ball. If he throws that ball more towards the back corner it's either a TD or we're attempting a chip shot for the lead. Not only did we see that same play, executed and called so much better in the spring game, but we saw that same scenario. Dylan threw two passes in a row towards the end zone on a drive where it was either our ball or no ones. We missed the FG attempt, unfortunately, but we gave ourselves the chance that we so often didn't last year. I hope anybody that thinks the spring game doesn't matter will read this and see how we're taking the same scenarios, even the same plays, that cost us games last year and executing at a much higher level this year.

This entire offense is being set up for the pocket passers and they're training Haarberg to work within that. They're not setting this offense up like last year and training the new QBs to work within that style. Everyone needs to take last year's tape and burn it. Yes, it's the same offense in the sense it's the same language and organization and so forth but that QB heavy run style that we were forced to adopt by circumstance is completely gone. You may see an occasional zone read here or there, especially if Haarberg is needed for a sustained time, but Raiola and Kaelin are just not built for that style of play. That's why what Haarberg did this spring was so impressive. He's being asked to play in an offense built for someone else, and I think he's doing a great job. But, there's no QB controversy here. Rhule is just dipping into his psychological bag of tricks to get what he wants from these guys. He knows exactly who his starting QB is.

Barney is emerging as that player you just have to figure out how to get on the field. Have we tried him at kicker, seems he's successful everywhere else.

I love the option as much as the next guy, but year on year there are fewer and fewer coaches that know how to call and teach the option and Satterfield isn't one of them. See all of those screens and RPOs designed to get the ball out quickly. That's what Satterfield does well, but he tends to lose focus of what's working and decides to play with his other toys.