Triaging the QB room

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

No you're right - he definitely said we should have had Kemp for a TD. He just also pointed out that the receiver Haarberg chose was open too, and all he had to do was make a decent throw.

 

From one of the press conferences, he's being taught that if they get a man look on that play Fidone is the first read. Seems like Haarberg is at the stage where he can read man/zone and pick the correct route or route combination, but the additional reads like whether that safety actually stays over top in the middle are still beyond him. But I do think there's an aspect here where the coaches are trying to simplify the reads (man = Fidone, zone = read the safety) too much. A QB should be able to account for where the safety goes after the initial man/zone read, but the impression I got from the comments was he is not being asked to do that. If it's because they've tried in practice and he can't do it, that's on him. If it's because Satt just doesn't think he could do it so doesn't teach it, that's on Satt.

I would be very surprised if Satt hasn't attempted to teach all the QBs how to read the defense on pass plays.

[Archy1221]

6 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So, is this an example of HH not knowing what to read?

 

Rewatching the clip, the safety actually does kind of take a little step back...but never turns to run.  Also, at one point, Fidone and the DB are right in line with the safety, and then the safety breaks to the side with them.  He's actually never in a position to make any play.....unless the ball is over thrown...which it is.

In my opinion yes.  
 

What the play looks like to me is man with a double of Fidone to guard against him hitting the seam route.  You can tell this my the free safety mimicking Fidone’s movement. Safety gets a half of step of depth as Fidone comes of the line but immediately tracks Fidone to the middle when Fidone breaks and HH isn’t even in throwing motion yet.   HH would know all of this pretty darn quickly by reading the eye’s of the safety(just as DB’s try and read QB eyes)  on his drop, and at the college level, many times the safety gives away what he’s doing by where his eyes are immediately after the snap in a man situation. 

Again, as soon as HH sees the safety not immediately bail to the two receiver side, he should know to go deep because the safety can no longer help on the deep ball.  

[lo country]

5 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

In my opinion yes.  
 

What the play looks like to me is man with a double of Fidone to guard against him hitting the seam route.  You can tell this my the free safety mimicking Fidone’s movement. Safety gets a half of step of depth as Fidone comes of the line but immediately tracks Fidone to the middle when Fidone breaks and HH isn’t even in throwing motion yet.   HH would know all of this pretty darn quickly by reading the eye’s of the safety(just as DB’s try and read QB eyes)  on his drop, and at the college level, many times the safety gives away what he’s doing by where his eyes are immediately after the snap in a man situation. 

Again, as soon as HH sees the safety not immediately bail to the two receiver side, he should know to go deep because the safety can no longer help on the deep ball.  

Good stuff.  I think that's the difference in a "fast blinker".  They process very fast.  They interviewed Penix last week or 2 on game day and he was going over film.  Was running a RPO to the right with a wide out the far left set to do a drag route across the field.  Penix said he was watching the safety knowing that he was going to stay :high" and that the CB was responsible for the RB.  He snapped, froze the safety with a look to the center.  Saw CB start back pedaling then when he went with the RPO saw the CB plant his leg to drive on the RB.  Said he knew the receiver in the drag would be wide open running to his "mark".  He was.  Unsure if that makes sense, but listening to a QB break down their reads and keys is pretty good stuff.  We are not there yet, but as you mentioned (limiting routes imho) and getting the QB's to understand the first read they need and then where to go will make a huge difference.  

[ColoradoHusk]

11 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

In my opinion yes.  
 

What the play looks like to me is man with a double of Fidone to guard against him hitting the seam route.  You can tell this my the free safety mimicking Fidone’s movement. Safety gets a half of step of depth as Fidone comes of the line but immediately tracks Fidone to the middle when Fidone breaks and HH isn’t even in throwing motion yet.   HH would know all of this pretty darn quickly by reading the eye’s of the safety(just as DB’s try and read QB eyes)  on his drop, and at the college level, many times the safety gives away what he’s doing by where his eyes are immediately after the snap in a man situation. 

Again, as soon as HH sees the safety not immediately bail to the two receiver side, he should know to go deep because the safety can no longer help on the deep ball.  

I agree with you 100%. This was a play design to specifically attack Maryland and try to score points. The design of the plat works, because it puts the safety in no-man’s land, and he only gets the INT because of a terribly thrown pass.

 

Of course, Satterfield critics will say “why are we even calling this play, given the fact our QB’s can’t do execute it”.  I somewhat understand that argument, but we don’t know if this play is being executed well in practice, so Satt is putting it in the game plan for a house call. This is why I am giving Satt mostly a free pass on this year. For me his grade is an incomplete, because he doesn’t have the players to run the offense he thought he was going to run. In fact, I give Satt credit for trying to bring in some option wrinkles to take advantage of what Haarberg does well. 

[ColoradoHusk]

4 minutes ago, lo country said:

Good stuff.  I think that's the difference in a "fast blinker".  They process very fast.  They interviewed Penix last week or 2 on game day and he was going over film.  Was running a RPO to the right with a wide out the far left set to do a drag route across the field.  Penix said he was watching the safety knowing that he was going to stay :high" and that the CB was responsible for the RB.  He snapped, froze the safety with a look to the center.  Saw CB start back pedaling then when he went with the RPO saw the CB plant his leg to drive on the RB.  Said he knew the receiver in the drag would be wide open running to his "mark".  He was.  Unsure if that makes sense, but listening to a QB break down their reads and keys is pretty good stuff.  We are not there yet, but as you mentioned (limiting routes imho) and getting the QB's to understand the first read they need and then where to go will make a huge difference.  

From what I have heard, DeBoer is a great QB coach, and that’s what is missing from Satterfield’s expertise.  Penix is also a very talented QB, who has started for 4 years of college football.

 

However, you call for an easier reads, and that play should be an easy read. Both players are in the same window, coming from the right side of the formation into the middle. All Haarberg has to do is read the safety, and throw it short to Fidone if the safety backpeddles or throw it deep if the safety is squatting. 

[Undone]

42 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

No you're right - he definitely said we should have had Kemp for a TD. He just also pointed out that the receiver Haarberg chose was open too, and all he had to do was make a decent throw.

 

Man. Just maddening.

[lo country]

6 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

From what I have heard, DeBoer is a great QB coach, and that’s what is missing from Satterfield’s expertise.  Penix is also a very talented QB, who has started for 4 years of college football.

 

However, you call for an easier reads, and that play should be an easy read. Both players are in the same window, coming from the right side of the formation into the middle. All Haarberg has to do is read the safety, and throw it short to Fidone if the safety backpeddles or throw it deep if the safety is squatting. 

Penix is legit for sure.  No doubt about that.  I didn't explain well.  Teach them how to make the reads on these easier routes.  We are not running complex routes.  They are pretty rudimentary.  QB's just are not making the reads or not quick enough.  Make the first read. It's either open or not.  If run correctly, the second route should be good.  Like the referenced play with Fidone.  Takes  a very good QB to progress through multiple reads. Unfortunately, we do not have that guy rght now.  Can they learn?  Who knows. 

[Undone]

13 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Of course, Satterfield critics will say “why are we even calling this play, given the fact our QB’s can’t do execute it”.  I somewhat understand that argument, but we don’t know if this play is being executed well in practice, so Satt is putting it in the game plan for a house call. This is why I am giving Satt mostly a free pass on this year.

 

I think we have to separate out two things under the one umbrella of "play calling:"

1. Calling a play that's a weird choice no matter what given the down & distance (which is probably the most common thing fans do).

2. Questioning why we called what we did given our ability to execute the play.

 

And you mentioned that. It's the second one. But there should be no gripe with item #1; totally fine to pass on 2nd & 8 where you're basically spreading the field out. I honestly love that play...but yeah, there's no QB to execute it.

 

Not a hill I'm gonna die on, but fun to talk about with this one:

 

16 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

In fact, I give Satt credit for trying to bring in some option wrinkles to take advantage of what Haarberg does well. 

 

I honestly think it's a part of Albert's mandate to run some option. I'll probably get a ton of disagreement that it even works like that. I know people will say "no way, Rhule is completely free to do whatever he wants." But I think the staff is running some option because we're Nebraska, damn it. And if that's true, I don't like it.

[ColoradoHusk]

4 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Man. Just maddening.

People were pointing out Haarberg’s passing will probably lead to INT’s in the Illinois game.  NU skated by in that game with limited damage (until the RB fumbles in the 4th quarter), but the INT’s have cost NU the past 2 weeks. NU has been living in borrowed time the entire season. 

[ColoradoHusk]

2 minutes ago, lo country said:

 Make the first read. It's either open or not.  If run correctly, the second route should be good.  Like the referenced play with Fidone.  Takes  a very good QB to progress through multiple reads. Unfortunately, we do not have that guy rght now.  Can they learn?  Who knows. 

We are very close t agreeing, but the play with Fidone and Kemp is a one-read pass. The other WR’s are window dressing to keep other defenders occupied. The play is designed to attack man-to-man defenses which Maryland uses. Haarberg’s ONLY read is the safety.  The safety did a poor job of double-teaming anybody, but maybe they instructed him to stay back and play for the overthrow. 

[BigRedBuster]

33 minutes ago, Undone said:

1. Calling a play that's a weird choice no matter what given the down & distance (which is probably the most common thing fans do).

The problem I have with this complaint is that if we always call the play that is the obvious play that should be called, we become predictable and very easy to defend.  You have to mix in some of the unpredictable.  Fans also complain about..."OMG....everyone knew what we were going to run".

[ColoradoHusk]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The problem I have with this complaint is that if we always call the play that is the obvious play that should be called, we become predictable and very easy to defend.  You have to mix in some of the unpredictable.  Fans also complain about..."OMG....everyone knew what we were going to run".

It’s a derivative of the “call plays that work” argument. 

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, ColoradoHusk said:

It’s a derivative of the “call plays that work” argument. 

It reminds me of the Big XII championship years ago when half our team was sick and we had Texas beat.  We had them stopped at midfield with a 4th and short with a great defense.  All we had to do is stuff them.  They call a medium range pass play that works and everyone thought the OC was genius and gutsie for calling it.  Well...if it failed, he should have been called an idiot.  He should have lined the QB under center and QB sneak....everyone should know that.

[gossamorharpy]

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

He didn’t need any patience at all though.   The formation and route combined with the defensive formation tells HH pre-snap that if the safety doesn’t take back steps at an angle towards the interior receiver, then the ball goes deep over the middle.   That read happens immediately as HH should be looking directly at the safety during the initial drop back.  
 

That safety squatted and came forward before HH got two steps into his drop.   A good HS QB makes this read pretty easily.  

You're spot on with this comment in the bold.  I get HH wasn't our starter to start the year so we need to lower expectations but our QB play is just blatantly missing fundamental defensive read + route progression principles.  This is a big reason why I'm so pissed at satt for calling that pass play on 3rd and goal with purdy and the game tied- if our qbs cannot read and react against basic formation/route principles with a whole field, y in the hell should we expect them to do with a much shortened field where the secondary is essentially stacked and has the end zone covered.

 

[Undone]

44 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The problem I have with this complaint is that if we always call the play that is the obvious play that should be called, we become predictable and very easy to defend.  You have to mix in some of the unpredictable.  Fans also complain about..."OMG....everyone knew what we were going to run".

 

Yes I was just creating a couple definitions of some things.