What did we learn? NIU Edition

[Mavric]

Just now, Undone said:

I've tried to make the case many times though since the Minnesota game that two major interceptions Sims threw probably wouldn't have even been passing plays that would have happened if other players around him hadn't screwed up badly first.

 

I don't really think I can say that the Minnesota game turns out differently if Haarberg had been the starter. I think we win that game without some really dumb false starts and the fumble by Grant.

 

This is definitely true.  But I don't think that really makes it any better for Sims. 

 

Everyone is going to screw up.  It's everyone else's job to help cover for those screwups.  You can't take a slightly bad situation and make it 10 times worse.  Especially when you're the QB.

[HuskerX]

8 minutes ago, presidentjlh said:

Yes, it was Northern Illinois. Obviously that is a caveat. But right now, Haarberg should obviously be the starter until his play shows otherwise. Quite simply, he did not produce needless, unforced turnovers at the same rate as Sims. Yes, there was that one throw. I'm not going to say "MY GOSH THIS MAN'S A WORLDBEATER!" But, frankly, with him, we probably get the win over Minnesota because he turns it over at least one less time.

 

Again, I want to clarify, I am not saying he's the real deal. But, I think it'd be madness to go with Sims right now because Sims has done nothing but show an inability to maintain possession at a level I have never seen.

Starters should not lose their status due to injury. When Sims gets healthy, he should start again unless the coaches pull him for poor performance.

[gobiggergoredder]

4 minutes ago, Undone said:

I've tried to make the case many times though since the Minnesota game that two major interceptions Sims threw probably wouldn't have even been passing plays that would have happened if other players around him hadn't screwed up badly first.

 

I don't really think I can say that the Minnesota game turns out differently if Haarberg had been the starter. I think we win that game without some really dumb false starts and the fumble by Grant.

I'd also add that Sims was the vast majority of the offense in the Minnesota game.  When it was time to make a play he was the guy.

 

The mistakes are easy to remember, but I don't think they are even in the game without his legs.

[Mavric]

4 minutes ago, HuskerX said:

Starters should not lose their status due to injury. When Sims gets healthy, he should start again unless the coaches pull him for poor performance.

 

And it would seem that he's had plenty of poor performance to be pulled for that.

[presidentjlh]

5 minutes ago, HuskerX said:

Starters should not lose their status due to injury. When Sims gets healthy, he should start again unless the coaches pull him for poor performance.

It is not because of his injury. It is because he turned the ball over more than anyone in the country when he was healthy.

[Decked]

13 minutes ago, HuskerX said:

Starters should not lose their status due to injury. When Sims gets healthy, he should start again unless the coaches pull him for poor performance.

It’s really cool that we have the technology to post on this board while blind. 

[Undone]

23 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

This is definitely true.  But I don't think that really makes it any better for Sims. 

 

Everyone is going to screw up.  It's everyone else's job to help cover for those screwups.  You can't take a slightly bad situation and make it 10 times worse.  Especially when you're the QB.

 

Agreed there for sure.

 

I just think it might be like a "Husker fan fiction" type of narrative to really believe the Minnesota game is that much different with Haarberg in there. Anything is possible but my main point is that the game was totally winnable with Sims.

 

In a situation where we got shut out or where we weren't winning with 6:00 left to go in the game, yeah, I'd be entertaining that hypothetical heavily.

 

Now, the Colorado game? It wasn't winnable with Sims. And I hope that our coaching staff sees this and evaluates the QB situation very carefully because of it.

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, Red Five said:

HH played a fine game.  Nothing flashy, but better than what we saw from Sims (albeit probably against worse defenses).  Don't think he is the answer long term, but might have to be for this season.  Although if he keeps playing and running 15+ times/game we will see Sims or Purdy again.

If HH keeps the starting job, and keeps running 15+ times a game, I hope he got his proclivity for bruising defenders out of his system. I think he can sustain 10-15 runs per game but not if he's going to truck stick linebackers and DB's every chance he'd get. If he runs 15 times a game it'd be nice if he gave himself up or ran out of bounds on at least 5-6 of them.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Trevin Luben is averaging 18 yards a carry! And he's NOT starting this week? Wake up, Satterfield!

[Loebarth]

13 minutes ago, Enhance said:

If HH keeps the starting job, and keeps running 15+ times a game, I hope he got his proclivity for bruising defenders out of his system. I think he can sustain 10-15 runs per game but not if he's going to truck stick linebackers and DB's every change he'd get. If he runs 15 times a game it'd be nice if he gave himself up or ran out of bounds on at least 5-6 of them.

Really, would you have said that in the T.O. days when it wasn't at all unusual for our QB's to run through defenders? If his mindset is to run through the defender then let him run through defenders. Especially if it motivates our backs to do the same. Gotta get away from this mindset that QB's are fragile. Wish a T.O. era player would comment about T.O's "good on good" practices (Umm.. Benning you around?) and if the QB's wore green jersey's in those scrimmages. How often do we hear it said that players get hurt when going only half speed so, lower your frame and dish out the blow. Besides, it sounds to me that HH enjoys that physical style of running. 

 

Playing Physical

[Enhance]

39 minutes ago, Mavric said:

This is definitely true.  But I don't think that really makes it any better for Sims. 

 

Everyone is going to screw up.  It's everyone else's job to help cover for those screwups.  You can't take a slightly bad situation and make it 10 times worse.  Especially when you're the QB.

100% agree.

I think that's where I tend to push back a bit against Rhule's narrative from the last week or so. I'm sure he's not technically wrong when he said that 'things happened that weren't Jeff's fault' which helped lead to turnovers, but there's a fine line to be drawn there. For example, is he suggesting that Sims threw interceptions because maybe a receiver ran a wrong route and/or the line didn't pick up a blitz correctly? Because yes, that is a bad situation going against your QB, but to your point, your QB can't then go and make a bad decision on top of all of it. That's where the ball security and mindfulness as a QB has to come into play.

[presidentjlh]

8 minutes ago, Loebarth said:

Really, would you have said that in the T.O. days when it wasn't at all unusual for our QB's to run through defenders? If his mindset is to run through the defender then let him run through defenders. Especially if it motivates our backs to do the same. Gotta get away from this mindset that QB's are fragile. Wish a T.O. era player would comment about T.O's "good on good" practices (Umm.. Benning you around?) and if the QB's wore green jersey's in those scrimmages. How often do we hear it said that players get hurt when going only half speed so, lower your frame and dish out the blow. Besides, it sounds to me that HH enjoys that physical style of running. 

 

Playing Physical

My recollection on Twitter (Forgive me, I can't find it) is our QBs actually ran way less often in the 90s. I agree we should utilize it, but we're already running QBs at a high clip.

[ZRod]

31 minutes ago, Enhance said:

If HH keeps the starting job, and keeps running 15+ times a game, I hope he got his proclivity for bruising defenders out of his system. I think he can sustain 10-15 runs per game but not if he's going to truck stick linebackers and DB's every chance he'd get. If he runs 15 times a game it'd be nice if he gave himself up or ran out of bounds on at least 5-6 of them.

Just for funnzies here's the average carries per game for Husker QBs that played at least 9 games in a season. Obviously I didn't include the pocket passers (except Ganz, kinda).

 

Frazier: 10

Frost: 12.6 (Does not include Stanford)

Crouch: 15.8

Lord: 17.3

Ganz: 7.1

T. Martinez: 13.6

Armstrong: 9

A. Martinez: 17.6 (at K State 11.8)

[Gorillahawk]

13 minutes ago, presidentjlh said:

My recollection on Twitter (Forgive me, I can't find it) is our QBs actually ran way less often in the 90s. I agree we should utilize it, but we're already running QBs at a high clip.

 

We also had guys waiting on the bench that if they had to come in, the offense drop off was not nearly as bad as it would be now. 

[Enhance]

34 minutes ago, Loebarth said:

Really, would you have said that in the T.O. days when it wasn't at all unusual for our QB's to run through defenders?

It would depend on the circumstance but I think that's comparing apples to oranges a bit. T.O's teams didn't regularly feature quarterbacks that ran 20+ times into the teeth of defenses. Frazier averaged only 8 carries per game his senior season. Assuming HH remains the starter, the chances of his body holding up running the way he does for 15-20 times a game are very, very low. We also know that T.O.'s teams had more talent, depth, and could sustain injuries much more efficiently.

There are times to be physical and fight for the extra yard, and there are times to be a leader and do what's right for your team. He's a young guy and he'll likely figure it out if given the opportunity.