What did we learn? Mich St version

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Any other week we'd be talking about a Nebraska team playing an entire game with ZERO penalties. 

 

If somebody looked up the last time that happened, I missed it. 

 

2005 against Maine.

[ZRod]

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

 

Honestly, after watching those clips our run blocking problems are a lot less to do with the lineman and a lot more with the WRs (and sometimes TEs). Which is to be expected with injuries and youth, but it really kills us when we can't keep CBs and Safeties from forcing plays back inside.

[Mavric]

37 minutes ago, teachercd said:

I get that but Sims, when on the field, is the best athlete on the field for either team and it is not even close.

Come on.  Let's at least have some for of realism here.

 

Unless you have evidence that Sims runs better than a 10.4 100 meters, high jumps more than 6-7, or whatever other metric you want to use.

 

He is a good athlete.  But I'm not sure he'd be in the Top 10.  Nor would HH for that matter.

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, Mavric said:

Come on.  Let's at least have some for of realism here.

 

Unless you have evidence that Sims runs better than a 10.4 100 meters, high jumps more than 6-7, or whatever other metric you want to use.

 

He is a good athlete.  But I'm not sure he'd be in the Top 10.  Nor would HH for that matter.

 

[Red Five]

54 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Yeah, NU passed 28 times, with a number of other pass plays negated due to sacks or QB scrambles. However, that number is inflated due to being down 2 scores for most of the 4th quarter. Also, NU was finding themselves in a number of 3rd and longs, which generally requires more passing.

 

We threw the ball 15 times in the 1st half (plus probably a handful of other attempts not showing up due to sacks/scrambles).  We threw the ball 11 times all game vs Purdue and 17 times all game vs Northwestern.

 

Here are the down and distances of those pass plays up to our last drive of the 1st half which was affected by time left in the half and penalties. 

 

2nd and 4 for -3 yards

3rd and 7 incomplete

1st and 10 for 5 yards

1st and 10 incomplete

1st and 10 sack

2nd and 15 for -4 yards

3rd and 19 interception

3rd and 4 for 27 yards

1st and 10 incomplete

1st and 10 for 22 yards

1st and 10 incomplete

3rd and 11 incomplete

 

We tried to throw 12 passes, with 6 of those on 1st downs (out of 11 1st and 10s) and 3 on 3rd and longs.  2 of those 3rd and longs were caused by losing yards on 2nd down passes and one due to an incomplete 1st down pass.

[Undone]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

I think this has way more to do with the schedule than HH. You still have to win the games, which he has done, but the best win is… NW? 

I’m still waiting for some creativity on the offense. A trick play, a couple of wr sweeps, more TE action. But let’s run up the gut into a loaded box and pass on 3rd and long. 

 

First off I do really agree on Ricky getting the easy part of the schedule. It's not even debatable really - good point.

 

To the second part, there hasn't been a complete lack of creativity in my opinion. Not sure if you were talking about the Michigan State game or the season as a whole. In the MSU game we had a reverse that got a decent gain. We've had some jet sweeps from Kemp in the red zone this year that worked the ball closer to the end zone.

 

In the first half against MSU on Saturday we had two drives in the first half where 1st down was a called passing play. I think one might have resulted in a sack and one was an incomplete pass (or maybe both were incomplete passes, I could go back and look). But those got us behind the sticks.

 

I actually think Satterfield might have gone away from the run a bit when it was working in the first half. We wound up with a lower run/pass ratio than what we've averaged for the season.

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

First off I do really agree on Ricky getting the easy part of the schedule. It's not even debatable really - good point.

 

To second part, there hasn't been a complete lack of creativity in my opinion. Not sure if you were talking about the Michigan State game or the season as a whole. In the MSU game we had a reverse that got a decent gain. We've had some jet sweeps from Kemp in the red zone this year that worked the ball closer to the end zone.

 

In the first half against MSU on Saturday we had two drives in the first half where 1st down was a called passing play. I think one might have resulted in a sack and one was an incomplete pass (or maybe both were incomplete passes, I could go back and look). But those got us behind the sticks.

 

I actually think Satterfield might have gone away from the run a bit when it was working.

Agree.  We started one QB for two games that went through fall camp expecting to be the QB1 with one type of offense.  Then, since HH has been the starter, we have seen the offense morph into an option offense with plays that weren't even in the play book at the beginning of the season.  That takes a certain amount of creativity from the coaching staff to pull off.  AND....the willingness to change the offense to fit the QB.

[gossamorharpy]

6 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Is anyone saying this?

Nebhawk says this everyday

[Undone]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Then, since HH has been the starter, we have seen the offense morph into an option offense with plays that weren't even in the play book at the beginning of the season.  That takes a certain amount of creativity from the coaching staff to pull off.  AND....the willingness to change the offense to fit the QB.

 

Interesting, I don't think I would have said that. I'd say Haarberg's & Sims' abilities are on the same level in both the running and passing category. So I'd guess that there weren't really any plays that were added or subtracted for Haarberg.

 

Now maybe Rhule & Satterfield sat down and decided on a couple plays to up the percentage on and a couple to lower the percentage on in the actual game calls. Maybe.

[ColoradoHusk]

21 minutes ago, Red Five said:

 

We threw the ball 15 times in the 1st half (plus probably a handful of other attempts not showing up due to sacks/scrambles).  We threw the ball 11 times all game vs Purdue and 17 times all game vs Northwestern.

 

Here are the down and distances of those pass plays up to our last drive of the 1st half which was affected by time left in the half and penalties. 

 

2nd and 4 for -3 yards

3rd and 7 incomplete

1st and 10 for 5 yards

1st and 10 incomplete

1st and 10 sack

2nd and 15 for -4 yards

3rd and 19 interception

3rd and 4 for 27 yards

1st and 10 incomplete

1st and 10 for 22 yards

1st and 10 incomplete

3rd and 11 incomplete

 

We tried to throw 12 passes, with 6 of those on 1st downs (out of 11 1st and 10s) and 3 on 3rd and longs.  2 of those 3rd and longs were caused by losing yards on 2nd down passes and one due to an incomplete 1st down pass.

Thanks for those details on the first half. The argument could be made that Satt was too pass happy, but a lot of “experts” thought the best way to attack Michigan State was passing.  The trouble with that is NU isn’t good enough passing to take advantage of that.

 

NU did come out running the ball well in the 2nd half, but stopped itself after Bullock dropped a pass which would have gained an important first down. MSU then went ahead by three the next drive, and NU struggled to move the ball in the 3rd quarter and early 4th, especially running the ball. 

[knapplc]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Thanks for those details on the first half. The argument could be made that Satt was too pass happy, but a lot of “experts” thought the best way to attack Michigan State was passing.  The trouble with that is NU isn’t good enough passing to take advantage of that.

 

NU did come out running the ball well in the 2nd half, but stopped itself after Bullock dropped a pass which would have gained an important first down. MSU then went ahead by three the next drive, and NU struggled to move the ball in the 3rd quarter and early 4th, especially running the ball. 

 

The best formula for Nebraska moving forward is to focus on what we do best, not what the opponent does worst. We are not going to morph into a team that can take advantage of an opponent's weakness at this point. 

 

Even if they know we're going to run, we're far more likely to be successful doing that than slinging it around. 

[gossamorharpy]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Thanks for those details on the first half. The argument could be made that Satt was too pass happy, but a lot of “experts” thought the best way to attack Michigan State was passing.  The trouble with that is NU isn’t good enough passing to take advantage of that.

 

NU did come out running the ball well in the 2nd half, but stopped itself after Bullock dropped a pass which would have gained an important first down. MSU then went ahead by three the next drive, and NU struggled to move the ball in the 3rd quarter and early 4th, especially running the ball. 

HH been getting piled on a lot, and deservedly so for the most part. But the bolded above was such a key event to work against us. I believe that was the 2nd ball that bullock should’ve caught for a first down and dropped it. We don’t have an all conf qb and you gotta make basic/routine plays as a wide out to lift him up and keep a drive going. 
 

 

[ColoradoHusk]

3 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

The best formula for Nebraska moving forward is to focus on what we do best, not what the opponent does worst. We are not going to morph into a team that can take advantage of an opponent's weakness at this point. 

 

Even if they know we're going to run, we're far more likely to be successful doing that than slinging it around. 

Very fair points, and I agree with you for the most part.  Satt did try a G-belly option pass which worked great for 2 big plays the previous 2 weeks, and it didn’t work against Michigan Statw. I honestly don’t know if we are good enough running the ball to do “only that”. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I thought Jeff Sims was brought in to operate a dual threat offense -- emphasis on run -- with a dozen or more designed QB runs a game. 

 

I thought HH was elevated because that was his skillset, too, and the offensive scheme didn't need to change at all.

 

But while Haarberg has scrambled for some big gains recently, those designed QB draws we saw for both QBs appear to have dwindled on the call sheet. 

 

Am I nervous when HH drops back to pass? Not really. No more than I worry about a running back getting stuffed or fumbling. Good things can happen on any play, but the team has trouble finding a rhythm. It never occurs to me that we would have won a game like Saturday's if we had just run Emmett Johnson more. 

[Red Five]

15 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

The argument could be made that Satt was too pass happy, but a lot of “experts” thought the best way to attack Michigan State was passing.  The trouble with that is NU isn’t good enough passing to take advantage of that.

 

Agree.  MSU's pass defense was statistically their weakness.

 

But as you state, HH isn't a good enough passer to take advantage of that (and our OL might not be up to handling it either).  Calling that many 1st down passes with HH is just asking for trouble IMO.  We're just setting ourselves up to be behind the sticks.

 

15 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

NU did come out running the ball well in the 2nd half, but stopped itself after Bullock dropped a pass which would have gained an important first down. MSU then went ahead by three the next drive, and NU struggled to move the ball in the 3rd quarter and early 4th, especially running the ball. 

 

In the 3Q, we just didn't run that many plays - 10 total.  We did rip off back to back 11 yard runs on the 1st possession, but ended up punting off the Bullock drop.  Then back to back to back 3 and outs ending the 3Q and beginning the 4Q - 6 passes (3 sacks, 1 completion) / 3 rushes.