Iowa Game What did we learn?

[Packerhuskerfan]

The team doesn't have great situational awareness.   Even if Purdy completes that catch on his awful interception, there is like a 5% chance we make a FG from there.  He needed to take a deeper shot or not one at all.  Then, for the Huskers defense to give up a 20+ yard run when you knew that run was coming was crazy.  If they had only gave up like 10 on that play, I doubt their kicker makes it.

[MyBloodIsRed16]

I've learned (already knew but has be re-emphasized) that some on this board don't realize that recruiting and the transfer portal are a two way street.  Lots of "why didn't we go get this guy or that guy".  Who of you have proof they didn't try.  Kids have to want to come Nebraska.  Just because you throw money at them doesn't guarantee they want to come.  Also about firing certain coaches, Rhule made a statement about continuity, I agree.  Can't just keep firing coaches it won't automatically fix the problem.  It's year one.  Didn't turn out the best but it could have been worse.  

[twofittyonred]

15 hours ago, gobiggergoredder said:

The Buffs season is over tomorrow too

The buffs season was over last week TBH...

[twofittyonred]

9 hours ago, In the Deed the Glory said:

Lol. You’re right. Football is a mindset. It’s always about the tough locker room guy who wants it more. JFC man. Get over that bulls#!t. Football at the level Nebraska plays at is about experienced talent. It’s not your high school team that played harder than others. 

 

The injuries decimated the offense. An offense in its first year that had limited reps for people that weren’t starters, because install was new for everyone. They also didn’t have a QB worth a s#!t all year. 
 

Im a Packer fan. Want to know why they suck this year?  Jordan Love is awful. They don’t have a QB either. 
 

Common sense has completely left the majority of posters on this board. If you were too blind to see our flaws when we beat 5 terrible teams and actually believed we were going to win out then I have a great deal on a bridge in San Francisco I’d like to talk to you about. 

tell me more about this bridge...  

[lo country]

9 hours ago, Undone said:

Actual laughing out loud at people who think a scheme change to a guy whose system is almost exactly the same as what we did this season somehow saves the program. I legitimately want to smoke what you're smoking, not even kidding.

 

The core issue that stood between us and a bowl game this season was turnovers. Over and over again our QB's & ball carriers f***ed up in new and hilarious ways.

 

We ran the option this year. We ran fullback traps. Scheme can't/didn't un-f*** our situation. Not making constant unforced errors will be the biggest thing that does that.

I hear what you are saying.  Turn overs have doomed this team this season and in previous years.  It will be close to impossible to win at a high level when throwing more INT’s than TD’s and leading the nation in TO’s.  But just because a guy teaches a certain scheme, doesn’t mean he knows the scheme.  There is a world of difference in the ability to convey the nuances, subtleties and technicalities of a system vs knowing teaching what you have “heard”.  We also threw the forward pass this year.  Does that idea suck as well?  Running some plays, trap, counter, jet sweep, roll outs, drop back passing etc…doesn’t mean that’s our scheme or offensive identity.  I still have no idea what our scheme is or was supposed to be.  Looked like the “try anything”.  In year one, with what we had it was probably the best we could do.  
 

If Satt (insert coach) isn’t a master of said system it won’t be as good.  Hard to adjust when you don’t know the ins and outs, but just the basics.  Very difficult to teach that.  Just like wrestling coach knows how to grapple, he won’t be able to teach BJJ without knowing BJJ. At least not at a level to have high success.  Same with other martial arts, flying a single engine prop plane or a multi engine jet, general practitioner or cardia surgeon.  If what we are it runnings is not Satts specialty, it’s a disservice to him and the team.  If it’s not what Rhule wants to run then shame on him.  If Rhule wants a hard nose running team, then find that guy.  If he wants to run a pro style then get that guy.  And again to your point, nothing will change until we fixed the TO issues.  

[Archy1221]

11 hours ago, In the Deed the Glory said:

 

The injuries decimated the offense. An offense in its first year that had limited reps for people that weren’t starters, because install was new for everyone. They also didn’t have a QB worth a s#!t all year. 

You are correct that the team had a lot of injuries on the offensive side of the ball.  
 

I would like to ask this question though……. which replacement played much worse than the starter he replaces because of injury? 

 

[Hayseed]

Since everybody's reminiscing.....I think we would've won at least 7 games with Casey Thompson at QB. That's a major screw up.

[thexyz]

1 minute ago, Hayseed said:

Since everybody's reminiscing.....I think we would've won at least 7 games with Casey Thompson at QB. That's a major screw up.

 

The quarterback position issue is much more relevant than Satterfield and his play calling. I'm not sure how many more games we'd have won with Casey Thompson though the choice to acquire Sims was an error.

 

There was good reasoning behind making a change though the quarterback we acquired wasn't an improvement over Thompson. Not only his skill, he could've provided leadership for the offense. It's easy to criticize now in hindsight although we really did strike out there. It seems the intent was a longer term solution and they wanted more physical, durable QB (perhaps).

 

Quarterback selections and management has been challenging for Rhule. Bringing in a staff member that can assist with that area of play would be advantageous. 

[Undone]

The biggest problems in the Iowa game on offense throughout the whole of the game in order for me were:

 

1. The two turnovers that Purdy had.

2. Our inability to run the ball.

3. The missed field goal.

 

We had 30 carries for 75 yards. Nothing all that bad about 30 carries for your total - but that's 2.5 YPC. Terrible.

 

If you go back and look at the winnable conference games that we lost in Minnesota, Michigan State, & Maryland, QB mistakes are also at the top of the list of problems. This is why I think it's weird to fixate on scheme and play calling problems. We just need our QB's to not turn the ball over as the starting point.

[corncraze]

2 hours ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

Can't just keep firing coaches it won't automatically fix the problem.  It's year one.  Didn't turn out the best but it could have been worse.  

Another example of sunk-cost fallacy. That mindset has killed our program. Instead of seeing something for what it is (Satt, Frost, Raiola, Riley) we make excuses to keep terrible performances. “We’re already invested in XYZ, if we can just wait it out it longer it will turn around.” Meanwhile our program continues to crumble into disrepair. If something isn’t working, we need to get rid of it before it gets even worse. Satt has an atrocious history as an OC; get him out now before he causes more damage.

[corncraze]

4 minutes ago, Undone said:

The biggest problems in the Iowa game on offense throughout the whole of the game in order for me were:

 

1. The two turnovers that Purdy had.

2. Our inability to run the ball.

3. The missed field goal.

 

We had 30 carries for 75 yards. Nothing all that bad about 30 carries for your total - but that's 2.5 YPC. Terrible.

 

If you go back and look at the winnable conference games that we lost in Minnesota, Michigan State, & Maryland, QB mistakes are also at the top of the list of problems. This is why I think it's weird to fixate on scheme and play calling problems. We just need our QB's to not turn the ball over as the starting point.

So we’re just supposed to believe that three separate QBs are all TO machines with horrid decision-making? Getting the same performance from three completely different players sure seems like a coaching issue to me.

[lo country]

8 minutes ago, Undone said:

The biggest problems in the Iowa game on offense throughout the whole of the game in order for me were:

 

1. The two turnovers that Purdy had.

2. Our inability to run the ball.

3. The missed field goal.

 

We had 30 carries for 75 yards. Nothing all that bad about 30 carries for your total - but that's 2.5 YPC. Terrible.

 

If you go back and look at the winnable conference games that we lost in Minnesota, Michigan State, & Maryland, QB mistakes are also at the top of the list of problems. This is why I think it's weird to fixate on scheme and play calling problems. We just need our QB's to not turn the ball over as the starting point.

Can't disagree at all.  When the guy(s) who touches ball every snap repeatedly have TO's through fumbles and INT's, no scheme will work.  NU, for whatever reason, has become a turnover factory.  Unsure how you fix this.  And it has been every QB this year. I do think that Satt has some culpability in this.  And more so learning that Rhule had moved him fromQB to RB coach at a previous stop.    As to scheme, I have a preference to a particular scheme, but my favorite scheme of all time is one that wins.  

[MyBloodIsRed16]

10 minutes ago, corncraze said:

Another example of sunk-cost fallacy. That mindset has killed our program. Instead of seeing something for what it is (Satt, Frost, Raiola, Riley) we make excuses to keep terrible performances. “We’re already invested in XYZ, if we can just wait it out it longer it will turn around.” Meanwhile our program continues to crumble into disrepair. If something isn’t working, we need to get rid of it before it gets even worse. Satt has an atrocious history as an OC; get him out now before he causes more damage.

So you are throwing Satterfield and Raiola in there together.  Do me a favor and go back and watch the year before Raiola got here and tell me he doesn't have the line playing better.   I'm not saying Satterfield is a good OC but OC's look a lot better when they have A: a QB who can get the ball near a WR and B: WR who can get open and... catch the ball.  What offense would you run with the players on O thise year?  Just curious.  Also Iowa could he a 10 win team this year and are gonna be looking for a new OC 

[In the Deed the Glory]

55 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

You are correct that the team had a lot of injuries on the offensive side of the ball.  
 

I would like to ask this question though……. which replacement played much worse than the starter he replaces because of injury? 

 

The issue isn’t that, the issue is you are limited in what you can do because you can’t get deeper into the offense as the guy who got the most reps with the 1s is out and it’s a new guy in there. It’s like treading water. 
 

meanwhile, the stuff the new guy can run opposing DCs have figured out. It severely limits your adjustment ability 

[gobiggergoredder]

55 minutes ago, Hayseed said:

Since everybody's reminiscing.....I think we would've won at least 7 games with Casey Thompson at QB. That's a major screw up.

Trey Palmer  = Love affair with CT