Fire Satterfield

[Undone]

2. We're done with the first season and if someone were to ask me what our offense is I couldnt tell ya.  The biggest success we had all year was a suggestion from osborne to send a guy deep on the fake option play.  We relentlessly called wr screens with WRs who couldn't block for s#!t.  We were sold a power run type offense yet for whatever reason defaulted to qb read option plays more-often than not  in short to down situations.  I entered this season feeling great about the TE room yet I leave it feeling like it too has problems- I get fidone is still coming back from injuries but man do I feel like we under utilized him by not using him more across the field or in formations where he's running routes underneath coverage; where was boerkircher?  

I don't know why it matters so much to be able to put some kind of concise sounding label on "what kind of offense do you have?" What we need out of our offense is literally anything that can put up at least 24 points in any given conference game, at this point.

It's probably more beneficial and more accurate to talk about what we did well and what we didn't do well. I think it's a short list:

-At least in terms of yards per game, we ran the ball pretty well.

-We were really bad throwing the ball.

-We were completely atrocious with turnovers.

Ok. So does a change in scheme change those two things we were bad at? I say "no," but lots of people on here seem to think it does.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I don't know why it matters so much to be able to put some kind of concise sounding label on "what kind of offense do you have?" What we need out of our offense is literally anything that can put up at least 24 points in any given conference game, at this point.

It's probably more beneficial and more accurate to talk about what we did well and what we didn't do well. I think it's a short list:

-At least in terms of yards per game, we ran the ball pretty well.

-We were really bad throwing the ball.

-We were completely atrocious with turnovers.

Ok. So does a change in scheme change those two things we were bad at? I say "no," but lots of people on here seem to think it does.

It's the long version of "we have no identity".  It's amazing, when an offense works, fans think we have an identity.  When it doesn't, they don't think we have an identity.

Gee....Rhule said he wants an offense that runs the ball well.  We ran the ball well.  We didn't pass well and we need that too.  OR.....if we get so we can pass well too, does that mean we really don't have an identity because we do multiple things.

 

[Undone]

Gee....Rhule said he wants an offense that runs the ball well.  We ran the ball well.  We didn't pass well and we need that too.  OR.....if we get so we can pass well too, does that mean we really don't have an identity because we do multiple things.

Yeah.

I don't know if there are stats for what percentage of 3rd downs were yardages of less than 5. So somebody can disagree with this if just the eye ball test I'm going off of is inaccurate. But one thing I maybe should have added to my list of negatives was being in 3rd & long what seemed like a lot.

The QB scrambles tend to increase the yards per carry stat. There's nothing wrong with this.

But you also have to run the ball well on 1st & 2nd down. Sometimes Satterfield would go away from the run after picking up the first - I definitely have an issue with that. I think it played some kind of role in setting up 3rd & longs because Haarberg couldn't handle a lot of those types of called passing plays. I think this is a legitimate gripe.

 

[admo]

It's the long version of "we have no identity".  It's amazing, when an offense works, fans think we have an identity.  When it doesn't, they don't think we have an identity.

Gee....Rhule said he wants an offense that runs the ball well.  We ran the ball well.  We didn't pass well and we need that too.  OR.....if we get so we can pass well too, does that mean we really don't have an identity because we do multiple things.

This is so on-point, I knew I liked you !  

The more I read what you said, the more I want to be your best friend from Texas !!! 

You can wear my Southside White Sox hat and I'll wear your Cubbies  chuckleshuffle

 

[runningblind]

It's the long version of "we have no identity".  It's amazing, when an offense works, fans think we have an identity.  When it doesn't, they don't think we have an identity.

Gee....Rhule said he wants an offense that runs the ball well.  We ran the ball well.  We didn't pass well and we need that too.  OR.....if we get so we can pass well too, does that mean we really don't have an identity because we do multiple things.

Isn't having an identity exactly what opposing D Coordinators want?  To know they should just stop the run or pass and they are good?  Seems to me no identity is the way to be, good at everything. 

 

[gossamorharpy]

I don't know why it matters so much to be able to put some kind of concise sounding label on "what kind of offense do you have?" What we need out of our offense is literally anything that can put up at least 24 points in any given conference game, at this point.

It's probably more beneficial and more accurate to talk about what we did well and what we didn't do well. I think it's a short list:

-At least in terms of yards per game, we ran the ball pretty well.

-We were really bad throwing the ball.

-We were completely atrocious with turnovers.

Ok. So does a change in scheme change those two things we were bad at? I say "no," but lots of people on here seem to think it does.

To me, having a label helps tremendously in what Rhule is selling to recruits and transfer portal guys.  He had the luxury last offseason of selling the dream and he did a damn good job getting some high quality talent to come to Lincoln.  If I'm an offensive skill player recruit in 2025, surely I have some questions as to what I'm committing to when I just witnessed a full season of question marks.  

Your short list is spot on.  If I may counter the running the ball point- we're still way too over reliant on qb runs.  If you remove the massive qb runs we had on broken pass plays (there were quite a few) our rushing totals dont look so great.  If you look at our average yards per rush, essentially 9 progrums in the big ten fared better per rush.  I feel like 80% of the past decade we've been boom or bust with the qb play and this reliance has to end.

Screenshot 2023-11-28 at 2.20.39 PM Medium.heic

 

[Undone]

He had the luxury last offseason of selling the dream and he did a damn good job getting some high quality talent to come to Lincoln.

He did?

To me, having a label helps tremendously in what Rhule is selling to recruits and transfer portal guys.

Ok: we're a zone read & RPO offense. Think "Philadelphia Eagles" but with just a bit more 12 man personnel mixed in there.

 

[admo]

@Decked I think you should edit the topic/thread to "discussing Saterfield".

That way, we can continue to have the discussions, and your first post and thoughts can remain golden!  Plus, the thread can go on and on forever until, someday Sat gets a fat raise or does get fired.  

Come on dawg, you are in Kansas and I am in Texas.  If you alter the thread title a little bit to keep it civilized on HB, I will meet you in Arkansas for hog hunting, and grill you some pork chops, pork butt and bacon.  With extra pork butt fat.  And backstrap.  

 

[ChubbaWubba]

Isn't it knife to the heart season 8?

And blow jobs? hey, all of a sudden im feeling a bit better about things

Hard to keep track anymore. I was a young man last time we went haha

 

[brophog]

Ok: we're a zone read & RPO offense. Think "Philadelphia Eagles" but with just a bit more 12 man personnel mixed in there.

We didn't have a scheme this year. You know that because if you have a scheme then half of opposing defense isn't waiting on the QB on every option play because they have to account for the other plays/components that make it an actual scheme. A big reason so many plays ended up as QB runs was the scheme as such didn't exist to force defenders to account for someone else. About the only symmetry this offense had was to hope they over-commited to the QB runs enough that eventually you could drop one over the top for a big play.

 

[Husker03]

We didn't have a scheme this year. You know that because if you have a scheme then half of opposing defense isn't waiting on the QB on every option play because they have to account for the other plays/components that make it an actual scheme. A big reason so many plays ended up as QB runs was the scheme as such didn't exist to force defenders to account for someone else. About the only symmetry this offense had was to hope they over-commited to the QB runs enough that eventually you could drop one over the top for a big play.

We got real good at the “drop one” part. 

 

[TGHusker]

@Decked I think you should edit the topic/thread to "discussing Saterfield".

That way, we can continue to have the discussions, and your first post and thoughts can remain golden!  Plus, the thread can go on and on forever until, someday Sat gets a fat raise or does get fired.  

Come on dawg, you are in Kansas and I am in Texas.  If you alter the thread title a little bit to keep it civilized on HB, I will meet you in Arkansas for hog hunting, and grill you some pork chops, pork butt and bacon.  With extra pork butt fat.  And backstrap.  

Let’s meet in between in Tulsa and I’ll take you to Burnco (look it up)

 

[admo]

Let’s meet in between in Tulsa and I’ll take you to Burnco (look it up)

BBQ sounds great

 

[lo country]

At previous stops Rhule used 22 personnel (2 RB and 2 TE) for a power running attack and used more RPO at Baylor.  Two different schemes.  I'm assuming running those based on talent, the league and guys he could recruit.  Reading an article from Mar 2023, Satt wanted to implement a pro style O with a strong run game and downfield passing. This is where I have some questions.  Sims is not a pro style QB.  So who pursued him?  Rhule or Satt?  Rhule is running more of what he did at Temple, at least in formations, but schematically, I think we have tried everything.  One because of Satts desire/background, we have seen the downfield passing attack (some success), we have seen Rhule's 2 back sets, use of FB and some various types of option (some success)..Throw in some counters, toss sweeps, etc and I think that we have seen parts of about every scheme imaginable.....QB play has been lackluster at best so no scheme, pro style (predicated on good qb) or any type of RPO (predicated on good qb) has little chance for success.  Throw in another year of leading the nation in TO's and again you have a recipe where no scheme works.

Rhule wants our identity to be a physical, fundamentally sound team.  The whole mantra of Resilient, Disciplined, Violent that they started. You can have this through any scheme.  Unfortunately our identity is mistake prone, undisciplined, unlucky, anemic offense etc....Which you can also have through any scheme ie NU under Riley, Frost and Rhule in year 1.  Just win baby.  Air raid, ground and pound, triple option, flex, wishbone, under center, in pistol, in shotgun....Just win.

 

[DrunkOffPunch]

Yeah.

I don't know if there are stats for what percentage of 3rd downs were yardages of less than 5. So somebody can disagree with this if just the eye ball test I'm going off of is inaccurate. But one thing I maybe should have added to my list of negatives was being in 3rd & long what seemed like a lot.

The QB scrambles tend to increase the yards per carry stat. There's nothing wrong with this.

But you also have to run the ball well on 1st & 2nd down. Sometimes Satterfield would go away from the run after picking up the first - I definitely have an issue with that. I think it played some kind of role in setting up 3rd & longs because Haarberg couldn't handle a lot of those types of called passing plays. I think this is a legitimate gripe.

128th in passing attempts per game. We did not abandon the run.