Should we fire Satterfield??

Remove Indiana game as that was an outlier. But some guys seem happy because we played Ohio state tough and that is evidence we are not that bad. But what I think is frustrating is our offensive brand of football is so bad we are always in a competitive game. Good teams, bad teams it doesn’t matter. We play into and down to every opponent I guess. 
 

I might feel better if after today we pull away and look good against lesser teams. But I doubt. I bet we play 4 more nail biters 

 
For anyone wondering the last 3 games we are averaging 16.5 points per game. Good for 121st in the country out of 134 teams.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
i think most would agree rhule has done a pretty good job here except for this 1 hire that looked bad from day 1. we all heard people from SC praising the lord that we took satt off their hands. not to mention his numbers as an OC weren't great, and for the money we spent we flat out should got somebody better.

rhule still has time to correct this mistake, so hopefully he gets it done. or i think he'll be gone in 4 years or less.

 
BoSolich said:
i think most would agree rhule has done a pretty good job here except for this 1 hire that looked bad from day 1. we all heard people from SC praising the lord that we took satt off their hands. not to mention his numbers as an OC weren't great, and for the money we spent we flat out should got somebody better.

rhule still has time to correct this mistake, so hopefully he gets it done. or i think he'll be gone in 4 years or less.
Click to expand...


Rhule went with someone he had history with, someone he felt comfortable with, and you can't fault him for that. However it's not working out and Rhule is gonnna have to make the tough decision to let him go or risk losing Raiola. Some of our past coaches made the mistake of sticking with their friends for too long. Hopefully Rhule doesn't make that same mistake.

 
Huskers93-97 said:
Remove Indiana game as that was an outlier. But some guys seem happy because we played Ohio state tough and that is evidence we are not that bad. But what I think is frustrating is our offensive brand of football is so bad we are always in a competitive game. Good teams, bad teams it doesn’t matter. We play into and down to every opponent I guess. 
 

I might feel better if after today we pull away and look good against lesser teams. But I doubt. I bet we play 4 more nail biters 
Click to expand...


Well, in our narrative here, our varied narrative, we can "remove Indiana," but in reality it is right there in the books and in our memories, and in the craw of the players and coaches who care.  They proved that day that at any time we can be routed, not just beaten.  And that is normal, which is something we keep forgetting about in our fervor to "right the ship" or "get things back to how they used to be." 

Here is a list of horrible games helmed by Tom Osborn:

45-10 v. Oklahoma in 1990
38-7 v. #3 Oklahoma in 1977
27-0 v. #3 Oklahoma in 1973
35-10 v. #7 Oklahoma in 1975
45-21 v. #2 Georgia Tech in 1990
41-17 v. #5 Florida St. in 1989
22-0 v. #1 Miami in 1991
27-7 v. #5 Oklahoma in 1985
23-3 v. #2 Miami in 1988
19-0 v. #17 Arizona St.
20-3 v. #1 Alabama in 1978
27-12 v. #9 Colorado in 1990
36-21 v. #4 Washington in 1991
29-14 v. #2 Washington in 1992
28-14 v. #6 Oklahoma in 1974
41-28 v. #5 UCLA in 1988
27-14 v. #3 Florida St. in 1992

It is normal (common, whatever) for a football team to get trashed real good on field now and then, even great teams with great coaches.

Yes, he averaged around 9 wins per season, but he did have his failures.

I see vast improvement, especially on D.  And we showed that against OSU on the road.  There was a recent time when we'd have been skunked in that game.  We're moving along, not to every single Husker fan's satisfaction, and we probably do need to make coaching adjustments on the staff, but we're moving along.. finally.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
PaulCrewe said:
Just to get rid of the 50-50 narrative, it would really be more 60-40 when you consider called pass plays that turn into sacks or scramble yards go into the books as running plays.
Click to expand...


But we're also supposed to call more plays that work.  And we've been significantly better passing the ball all year than running the ball.

So are we supposed to call more of the plays that work or are we just supposed to run the ball enough so that people don't accuse us of just wanting to throw the ball all the time?

 
Mavric said:
But we're also supposed to call more plays that work.  And we've been significantly better passing the ball all year than running the ball.

So are we supposed to call more of the plays that work or are we just supposed to run the ball enough so that people don't accuse us of just wanting to throw the ball all the time?
Click to expand...


So I know you know this, but just so that the conversation isn't a false dichotomy: there are more than just two arguments. There's the point you're making (which for the record I completely agree with), but it's more than just in-game play calling where the conversation is "we should call more runs" or "we should call more passes."

The other part is, the staff doesn't seem to have gotten our run game in a place where we can consistently fall back on it if the passing game isn't working well. Our rushing was "sub par" against Rutgers and "dreadful" against Indiana.

It's more than just play calling, it's getting the respective phases into a place where they can be effective.

But for me it's all about how we finish in these last four games. Just put together a game plan that can put up 28 points against UCLA.

 
Mavric said:
But we're also supposed to call more plays that work.  And we've been significantly better passing the ball all year than running the ball.

So are we supposed to call more of the plays that work or are we just supposed to run the ball enough so that people don't accuse us of just wanting to throw the ball all the time?
Click to expand...


We have no offensive identity, and we are never able to get into a legit rhythm because his play-calls are all over the place. More often than not we end up in tough 3rd down situations due to the screens and other senseless calls. His obsession with the short passing game is mind-boggling. It doesn't work yet he'll continue to force it.

 
LP1 said:
Just think what our offense would like be this year if we didn't have Raiola 😳
Click to expand...
There are a lot of quarterbacks out there that can play as well as Dylan has this year. If we are being honest.  Most teams have quarterbacks that are playing better than Dylan every Saturday. I know we love to love him. But he’s not winning us games.  In fact. He’s losing some for us. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Husker03 said:
There are a lot of quarterbacks out there that can play as well as Dylan has this year. If we are being honest.  Most teams have quarterbacks that are playing better than Dylan every Saturday. I know we love to love him. But he’s not winning us games.  In fact. He’s losing some for us. 
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about what other teams have; I'm talking about what WE have. Not much. He's doing all he can do with the cards he's been dealt. I highly doubt we'd have a winning record if he wasn't our QB.

 
I am not a Satterfield fan, but I don’t think anyone will have sustained success unless the boys upfront can block better.  DR is still so young and he received so much instant hype (not undeserved and I love the kid) that it is impossible for him to believe anything but that he has to put the team on his shoulders. That is at best case risky and more likely dangerous with the way the offense blocks. The play calling is indeed an issue. But I personally see an offense that is failing execute predictable pass pro pick ups, perimeter assignments and run blocking schemes.  

 
  • Plus1
Reactions: LP1
LP1 said:
I'm not talking about what other teams have; I'm talking about what WE have. Not much. He's doing all he can do with the cards he's been dealt. I highly doubt we'd have a winning record if he wasn't our QB.
Click to expand...


He's done great for a Freshman, but there's a good chance we'd have 2 more wins if he didn't panic when he has a wide open receiver.  My assumption is that's something that will be corrected with experience.   

We were 5-3 at this point last year with Haarberg.  So I dunno.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top