Should we fire Satterfield??

soup said:
Glad I can contribute to your gloating, and how awesome you all are.  I'm hear to help!
Click to expand...


If the word you choose to describe this analysis is "gloating" then you might be missing the larger and more salient point.

I addressed this blind spot within leadership in my recent TED Talk. 

I will also be the bigger man and not point out your misuse of the word "hear". 

 
soup said:
Glad I can contribute to your gloating, and how awesome you all are.  I'm hear to help!
Click to expand...
To be fair, your post came off very pompous.  I know that wasn’t your intent, but it sounded exactly like some standard upper exec in corporate America pontificating about the massive challenges that only the higher ups can connect the dots on

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
According to Sipple, the deep throws are being completed in practice.  But it's obviously not translating to games.

Quarterbacks don't get hit in practice.
Click to expand...
I’ll throw in it might be our DB’s are not as good as the teams we play.  And not worrying about getting crushed tends to take away real game scenarios…

I still would Ike to see Satt shown the door. Read article on Dana showing his career rankings related to productivity. He’s all over the map with his running game stats. Some years does ok, but other years only a little better than what we see this year at NU. As a run the damn ball guy it’s a little worrisome.  But maybe actually “coaching” the next 3 games he can realize quicker than Satt you have to run the ball in the B1G. Also possible Satt stats, O improves slightly, D shows up all 4 quarters for remaining 3 games, Dana moves on and we go bowling….

 
twofittyonred said:
Most teams also don't give the same cushion our secondary gives..  😒 
Click to expand...
I mentioned this on this thread a couple weeks ago that i don’t think it’s a coincidence that our receivers go up against our defense everyday in practice and come gameday we see an offense that is easily flustered with pressure at the qb position and receivers who are pressed and shut down while conversely observing a defense that loves to play cushion coverage and gives opposing qbs all day to complete a pass.

i realize come in season they are going against the scout team more often but we basically spend the whole offseason with the 1s and 2s on the depth chart squaring up against one another   

 
I don't buy soft coverage as a major issue. Not sure how the numbers have looked the past few weeks, but we were pressing more than 50% of the time the first 6 games. You may also notice that UCLA's big passes came when we pressed and got beat.

The defense is fine - we had a couple young guys (Charles, McGahee) get beat, and Garbers made some plays (although the 57 yard scramble was flat out embarrassing). It felt a lot worse than it was because UCLA had been pretty bad early in the year. We still absolutely should have won that game handily, don't get me wrong. But we lost because of a really bad first 31 minutes from the offense, and arguably because we didn't play enough off coverage.

EDIT: Turns out the long TD wasn't press like I remembered, but we just blew a coverage. Wasn't a matter of playing too far off.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Husker in WI said:
I don't buy soft coverage as a major issue. Not sure how the numbers have looked the past few weeks, but we were pressing more than 50% of the time the first 6 games. You may also notice that UCLA's big passes came when we pressed and got beat.

The defense is fine - we had a couple young guys (Charles, McGahee) get beat, and Garbers made some plays (although the 57 yard scramble was flat out embarrassing). It felt a lot worse than it was because UCLA had been pretty bad early in the year. We still absolutely should have won that game handily, don't get me wrong. But we lost because of a really bad first 31 minutes from the offense, and arguably because we didn't play enough off coverage.
Click to expand...


Perhaps "fine" is a good way of putting it. The D has flaws to answer for.

The D is for sure better under Rhule than the past two head coaches and a better offensive definitely improves the D or at least the perception of it. 

 
Husker in WI said:
I don't buy soft coverage as a major issue. Not sure how the numbers have looked the past few weeks, but we were pressing more than 50% of the time the first 6 games. You may also notice that UCLA's big passes came when we pressed and got beat.

The defense is fine - we had a couple young guys (Charles, McGahee) get beat, and Garbers made some plays (although the 57 yard scramble was flat out embarrassing). It felt a lot worse than it was because UCLA had been pretty bad early in the year. We still absolutely should have won that game handily, don't get me wrong. But we lost because of a really bad first 31 minutes from the offense, and arguably because we didn't play enough off coverage.

EDIT: Turns out the long TD wasn't press like I remembered, but we just blew a coverage. Wasn't a matter of playing too far off.
Click to expand...
Its not a major issue at all.  Given how limp d!(k this offense is it doesn't even crack the top 5 maybe 10 of whats wrong with this team, but this defense has been incredibly underwhelming mainly because of how inconsistent it is.  For whatever reason, we love to have this tendency where a QBs career day is against us passing wise.  We had hopes of a top 25, maybe top 10 defense entering the season- these kinds of defenses do not get walked over like we did in the first half of UCLA.  These kinds of defense do not display the inconsistency this defense has. 

Its more of a defensive concept challenge to me.  we cannot be a team that plays soft coverage and doesn't send pressure consistently.  Yet here we are, not only not pressuring the qb with any success but we're often not even able to make a play on the ball because of how far off our coverage is from receivers.  I get tommi been injured, but schematically speaking, we are no where near as aggressive of a defense as I had hoped for 

 
gossamorharpy said:
Its not a major issue at all.  Given how limp d!(k this offense is it doesn't even crack the top 5 maybe 10 of whats wrong with this team, but this defense has been incredibly underwhelming mainly because of how inconsistent it is.  For whatever reason, we love to have this tendency where a QBs career day is against us passing wise.  We had hopes of a top 25, maybe top 10 defense entering the season- these kinds of defenses do not get walked over like we did in the first half of UCLA.  These kinds of defense do not display the inconsistency this defense has. 

Its more of a defensive concept challenge to me.  we cannot be a team that plays soft coverage and doesn't send pressure consistently.  Yet here we are, not only not pressuring the qb with any success but we're often not even able to make a play on the ball because of how far off our coverage is from receivers.  I get tommi been injured, but schematically speaking, we are no where near as aggressive of a defense as I had hoped for 
Click to expand...


I'm not saying the defense has been perfect, or that they can't be better. But the defense is 9th in SP+, 18th in FEI, and 22nd in PPG allowed. The PPG ranking jumps all the way up to 9th if you throw out Indiana as an outlier, which isn't fair but also when you give up almost 1/3rd of your points in one game something was a little off. Regardless of how much we blitz, as of a little over a week ago we had the second highest pressure rate of anyone.


This is a top-25 defense, and depending on what numbers you like it's better than that. We absolutely need to turn more pressures into sacks (slightly below average there) and force more turnovers. But if we're just defining "aggressive" as blitzing and pressing, I don't think that's going to make much of a difference. We have to hit diminishing returns at some point with the pressure rate, and blitzing opens up more holes for quick throws. Press can help the pressure turn into sacks, but isn't likely to help with INTs and has a greater chance of giving up a big play. 

 
Husker in WI said:
I'm not saying the defense has been perfect, or that they can't be better. But the defense is 9th in SP+, 18th in FEI, and 22nd in PPG allowed. The PPG ranking jumps all the way up to 9th if you throw out Indiana as an outlier, which isn't fair but also when you give up almost 1/3rd of your points in one game something was a little off. Regardless of how much we blitz, as of a little over a week ago we had the second highest pressure rate of anyone.


This is a top-25 defense, and depending on what numbers you like it's better than that. We absolutely need to turn more pressures into sacks (slightly below average there) and force more turnovers. But if we're just defining "aggressive" as blitzing and pressing, I don't think that's going to make much of a difference. We have to hit diminishing returns at some point with the pressure rate, and blitzing opens up more holes for quick throws. Press can help the pressure turn into sacks, but isn't likely to help with INTs and has a greater chance of giving up a big play. 
Click to expand...
To counter my own counter, they did only give up 20 at home to UCLA, you should expect to come out with a win 90% of the time if you're only giving up 20 points at home.  

Dont get me wrong, i like the defense.  I absolutely despise the state of the offense, but I hated how the defense came out to start that game saturday.  The defense has bailed us out so many times this year, just once I'd like to see the offense proverbially say "we got you guys" so the defense doesnt have to be lights out in order for us to win

 
gossamorharpy said:
We had hopes of a top 25, maybe top 10 defense entering the season- these kinds of defenses do not get walked over like we did in the first half of UCLA.  These kinds of defense do not display the inconsistency this defense has. 
Click to expand...
You do realize you are doing it again, right?  We are a top 25 defense in virtually every measurable.  We got "walked over" on the first couple drives with scripted plays by an offense that got to game plan against our specific tendencies for 2 weeks.  Our defense is good enough to win.

 
Hilltop said:
You do realize you are doing it again, right?  We are a top 25 defense in virtually every measurable.  We got "walked over" on the first couple drives with scripted plays by an offense that got to game plan against our specific tendencies for 2 weeks.  Our defense is good enough to win.
Click to expand...


That about them watching film and being ready for us after their two week learned adjustments to us diverts from discussion of our anticipation of that.  It's the chess game part of football.  Our D may be "good enough to win" but being consistent is another story.  Just look at our season, the 2nd half of it unfolding as if our D is certainly not good enough to win. 

Our O, well, that is a sad situation right now, to the point that Rhule is bringing in an "expert" which is what Saterfield (or Rhule himself) was supposed to be.  Nice that he's (sort of) admitting that by bringing the guy here.

 
Back
Top