Triaging the QB room

[JJ Husker]

I'm not talking about Sims at all.

There's a whole very wide lane of criticism and frustration that could/would be significantly more amplified toward HH's play that would be only based on him and have nothing to do with Sims. But, we saw Sims first, HH has the feel good local story and has the grace of being the backup, so we take it pretty easy on him. He's a pretty objectively bad quarterback and I can't help but root for him a bit more and not mind when he does boneheaded stuff. 

Two games in a row we've seen awful turnovers from HH, and while we've all closed the book on Sims for good I haven't seen a single person claiming that Chubba should get a shot to see what he can do, for example.

I said I’d like to see Chubba just a few days ago. Of course I also was hoping to see Sims again so my track record isn’t the best.

At this point I don’t think anybody can be faulted for wanting to exhaust all possibilities for better QB play.

 

[Saunders]

I would argue HH did more for us to lose the NW game than Sims did against Minnesota. Differences are just HH's mistakes happened earlier in the game, the rest of the team stepped up against NW, and they didn't have a miraculous 4th down TD catch.

I'm not really calling for us to give Sims another shot - at least not anymore. But I don't think HH is doing any more to win games than Sims was. You could make that argument with the NIU/La Tech games where he was protecting the ball better, but at this point our winning games has very little to do with how the QB is playing.

I think Sims picks against Minnesota were way more egregious than Haarberg's against NW. Not to mention Sims had played about 25 more games than HH at the time.

 

[ZRod]

My comments aren't even criticisms either, just observations. Like I said I'm plenty guilty of the thing I'm describing. While few people are saying Heinrich is actually an actively good quarterback, plenty are also overly soft in refraining from calling him a bad quarterback. 

This entire board is filled with people calling him a bad QB, criticizing his throwing motion, inaccuracy, inability to read a defense, etc. The only reason anyone wants him to keep starting atm is because he's winning. This board is also filled with people saying HH and any other QB on the roster probably won't be the starter next year. So, I have no idea where you're take is coming from.

 

[Mavric]

I would argue HH did more for us to lose the NW game than Sims did against Minnesota. Differences are just HH's mistakes happened earlier in the game, the rest of the team stepped up against NW, and they didn't have a miraculous 4th down TD catch.

I'm not really calling for us to give Sims another shot - at least not anymore. But I don't think HH is doing any more to win games than Sims was. You could make that argument with the NIU/La Tech games where he was protecting the ball better, but at this point our winning games has very little to do with how the QB is playing.

I'm one who has long said that QBs get too much credit and too much blame.  But this is simply not true.

HH might not be doing much more to win games, but he's not doing nearly as much to lose them.  Both of them have 4 INTs.  Sims has lost two fumbles.  HH has lost three.  Sims did that in two games, HH has done that in five.  A 60% reduction in turnovers is a significant help to winning games.  

Sims was averaging 110 passing yards per game, 0.5 TDs and 2.0 INTs.

HH is averaging 137 passing yards per game, 1.0 TDs and 0.67 INTs

Sims was averaging 89 rushing yards per game, 0.5 TDs and 1.0 fumbles lost.

HH is averaging 71 rushing yards per game, 0.67 TDs and 0.5 fumbles lost.

Sims QBR is 26.3

HH's QBR is 46.3

HH has done a lot more, but he's done a little more, done it a little better and done significantly less of the stuff that loses you games.

 

[Mavric]

I think Sims picks against Minnesota were way more egregious than Haarberg's against NW. Not to mention Sims had played about 25 more games than HH at the time.

This is definitely a factor as well.  If Sims is still making those terrible reads after starting for three years, the odds of that getting significantly better are basically nil.

I don't think HH is going to be that great of a QB.  But he's barely gotten any work the past couple of years.  He was buried on the depth chart and Whipple told him to stop coming to QB meetings last year.  I don't know how much that hurt his development but it didn't help.  I tend to give a little more leeway to a younger player who can still develop as opposed to an older play who's had plenty of chances and still isn't getting it done.

 

[TGHusker]

Well, of course; no one is saying he is. It's all but confirmed that they're in the hunt for another transfer QB (and if rumors are to be believed, they're willing to pay a pretty penny for one). But, there's no guarantee that they get one to come here, or find one that can beat out HH. So, as I said, don't be surprised if the scenario where HH takes the first snap next year comes to fruition. 

So what are the rumors and source?   I do believe we need a huge upgrade.

 

[Saunders]

I'm one who has long said that QBs get too much credit and too much blame.  But this is simply not true.

HH might not be doing much more to win games, but he's not doing nearly as much to lose them.  Both of them have 4 INTs.  Sims has lost two fumbles.  HH has lost three.  Sims did that in two games, HH has done that in five.  A 60% reduction in turnovers is a significant help to winning games.  

Sims was averaging 110 passing yards per game, 0.5 TDs and 2.0 INTs.

HH is averaging 137 passing yards per game, 1.0 TDs and 0.67 INTs

Sims was averaging 89 rushing yards per game, 0.5 TDs and 1.0 fumbles lost.

HH is averaging 71 rushing yards per game, 0.67 TDs and 0.5 fumbles lost.

Sims QBR is 26.3

HH's QBR is 46.3

HH has done a lot more, but he's done a little more, done it a little better and done significantly less of the stuff that loses you games.

All that while Sims got to play against CU (worst defense on our schedule) and HH played Michigan.

And this isn't to say that HH is perfect, great, or hell even good at this point. He's far from it. I'd say he's playing Ok, and that's about it.But... I am also looking at his play in the same context that I am with Satterfield calling the offense. The offense is a mash unit, and they're just trying to scrape together whatever they can to survive each game.

Isaiah Garcia-Casaneda

Marcus Washington

Billy Kemp
 

Gabe Ervin Jr.

Rahmir Johnson

Turner Corcoran

Ethan Piper

Nori Nouili

Give HH all those guys, for all of his starts, and you're looking at a vastly different product IMO.

 

[Husker in WI]

I'm one who has long said that QBs get too much credit and too much blame.  But this is simply not true.

HH might not be doing much more to win games, but he's not doing nearly as much to lose them.  Both of them have 4 INTs.  Sims has lost two fumbles.  HH has lost three.  Sims did that in two games, HH has done that in five.  A 60% reduction in turnovers is a significant help to winning games.  

Sims was averaging 110 passing yards per game, 0.5 TDs and 2.0 INTs.

HH is averaging 137 passing yards per game, 1.0 TDs and 0.67 INTs

Sims was averaging 89 rushing yards per game, 0.5 TDs and 1.0 fumbles lost.

HH is averaging 71 rushing yards per game, 0.67 TDs and 0.5 fumbles lost.

Sims QBR is 26.3

HH's QBR is 46.3

HH has done a lot more, but he's done a little more, done it a little better and done significantly less of the stuff that loses you games.

I understand people may not agree with me here, and I get the leeway for a younger guy who will almost certainly improve with experience. But if we want to use QBR, that backs up my point about Northwestern versus Minnesota  - Sims had a QBR of 31.7 against Minnesota, Haarberg had a 23.0 against Northwestern. He also had a 28.4 against La Tech despite only one turnover (EDIT: - no turnovers, was thinking of the NIU game) and 157 rushing yards, so I'm a little skeptical of it in general. It is at least some measure of QB play though.

With the overall point I'm not really trying to argue that Sims is the better player at this point, just that both have been pretty bad and I don't buy that Haarberg is 'leading us to victory.' We'll never know, but if Sims didn't get hurt I personally think we'd be in a very similar spot record and turnover-wise but with fans getting very vocal about wanting to see Haarberg/Purdy.

 

[Mavric]

I understand people may not agree with me here, and I get the leeway for a younger guy who will almost certainly improve with experience. But if we want to use QBR, that backs up my point about Northwestern versus Minnesota  - Sims had a QBR of 31.7 against Minnesota, Haarberg had a 23.0 against Northwestern. He also had a 28.4 against La Tech despite only one turnover (EDIT: - no turnovers, was thinking of the NIU game) and 157 rushing yards, so I'm a little skeptical of it in general. It is at least some measure of QB play though.

With the overall point I'm not really trying to argue that Sims is the better player at this point, just that both have been pretty bad and I don't buy that Haarberg is 'leading us to victory.' We'll never know, but if Sims didn't get hurt I personally think we'd be in a very similar spot record and turnover-wise but with fans getting very vocal about wanting to see Haarberg/Purdy.

People are welcome to think whatever they want.  But trying to claim that they are similar in turning the ball over when there is significant, demonstrable evidence to the contrary doesn't seem all that objective.

 

[Undone]

But, there's no guarantee that they get one to come here, or find one that can beat out HH. So, as I said, don't be surprised if the scenario where HH takes the first snap next year comes to fruition. 

Totally agree, dude.

And before anybody thinks it's just some kind of automatic thing that a portal QB comes in and does better than anybody on the roster now...I present to you Jeff Sims.   

Different train of thought: I think despite the stats, Hudson Card is a pretty good QB. Guy was zipping passes in to people all day long and the receivers were dropping them. I expect Kaelin to be similar to him - a "throw-first" guy who can run a little zone read to mix it up when you really want to. 

 

[Mavric]

[No message]

 

[Husker in WI]

People are welcome to think whatever they want.  But trying to claim that they are similar in turning the ball over when there is significant, demonstrable evidence to the contrary doesn't seem all that objective.

I mean we can get in to turnover worthy plays versus actual turnovers and stuff like that, and there's also the mess of who is actually to blame for fumbled exchanges, or tipped INTs, or completely whiffed blocks. I don't think it's a crazy assertion that they are similarly risky with the ball security when Haarberg is at 2.5 fumbles + INTs against Power 5 teams. Sims is at 3 per game.

I will 100% agree there is an objective answer to "who has turned the ball over more?", and it's Sims. Apologies if I've been unclear on that, and I realize I'm making a few different and not well-defined arguments. But I do think things like "Who is more likely to turn the ball over moving forward?" involves more than just the literal turnover results. I'm sure some paywalled site has turnover worthy plays, but off the cuff I would guess it's unlikely that all of Sims fumbles would be recovered by the defense like they have been to this point. And before Purdue, we had recovered 6 out of Haarberg's 7 fumbles - that was clearly unsustainable.

If people don't like judging by what was likely to happen instead of what did happen, I can understand that and agree to disagree. And I will admit that "likely to happen" is definitely more subjective, but I also think it's more predictive.

 

[Mavric]

I mean we can get in to turnover worthy plays versus actual turnovers and stuff like that, and there's also the mess of who is actually to blame for fumbled exchanges, or tipped INTs, or completely whiffed blocks. I don't think it's a crazy assertion that they are similarly risky with the ball security when Haarberg is at 2.5 fumbles + INTs against Power 5 teams. Sims is at 3 per game.

I will 100% agree there is an objective answer to "who has turned the ball over more?", and it's Sims. Apologies if I've been unclear on that, and I realize I'm making a few different and not well-defined arguments. But I do think things like "Who is more likely to turn the ball over moving forward?" involves more than just the literal turnover results. I'm sure some paywalled site has turnover worthy plays, but off the cuff I would guess it's unlikely that all of Sims fumbles would be recovered by the defense like they have been to this point. And before Purdue, we had recovered 6 out of Haarberg's 7 fumbles - that was clearly unsustainable.

If people don't like judging by what was likely to happen instead of what did happen, I can understand that and agree to disagree. And I will admit that "likely to happen" is definitely more subjective, but I also think it's more predictive.

I guess I don't know why it makes much difference if it's a Power 5 defense or not, considering that Northern Illinois has the #19 defense in the country and Colorado is #132.  Does it make Colorado that much better of an opponent because they are in the Power 5?  If you don't make that distinction, HH is about a 60% decrease in turnovers vs. Sims.

According to Pro Football Focus, Sims is about three times more likely to turn the ball over throwing than HH is (9.5% vs 3.9%).  HH also has a much higher percentage of passes dropped than Sims.

There is really no way to have a similar statistic for fumbles.  And I agree that HH has gotten some benefit there.  I do think it's likely that Sims fumbles would still be recovered by the defense because of what he chose to do.  He tried to pick the ball up, failed and that gave the defense time to get there.  So even though it's a high percentage, it seems that that should be on Sims.

 

[Mavric]

[No message]

 

[Enhance]

Has to be someone not yet on the roster.   We need an upgrade in the worse way.  Nothing against HH, but he is a turnover waiting to happen just like Sims and Purdy....

I quoted Cdog below because IMO his comments are well in-line with my thoughts on the matter.

Nebraska's current QB situation is in a poor spot, but I think people should prepare themselves for the possibility that HH is the guy next year. Or, at the very least, that anybody they find isn't night and day better. It's going to be difficult to find a QB not currently on the roster that can come in and, in one off-season, unseat an incumbent. Many people thought Sims would be that guy with his 25+ games experience, and it looks like that's going to go down as one of the program's worst off-season trade deals in the relatively short history of the transfer portal.

There are tons of hurdles to consider with a new guy and the program's recent QB transfer history isn't exactly one to fawn over - Tanner Lee was OK. Casey Thompson was OK. Jeff Sims was, unfortunately, really poor.

So, to be clear, I'm 100% in favor of them scouring for the best player they can get out of the portal or wherever. I just think people need to be cautious about what it means and what kind of expectations come from it.

Well, of course; no one is saying he is. It's all but confirmed that they're in the hunt for another transfer QB (and if rumors are to be believed, they're willing to pay a pretty penny for one). But, there's no guarantee that they get one to come here, or find one that can beat out HH. So, as I said, don't be surprised if the scenario where HH takes the first snap next year comes to fruition.