Wisconsin Week Pressers

ColoradoHusk said:
Fans expecting Satterfield to be fired after the dumpster fire we have had with the offensive roster were being unrealistic.  Yes, a big piece (Sims) of that dumpster fire was created by Rhule, but Satterfield has been asked to make chicken salad out of chicken poop. Rhule is going to give him at least one more season to improve the offense.

I do agree with those who think that a real QB coach should be brought in, so that allows Satterfield to coach TE’s and be more of a walk-around OC like the original plan was. 
Click to expand...


Respectfully disagree. There is enough talent in the offense to consistently score 21 points. The turnovers are a mix of not correctly coaching and not understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your personnel. 

As for next year, I have no confidence that Satterfield's playcalling will be any better. The most I would give him is co-OC, without playcalling responsibility.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SECHusker said:
Respectfully disagree. There is enough talent in the offense to consistently score 21 points. The turnovers are mix of not correctly coaching and not understanding the strengths and weaknesses of your personnel. 

As for next year, I have no confidence that Satterfield's playcalling will be any better. The most I would give him is co-OC, without playcalling responsibility.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure you left out at least one incredibly significant factor to your turnover mix.

 
Mavric said:
Pretty sure you left out at least one incredibly significant factor to your turnover mix.
Click to expand...


Yes, a players action in games is not indicative of their coaching...  You can pump sunshine all you want but if I know I have a turnover machine at qb or 3rd string quarterback that hasn't played much, I'm not putting them in bad positions. It may be boring but I'm simply handing the ball off.

 
Mavric said:
The "if we didn't win any more games we aren't any better" crowd is not going to like Rhule's presser today.
Click to expand...
I kind of have to watch the last two games to make an assessment. If both Wisconsin & Iowa blow us out by three scores then I don't see how this season is any better than 2019. Same record, same mistake-prone team.

The defense would have gotten way better, that's obvious. But the program would basically be right where it's been at while Frost was here. Maybe slightly better but not anything to feel all that excited about. Basically an argument over semantics than anything substantial.

But, have to see what happens in these last two.

 
SECHusker said:
Yes, a players action in games is not indicative of their coaching...  You can pump sunshine all you want but if I know I have a turnover machine at qb or 3rd string quarterback that hasn't played much, I'm not putting them in bad positions. It may be boring but I'm simply handing the ball off.
Click to expand...


Then you probably never get to the position to score anyway because we would have been unlikely to covert the 3rd & 6 earlier in the drive in our own territory.

 
Mavric said:
Then you probably never get to the position to score anyway because we would have been unlikely to covert the 3rd & 6 earlier in the drive in our own territory.
Click to expand...


We also probably wouldn't have thrown our second pick in the redzone.

 
Undone said:
Yeah and I'm really nowhere close to being in the "fire Satterfield after the Iowa game" crowd. I think the assessment that his play calling is bad across the board isn't really that accurate.

There's no way we beat Colorado or Michigan with different play calling. So, there are 2 out of our current 5 losses that for me aren't on play calling at all.

Michigan State was just a slug fest between two bad teams.

Then in the case of the Minnesota & Maryland game the glaring problem was turnovers (and even false starts in the Minnesota game's case).

But just one more time back to the point I was making: if we can't execute simple how are we going to execute "not simple?"
Click to expand...
So much this.  Crawl, walk, run. In some occupations the difference between elite and not is being able to do the basics on command.  NU can not even do the basics...Failing more often than not....So yes.  We need to be simple.  That last INT is a prime example.  3 route runners, 1 ran the correct route, 2 did not.  Purdy makes the wrong read and throw.  That route tree is about as basic as it gets and we couldn't even execute that.  75% of those involved in the play failed.  So yea.  We can't even win simply.  

 
lo country said:
So much this.  Crawl, walk, run. In some occupations the difference between elite and not is being able to do the basics on command.  NU can not even do the basics...Failing more often than not....So yes.  We need to be simple.  That last INT is a prime example.  3 route runners, 1 ran the correct route, 2 did not.  Purdy makes the wrong read and throw.  That route tree is about as basic as it gets and we couldn't even execute that.  75% of those involved in the play failed.  So yea.  We can't even win simply.  
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, but if NU goes overly simple, NU may not get into scoring position in the first place. But, that gets to situational play-calling, which Satterfield failed once NU got to the 6-yard line.

I think it’s unfair to tell Satterfield to say “you need to run the ball every play” because the likelihood of success is going to be minimal.  While I would like more focus of the using the RB-run game, the overall run game isn’t explosive and successful enough to matriculate the ball down the field. NU is going to need chunk plays, likely through the air.  Yes, that creates risk of turnovers, but it also generates possibility of big plays and scores.

I thought Satterfield was smart after the 2 turnovers which the defense created short fields. His play calling was effective enough to generate 10 points.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
I get what you are saying, but if NU goes overly simple, NU may not get into scoring position in the first place. But, that gets to situational play-calling, which Satterfield failed once NU got to the 6-yard line.

I think it’s unfair to tell Satterfield to say “you need to run the ball every play” because the likelihood of success is going to be minimal.  While I would like more focus of the using the RB-run game, the overall run game isn’t explosive and successful enough to matriculate the ball down the field. NU is going to need chunk plays, likely through the air.  Yes, that creates risk of turnovers, but it also generates possibility of big plays and scores.

I thought Satterfield was smart after the 2 turnovers which the defense created short fields. His play calling was effective enough to generate 10 points.
Click to expand...
I have no issue with passing.  We are going to need to to win.  But I have no idea why they can't get passing plays with basically one read or  run.  Really limit multiple receivers in the same area.  Use Fidone a lot more against smaller CB's.  Hopefully after being on the roster for a year 2, Purdy will finally start to go against our D and try to build  rapport with the receivers.  And Satt needs to tell him that he really looked the receiver down on that last throw.  Eyeballing him from the snap.  Wisky and Iowa will eat him alive  in the passing game with their LB/DB's.  Gotta work on that.  But again, I am ASSuming he has had little to no coaching this year being injured and down the depth chart.  They have 1 week to make him better.  Find out what routes he can hit.  This is it. 2 games.  If we die, we die.  For the seniors, this is it.  2 games to go bowling.  If we die, we die..... 

 
Undone said:
I think that second statement deserves some unpacking.

No, you're not going to win a national championship and you're not going to beat Michigan or Ohio State in a conference title game "keeping it simple" with the athletes we have right now. That's a true statement. But he's creating a false dichotomy there.

A critical late 4th quarter situation is not equal to a conversation about the bigger picture. The program has to stop screwing up late in the 4th quarter to even be in the conversation about winning at a high level. And he's had two games where this happened on his watch.

I know he said over and over that he took blame for not getting points on that last drive and I love that, but that second statement in the quote is a big deflection.
Click to expand...


Agreed.  I personally have no issue with the play call or the concept they ran, HS programs across America run this to perfection in the red zone every week.  This issue is execution.  It was really awful and the fact your 3rd string QB and a Fre WR were in the game is irrelevant.  This wasn't a random play/concept, it was a red zone play run with the game on the line.  I'm sure it's been repped to death and every WR & QB who's ever run a 7 in the red zone knows it goes to the back pylon.  The other issue is your QB playing hero ball, keeping the ball on first down against the play called, and then compounding the mistake by throwing an incompletion stop the clock.   

The quote that caught my attention was "our QB's can't just throw the ball to a spot and expect the receiver to be there".  Pretty sure this was in reference to Sims last Int, but if you expect your QB's to throw the ball on time, I don't know how else you accomplish that.  

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