USC game. What did we learn

It's the lack of hope that sucks most of all.

Nebraska is recruiting OK. And that should give us hope. But these in game decisions and lack of adjustments are more than a little concerning.

Better talent will still lose if we don't make better decisions on the sidelines. 

And, as noted, Rhule's contract prevents him losing his job.

So that could mean some fairly significant apathy. 

Not for me. I am here typing on a Husker message board. 

But for the fan base overall? 

Yes. Apathy could set in. Heck, maybe it already has.

 
I'm still feeling salty about this latest loss.

I don't understand throwing two yard passes on 3rd and 8. It's supposed to give your QB the confidence of completing a pass, and the RB/WR/TE the duty of getting yards after contact. But it just feels like admitting defeat and frankly it's embarrassing when you do it continuously with the game on the line. We're not good enough, we're just hoping to get lucky.  

And even casual football fans know you don't fair catch a punt on your 5 yard line. You don't even STAND on your 5 yard line. Why do we know this and our special teams experts don't? 

Taking a time out to reconsider punting? That's cool. That takes some balls, although it wasn't THAT daring to go for in on fourth down at that point in the field at that point in the game. But when you bring your offense back out and it's clear that you aren't going to run a play, you're just trying to draw USC offsides, but you're lined up in a shotgun, not really selling the hard count, and looking far more confused than this kind of gambit requires, and you waste a time out to get the delay of game penalty you deserve, everyone just looks stupid.

We talk about the importance of culture change, but this is one of the most defeatist cultures I've seen. And Rhule inherited a team that was already at ground zero. 

Also, we're wasting a career season by punter, Brian Buschini, maybe the best player on the team. 

 
Undone said:
It almost feels like Raiola's game is centered on being comfortable in the pocket. As in, it's starting to look like he's too comfortable in the pocket.

If you're modeling your whole thing around Mahomes, then actually play like Patrick. He has an intensity in his pocket prescence - and he also rifles the ball out to his receivers on medium length passes.

@Mavric: Regarding your post about rushing data from this one: I love our yards per carry stats in this game. Including Raiola's sack yardage, we were at 4.8 YPC. Without Raiola's data and for just our backs, we were at 5.9. 5.9 is a huge breath of fresh air for our team.

But why does the first scripted drive not prioritize the run, especially with lead blocking? We pick up a first down but then we're again throwing from the shotgun which has proven to be low-percentage for us early in the game during the last half of the season, then the drive stalls and we're punting.
Click to expand...
This his been my concern all season.  At first I was impressed with his presence and moving in and around the pocket, but now see he has no urgency.  His throws since game 1 (to me) have been thrown soft or lazy.  No zip at all.  Some of the missed passes have been on our receivers having minimal cushioning and not rifling the ball in to them.  That "slow" throw is at times, allowing the DB to get that step back.  

 
Mavric said:
Raiola was only pressured on 7 out of 43 drop-backs, despite USC blitzing 22 times.  Reports of poor line play are greatly exaggerated (at least in the passing game).
Click to expand...


Exactly. Raiola can't take too long to get rid of the ball unless the OL gives him enough time to waste. 

(this post was accidentally moved to the Tangent Thread in the Woodshed. Wanted to put it back here where it makes sense)

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Taking a time out to reconsider punting? That's cool. That takes some balls, although it wasn't THAT daring to go for in on fourth down at that point in the field at that point in the game. But when you bring your offense back out and it's clear that you aren't going to run a play, you're just trying to draw USC offsides, but you're lined up in a shotgun, not really selling the hard count, and looking far more confused than this kind of gambit requires, and you waste a time out to get the delay of game penalty you deserve, everyone just looks stupid.
Click to expand...


To be fair, Rhule's explanation was that they had a fake punt called but USC stayed in their safe defense so they called timeout to not run the fake punt.  Then they decided to just go for it so that's why they sent the offense back out there.  But then they got a look from USC's defense that they didn't like they play they had called so they just decided to take the delay and punt.

So it definitely looked like a s#!tshow but that explanation does make sense, to me at least.

 
not me said:
Trev buried us with this contract. Wake me up in 2027 when we can finally afford to move on.
Click to expand...
Going back to Rhule's contract - is there any relief for NU if he is fired and then Carolina has to pay more?  I know they structured the contract with the Carolina Pather severance package in mind.  

If Rhule doesn't make it to a bowl game, he should do the right thing and resign and live off of the millions he got from Carolina.  I mean, how much in severance money does one person need.  :dunno    Besides, he will end up in either a cush broadcasting booth or back in coaching someplace less demanding. 

 
Mavric said:
To be fair, Rhule's explanation was that they had a fake punt called but USC stayed in their safe defense so they called timeout to not run the fake punt.  Then they decided to just go for it so that's why they sent the offense back out there.  But then they got a look from USC's defense that they didn't like they play they had called so they just decided to take the delay and punt.

So it definitely looked like a s#!tshow but that explanation does make sense, to me at least.
Click to expand...


Given that USC sniffed it out the first time, you go back out with two plays called in anticipation of the different looks USC might give you. Again, I'm no expert but I think that's what good coaches do. Explanation makes sense, but only if you don't trust anyone in your offense to read and react. At some point we have to outwit the other coaches. 

 
TGHusker said:
Going back to Rhule's contract - is there any relief for NU if he is fired and then Carolina has to pay more?  I know they structured the contract with the Carolina Pather severance package in mind.  

If Rhule doesn't make it to a bowl game, he should do the right thing and resign and live off of the millions he got from Carolina.  I mean, how much in severance money does one person need.  :dunno    Besides, he will end up in either a cush broadcasting booth or back in coaching someplace less demanding. 
Click to expand...
Carolina fired him, and was on the hook for the remainder.  We then hired him taking burden off of Carolina, and are firing him in your scenario.  We are then on the hook for the remainder now, not Carolina. 

This thought always comes up about him doing the "right thing", but that is in fact the wrong thing.  Both NU and Rhule agreed to a legal contract, with terms.  NU is on the hook for that money regardless, by hiring him.  Expecting him to give up that money out of some sense of loyalty to winning is non-sensical.  It isn't about whether or not he needs the money, it is about NU agreeing to hire him and pay him that much money.  He got that money when they signed the line the day he was hired.  People need to realize this.  The money is gone, right now.  

 
runningblind said:
Carolina fired him, and was on the hook for the remainder.  We then hired him taking burden off of Carolina, and are firing him in your scenario.  We are then on the hook for the remainder now, not Carolina. 

This thought always comes up about him doing the "right thing", but that is in fact the wrong thing.  Both NU and Rhule agreed to a legal contract, with terms.  NU is on the hook for that money regardless, by hiring him.  Expecting him to give up that money out of some sense of loyalty to winning is non-sensical.  It isn't about whether or not he needs the money, it is about NU agreeing to hire him and pay him that much money.  He got that money when they signed the line the day he was hired.  People need to realize this.  The money is gone, right now.  
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that - a contract is a contract pure and simple.  But sometimes it just seems like schools are being taken advantage of by these contracts - but yet we know we aren't forced into them and we go into them with eyes wide open.  These contracts seem to be all upside to a coach if he failing and the only upside for the school is if he becomes a big winner.  Just frustrating. 

 
TGHusker said:
I agree with all of that - a contract is a contract pure and simple.  But sometimes it just seems like schools are being taken advantage of by these contracts - but yet we know we aren't forced into them and we go into them with eyes wide open.  These contracts seem to be all upside to a coach if he failing and the only upside for the school is if he becomes a big winner.  Just frustrating. 
Click to expand...
They are 100% all upside to the coach.  It is a golden parachute regardless.  The schools (if they want to compete and win) have to take the risk, and they are competing against the other schools for limited resources.  It is a crapshoot somewhat all around. 

 
Back
Top