Marcus Satterfield Hired as Offensive Coordinator

my only problem is our route combos.  I think our best route has been a hook/curl (completion wise) early in the game but then the defense just sits on it later and picks the ball off.  I don't feel like Satt schemes guys open.  The HH pass play in the MN game was about the only one but that play was shot the second time around when the defense noticed it. Would like to see more rub routes I guess.  

 
HuskerNation1 said:
Its hard to ignore the connection of Satterfield with Sims. After all Satterfield predicted Sims would have a breakout year.  And the offensive woes go beyond just Sims. It is still early and Rhule needs 3 years to turn this around, but Satterfield was the most questionable hire, especially given he is the highest paid NU assistant in history.  

https://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/football/nebraska-oc-satterfield-predicts-breakout-year-for-jeff-sims/article_0662d835-75d1-5176-a7f1-d158173340ba.html
Click to expand...
In July, he probably didn't think his QB wouldn't even be able to take a snap or hand the ball off when under fire. Tanner Lee looked good in shorts.

 
With young coaches this is what I say: everybody starts somewhere. Before Tom Osborne was Tom Osborne, or before <insert another coach you like> was <that coach you like>, they were starting out & trying to get their bearings. Satterfield could wind up becoming a great offensive coordinator, it's possible.

So it's about whether he fixes it from here forward. It's about whether he keeps doing the same things over and over that aren't working or whether he adjusts.

Not going to write the guy off yet. But on the other hand it's fair to say it looks like he just hasn't gotten the team ready so far. Just fix it.

 
Undone said:
With young coaches this is what I say: everybody starts somewhere. Before Tom Osborne was Tom Osborne, or before <insert another coach you like> was <that coach you like>, they were starting out & trying to get their bearings. Satterfield could wind up becoming a great offensive coordinator, it's possible.

So it's about whether he fixes it from here forward. It's about whether he keeps doing the same things over and over that aren't working or whether he adjusts.

Not going to write the guy off yet. But on the other hand it's fair to say it looks like he just hasn't gotten the team ready so far. Just fix it.
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, but if the OC is a young coach is feeling his oats and trying to figure things out, why hire him?  Let some other program have the sh&$ offense and sh&$ QB he brought in until he figures it out.   
That isn’t what this program needs at this stage in its history imo.  

 
Archy1221 said:
I get what you are saying, but if the OC is a young coach is feeling his oats and trying to figure things out, why hire him?  Let some other program have the sh&$ offense and sh&$ QB he brought in until he figures it out.   
That isn’t what this program needs at this stage in its history imo.  
Click to expand...


Yeah it's just that we're 2 games into a rebuild with a head coach that has an 8 year contract.

Tangentially I'll add that once the frustration of a bad loss wears off over the weekend, what I enjoy doing on this board is discussing what the team could do differently to do better. But I admit I'm frustrated with Satterfield being hired overall also.

 
Looks, Simms has found fundamentally/foundational ways to mess up plays that you would expect a freshman in high school to have handled and be able to do on a regular basis. There isn't much president for this in major college football. I don't know the leap that a coach would have to go through to identify, my guy doesn't go through his reads well to he can't hold onto a snap that is placed well and hits him in the hands. Those are two different levels of coaching based on what level of football you are coaching.

 
deedsker said:
I don't think it is akin to say a guy who doesn't run crisp routes will all the sudden not be able to catch a ball because they aren't a good receiver.
Click to expand...
No, but it is akin to an "unreliable" receiver. Sometimes that's dropping a pass, sometimes a bad route, maybe ball security, etc. Turnovers can happen a lot of ways, but some guys are just prone to it. And I can't think of an example of a guy shaking that to be honest. 

 
I'll walk back my previous statement a little bit, guys do obviously cut down on turnovers to some degree with experience. I do still think there are turnover-prone players though, and that never totally goes away. But Sims was trending the right direction:

Year     Pass+Rush Atts      TOs         Extra fumbles    Plays per TO

2020                         377       18            5                           20.9

2021                         258       9              3                            28.7

2022                         275       4              1                           68.8

2023                        63          7*             0                           9.0

The asterisk is whether you count the fumbled handoff against him or Ervin, the argument could be made either way but I included it. You could also count the fumble that hit the TE in motion as an 'extra fumble' (fumbled but we retained possession) against him - I have no clue on whether it's the TE's fault for being slow, Sims for the snap timing, or Scott for the snap timing.

So he has trended a positive direction until this year, and last year was actually pretty impressive. It will likely get better if we stick with him, but it does need to be a lot better. I will admit I did not realize how bad his freshman year was, and how much that skews the numbers - but I also guarantee the 68 plays per turnover is not something he can replicate, especially in the Big Ten instead of the ACC.

EDIT: Used FoxSports for fumble data, but added the fumbled handoff which they do not attribute to him.

https://www.foxsports.com/college-football/jeff-sims-player-stats?category=rushing&seasonType=reg

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Husker in WI said:
I'll walk back my previous statement a little bit, guys do obviously cut down on turnovers to some degree with experience. I do still think there are turnover-prone players though, and that never totally goes away. But Sims was trending the right direction:

Year     Pass+Rush Atts      TOs         Extra fumbles    Plays per TO

2020                         377       18            5                           20.9

2021                         258       9              3                            28.7

2022                         275       4              1                           68.8

2023                        63          7*             0                           9.0

The asterisk is whether you count the fumbled handoff against him or Ervin, the argument could be made either way but I included it. You could also count the fumble that hit the TE in motion as an 'extra fumble' (fumbled but we retained possession) against him - I have no clue on whether it's the TE's fault for being slow, Sims for the snap timing, or Scott for the snap timing.

So he has trended a positive direction until this year, and last year was actually pretty impressive. It will likely get better if we stick with him, but it does need to be a lot better. I will admit I did not realize how bad his freshman year was, and how much that skews the numbers - but I also guarantee the 68 plays per turnover is not something he can replicate, especially in the Big Ten instead of the ACC.

EDIT: Used FoxSports for fumble data, but added the fumbled handoff which they do not attribute to him.

https://www.foxsports.com/college-football/jeff-sims-player-stats?category=rushing&seasonType=reg
Click to expand...
Sims regressed from from year 1 to year 2 in plays per turnover and so far based on this year it’s looking like year three was an anomaly (still early though).   
 

In terms of the QB/RB mesh point, more often than not it’s QB’s fault unless the hands of the RB were not properly placed.   That fumble on Saturday was definitely a Sims issue.  
 

**I should not say regressed but really had very marginal improvement from year 1 to year 2 which is not what you want to see from an abysmal year 1 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top