Guy Chamberlin
Active member
But it increasingly feels like Raiola and likely Satterfield are deferring to the safer passes that Haarberg could have made. Including the screen game, which really hasn't been working.
Should we fire Satterfield??
- Thread starter Huskerfollower4life
- Start date
But it increasingly feels like Raiola and likely Satterfield are deferring to the safer passes that Haarberg could have made. Including the screen game, which really hasn't been working.
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
Last season? Yeah, that was kinda the point.
Raiola is clearly the better passer and decision maker, but to my eye there's been a drop-off of those passes "only Raiola could have made" and an increasing reliance on the check-down receivers, making the offense look more like it did with Haarberg last year. Since this is the "fire Satterfield" thread and the clip showed Raiola going for the 9 yard gain rather than the touchdown, I'm mostly wondering aloud if the called game has gotten a little more conservative. Like last year, when we didn't have a legit passing threat.
Watching Raiola salvage third downs with strategic scrambles makes me think a little more of his running would help the passing game.
TGHusker
New member
Which lost us 4 out of 4 games to end the season. On the critical 4 downs and goal to get a TD after the interception we did the conservative 3x - 3 runs up the middle. Seems like we do better when we play a bit more wide open. As you note, there haven't been as many of those 'only Raiola could have made' passes of late.
Huskers93-97
New member
I just saw this posted on rivals. Pretty crazy to think the production is actually worse per game.
Undone
New member
Yes.
The staff seems to maybe be conflicted with running their West Coast scheme that involves at least some kind of zone read and how to best incorporate Raiola.
The claim was that we'd be aggressive this season. There have been flashes of that, with a good example being the Illinois game (where in my opinion the aggressiveness was executed well on offense).
But now the staff seems conflicted.
Undone
New member
As to the post about comparing what we've done this season versus last in terms of stats, we are currently better - and our QB is a true freshman. It seems like Raiola doesn't get all that much slack for things that go wrong as a true freshman.
But the biggest thing that excerpt failed to point out is that this year's schedule so far has been measurably tougher than last year's.
Either way, we have to figure out how to make teams get worried about our medium to long range passing game. We can't just do short game stuff on 1st down or 2nd & long at this point because there's too much on film about what we're going to do.
But the biggest thing that excerpt failed to point out is that this year's schedule so far has been measurably tougher than last year's.
Either way, we have to figure out how to make teams get worried about our medium to long range passing game. We can't just do short game stuff on 1st down or 2nd & long at this point because there's too much on film about what we're going to do.
Mavric
Yoda
Eh ... he's been doing it some. But a lot of times he's looking to go deep when there are open guys underneath. Even earlier in this game he wasn't taking open options he could have. He seemed to do better in the second half against tOSU.
But my point was more that those routes are there, it's just a matter of the QB throwing them. A few people were trying to claim that our offense is nearly devoid of such options.
Husker in WI
New member
I'm curious what people want "being more aggressive" to look like. Looking at the OSU passing game, with the following caveats:
- Plenty of pass plays are not easily bucketed into quick/medium/deep, there are routes at each level and I do not know the primary reads
- I am a novice and do not have all-22 film, although I think the broadcast view is enough to identify something as a designed quick pass
- Related to point #1, maybe a play is called as a shot and Raiola finds an outlet. Maybe a play is called as a quick throw and he chucks it up to a route intended just to clear defenders out. Without asking Satt/Raiola, it's impossible to know for certain what the intent of a certain call was
With those understood, I counted:
6 screens
6 RPOs (2 of them go routes rather than bubble/arrow stuff)
8 quick game throws (Including 1 quick out to get into field goal range at the end of the half, excluding 2 pop passes to Barney which are really a running play IMO)
15 intermediate throws
7 deep throws
It's not this dink and dunk 3 step and throw offense. I'd also argue the RPOs are called runs, and shouldn't factor heavily into peoples perception of how we call the passing game. The YPA looks terrible because a lot of the screens/RPOs are getting blown up for negative yardage, and we aren't connecting on the deep balls nearly enough to pull it up. The lines between quick/intermediate and intermediate/deep are admittedly blurry, but I went with anything that didn't look to be a clear 3 step or catch and throw as at least intermediate. Especially considering OSU's defensive front, this seems like a fairly aggressive spread. I think a lot of people are lumping the RPOs and screens together, but they're not the same.
GlobalHusker
New member
IMHO, I’d like to add that sometimes when DR is waiting for the deep guy, the underneath option closes because he’s completed the route or the defense has had the time to recover. Then he’s no longer open, or the option for YAC is gone.
Mavric
Yoda
No! No! NO! If you don't see it successfully executed repeatedly it can only mean that we have not even contemplated such schemes.
Mavric
Yoda
That's a fair point. I would counter with we been so terrible on deep balls that we should probably be taking what we can get a lot more. But there is a balance to be found.