Triaging the QB room

Undone said:
I hope this staff really gives a s*** about winning now and doesn't just die on the hill of "this takes as long as it takes" and "it's taken us three years to get good at the two other schools."

We could almost put Fidone out as a slot receiver or even out wide, the guy is really that athletic that I think he'd almost be better than any of our WR's.
Click to expand...
What have you seen from the staff makes you think they aren’t trying to win games this year. If anything, I give them credit for realizing the offense isn’t very talented, so they will most likely try to lean on defense and special teams to win games. 

 
ColoradoHusk said:
What have you seen from the staff makes you think they aren’t trying to win games this year. If anything, I give them credit for realizing the offense isn’t very talented, so they will most likely try to lean on defense and special teams to win games. 
Click to expand...


Both of those quips I put in quotes were loose translations of things I've heard Rhule say in pressers after the two losses.

The big concern I have is the idea of supplementing pass blocking with big sets but then only having two wideouts - or even just one wideout - on a lot of plays. Schematically, I think it's looked pretty bad when it's done as drop back plays. I think we may have to run more stuff out of 11 man and roll the QB out to loosen up the passing plays.

And another thing Satterfield's playbook seems to be fairly bereft of is quick-hitter passing plays. I did see one or two yesterday and they looked good. But a lot of them are slow developing plays.

Then unrelated to this season (which I realize was what I brought up), I also think it potentially sets you up to get into the Iowa Doom Loop where you can't attract good QB's and good WR's because on paper what you do is pretty bland and is run-heavy anyway.

I'm not saying there's some five alarm fire occurring though. But I see 4 winnable games in a row after Michigan and I'm just hoping we pull out all the stops to get 3 out of the 4.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Undone said:
And another thing Satterfield's playbook seems to be fairly bereft of is quick-hitter passing plays. I did see one or two yesterday and they looked good. But a lot of them are slow developing plays.
Click to expand...
This is my biggest gripe right now. With guys like Kemp and Fidone, and QBs who struggle with the touch throws, just get them comfortable in a rhythm using some quick hitters. Then again with the way HH is late on throws that's a big risk for an INT...

 
Undone said:
You said in another post that he's "not a Division I QB;" I'd say he's a completely serviceable backup as a sophomore and has the potential to be a good starter by the start of next year or in 2025. Guy's a sophomore.

His completion percentage against LA Tech suffered from a throwaway or two and Washington's drop where the ball hits him right in the numbers on a critical 3rd down that would have been converted if he catches it. Yeah, he had the other one that went into traffic and probably should have been picked off, but tons of great QB's have that happen almost every game, also.

The TD pass to Fidone was off the mark but that's why it's nice to have guys with that kind of athleticism; Thomas comes back for it and does the rest himself.

But just one more zoomed-out take: When your recruiting requirements of a QB is that he has to run and your program is a perennial dumpster fire, you're not pulling in Tua Tagovailoa's. If you want somebody that throws really, really well, then you have to change your requirements. This staff and the last one required that the QB be a runner.
Click to expand...
Just coming back to this because I don't  want to appear like I'm just throwing out drive by pot shots and not interested in actual discourse because I am. It is also a tough place for me to be in to argue against Haarberg because he is everything we Nebraskan's love in a QB. I want him to beat the world, truly I do.

He's a long way from being able to do that, though.  All I said is that he is not a Div 1 QB, which I maintain, he is not. How that compares to Sims, or where Haarberg will be in a few years, or how he would be in a different offense with a different team,  matters not to me. The fact is. the kid we've seen head the team for the past few games can not throw an accurate ball, can not quickly read defenses, can not scan the  field well, can not hit a deep route. He can  not be a difference maker at the position, in fact, he is a liability currently that we have to scheme the hell around his multitude of weakness'/ Surely he can improve with time and hopefully become a Div 1 QB, that I don't know, but as it stands now, he is not.

Its a glaring issue with the team, currently, along with many other glaring issues, so I don't hate the guy nor am I upset  about how great he is handling himself having been thrown into this position, but if he is the best we have at QB, we will be hurting all season. And he could be....

 
I just want to make it clear that I personally don't think Sims was benched for the LA Tech game. Assuming Sims doesn't clearly get injured again in the Michigan game, I think we'll learn all we need to know about what this staff thinks of the situation with who takes the first snap against Illinois.

So naturally, that makes pretty much all of this handwringing over how bad Haarberg is kind of pointless for me; he's the backup.

I don't have too much interest in furthering this part of the discussion, Husker03, but I'm pretty sure that these two things are incompatible:

Husker03 said:
All I said is that he is not a Div 1 QB, which I maintain, he is not.
Click to expand...


and:

Husker03 said:
...or where Haarberg will be in a few years, or how he would be in a different offense with a different team,  matters not to me.
Click to expand...


"Not a Division I QB" to me would mean he couldn't play at even the worst Sun Belt team. Really it sounds like you're actually arguing that he's not good enough to be the starter for a Big 10 team. Which is fine, and maybe you're actually right. But they're two different things.     :)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Undone said:
I honestly really hated that play call. It's being completely unaware of what your team is actually good at executing. Blast a Conference USA school with zone read with Haarberg as a battering ram for 4 or 5 plays and see if you can move the chains and get comfortable.

I get it, it's the "well you want creativity from your OC, don't you" angle. But we just can't pass block.
Click to expand...
I hated that play call, too. I just didn't see why their first offensive play on their first offensive drive was a drop back pass when this offense has shown that it is by far the weakest element of their attack. Start with things you know you can do well. Establish a rhythm. It doesn't have to be sexy or flashy, but 2nd and 7 is much better than 2nd and 17 when you have an inept passing attack.

I'm a big proponent of judging play calls based on the situation as opposed to the actual play itself. Basically, I try to separate poor execution from poor play calling. And that, to me, was just poor play calling. And it was presumably something they'd decided early in the week since opening drives are almost always scripted to some degree.

Edit - Just FWIW, I did rewatch that play, and it was really just doomed from the start. It was a 6-man rush by the defense. NU's RG, RT and TE all blocked two linemen. Grant picked up the outside rush. Nobody was left to get the middle blitz. Offensively, it was a play action that had only three routes, none of which appear to have been designed to be hit less than three seconds after the snap. I don't know if they could've done much differently in that situation to make the play a success. Maybe the TE could've moved to the outside rusher so grant could get the middle blitz, or perhaps the RG could've picked up the middle blitz to allow Grant to get the outside. That's a bit outside my technical know-how.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In looking at HH's game, it reminds me a bit of Taylor Martinez. Like Martinez, HH has impressive breakout speed and running ability but his passing motion is not ideal. Martinez had a much better line to work with than HH currently has, but I am not getting those critical of HH over the past 2 games. No QB is perfect, but he has done everything asked of him in his first 2 starts. 









 
Last edited by a moderator:
1 hour ago, HuskerNation1 said:

In looking at HH's game, it reminds me a bit of Taylor Martinez. Like Martinez, HH has impressive breakout speed and running ability but his passing motion is not ideal. Martinez had a much better line to work with than HH currently has, but I am not getting those critical of HH over the past 2 games. No QB is perfect, but he has done everything asked of him in his first 2 starts. 

Click to expand...


If anybody recalls that Taylor Martinez breakout game vs K-State, the coaches kept him out of passing situations, and ran option or QB draws on 3rd & long that produced explosive plays (as shown above).  He started to unravel the more they asked him and he tried to be a drop back passer.  

Back to the topic of getting receivers down field.  They did try to get Fidone down field on a corner or deep over that resulted in holding or a PI and they've tried to get Hill deep a few times (which is telling).  Coleman must not be ready, but he does jump off the LOS, close cushion quickly, and certainly has the athletic profile of a deep threat.  If they could get him involved, it might not lighten the tackle box, but it would create some space in the short to intermediate areas for Kemp to work underneath him.  Regardless, this offense desperately needs to identify somebody who can loosen coverage on the back end.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
floridacorn said:
If anybody recalls that Taylor Martinez breakout game vs K-State, the coaches kept him out of passing situations, and ran option or QB draws on 3rd & long that produced explosive plays (as shown above).  He started to unravel the more they asked him and he tried to be a drop back passer.  

Back to the topic of getting receivers down field.  They did try to get Fidone down field on a corner or deep over that resulted in holding or a PI and they've tried to get Hill deep a few times (which is telling).  Coleman must not be ready, but he does jump off the LOS, close cushion quickly, and certainly has the athletic profile of a deep threat.  If they could get him involved, it might not lighten the tackle box, but it would create some space in the short to intermediate areas for Kemp to work underneath him.  Regardless, this offense desperately needs to identify somebody who can loosen coverage on the back end.
Click to expand...


Agree. Neither HH or Sims are pocket passers. With that in mind, we need the QB that can best manage a run heavy offense and then make passes when necessary. That offense with a solid defense will get 6 wins.

 
floridacorn said:
If anybody recalls that Taylor Martinez breakout game vs K-State, the coaches kept him out of passing situations, and ran option or QB draws on 3rd & long that produced explosive plays (as shown above).  He started to unravel the more they asked him and he tried to be a drop back passer.  
Click to expand...




That's not really true. He was never effortlessly comfortable throwing the ball, but to say "He started to unravel the more they asked him and he tried to be a drop back passer" is not accurate. The next game was Texas, and he played terrible because our entire team played terrible together, but the game right after was Oklahoma State where he went 23 of 35 for 323 yards and 5 touchdowns. Then the next game was Missouri where he suffered the high ankle sprain, which is the actual reason he 'unraveled' to the extent that he did.

 
Mav, thanks for posting that recap of Haarberg's passing.  if I look at things objectively, the passing was pretty average, but not as bad as everyone made things seem.  Here is my summary of HH's passing from that video.

- He started out very well on the first drive, hitting big plays to Washington and Fidone

- Of the 12 incompletions, 3 of those are what I would call "throw away" passes where he was under pressure or no receivers were open

- On what I am going to deem "deep passes" (20+ yards down field), he was 2 of 4 with an INT.  NU was able to score 10 points on the drivers where he completed a deep pass.  One incompletion was on a well-covered wheel route and the INT was basically the same as a punt on 3rd and 14.  The DB didn't get any yardage after the INT, and that was Haarberg's last pass of the night.

- IMO his worst pass/read of the night was on 3rd and 5 in the 2nd quarter.  Haarberg looked for a slant route, and thankfully the ball was knocked down at the LOS, because there were 2 other defenders covering the slant route (including one who was under the WR).

- The good news is that HH followed that poor 3rd down pass with maybe his best pass of the night on 4th and 5.  He moved right in the pocket as he felt some rush, and hit the WR with a nice pass right at the first down line.

- His worst drive was the possession right before half.  I was frustrated with the play-calling on that drive.  I know Satt is looking to get points before the half, but right after Illinois scored to cut the lead to 17-7, I thought the prudent play calls would have been to run the ball, run clock, or force Illinois to use their timeouts.  I thought the play calls weren't good, especially considering NU was going into the wind, which wouldn't have been good for a long FG.

- On that drive before half, Haarberg had some passes sail on him, and weren't close to the receiver.  He also made a poor decision on a pass over the middle which could have been picked by a LB.

- In the 2nd half, it seemed like the offense was more conservative due to the good field position and the score of the game.  Haarberg did have a poor pass/miscommunication down the middle to Fidone when NU was in the red zone.  Haarberg did have good execution on a 3rd and 2 pass to pick up a key 1st down in the 4th quarter.  Unfortunately, that was followed by one of the fumbles by a RB.

I expect DC's to play zone defenses against NU with either Haarberg or Sims at QB, because that will force them to read the defenses to find an open man.  However, zone defenses also might be good for NU because that really wouldn't force the NU WR's to win one on one battles,.  That would enable our WR's to find soft spots in the zones.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top