Triaging the QB room

[runningblind]

To relate to a different sport, Reggie Miller had about the ugliest jumper, no one wanted to change it because his shot went in more than not, and the shot gurus were worried correcting his form would ruin his shot.  While there's not a lot to 'ruin' for Haarberg, he's set in his motion. This is stuff that should have been corrected in HS/Middle School, but I do wonder how much they threw the ball and had a coach who cared. As long as they won more than they lost, they didn't care about his mechanics.

While I think it is totally possible to change someone's mechanics, footwork etc. with proper coaching and enough repetition, I think it you have to factor in the mental side of such an overhaul.  Can the subject handle it or will they become a headcase from the change and constant repetition with something new?  An interesting paradigm that I have seen a few times over the years in golfers as I like that sport.  Sure the swing can change, but what about the confidence and trust in that swing when it comes time to perform? 

 

[Mavric]

Respectfully, I don’t think you understand the concept of the play call.  
 

The reason you run a back to the flat, one TE runs a deep out cut and up, while the other TR runs a deep in is to make the safety AND the corner to make a decision.   Reads go from deep to shallow on most drop back passing plays.   
 

The safety sits on Fidone so as Rhule correctly stated, the other TE was wide open for a touchdown.  Do you know why the safety was comfortable sitting shallow??   Because he read no flat route allowing the CB to sink  (but ahhh, we did have a delayed flat route and you will notice the corner see it late and break up towards the RB and pass the deeper route to the safety.  By that time the safety sat too long and the TE was open deep.   BTW…our head coach expected the TE to get open over the top.  
 

I 100% disagree that it wasn’t a great play design and the coaching staff did their homework on that one.  
 

here is his remarks at the 9:35 mark.  
 

I understand the concept.  

And probably the deep route was technically the first read.  But for that read to be open - especially with a Tight End running it - you have to be counting on the safety - who is in zone coverage - just completely dropping the deep route.  There is no defense that is designed for that to happen.  There would no way that our entire game plan for the first play hinged on them doing something completely stupid.

And I don't think it's obvious as you say it is that the safety was coming off the deep route.  He was literally on 87's hip as HH was throwing the ball.  You might expect a receiver to be able to run away from a safety - "if he's even he's leavin'" - but this isn't a a receiver.  Safeties can run with tight ends.  

It seems significantly more likely that the real plan was for 87 to take the safety deep with him and let Fidone win the matchup on the underneath coverage - which he did.  But the two routes were too close for too long and the safety could play both guys until he got a read that the throw was going short.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Respectfully, I don’t think you understand the concept of the play call.  
 

The reason you run a back to the flat, one TE runs a deep out cut and up, while the other TR runs a deep in is to make the safety AND the corner to make a decision.   Reads go from deep to shallow on most drop back passing plays.   
 

The safety sits on Fidone so as Rhule correctly stated, the other TE was wide open for a touchdown.  Do you know why the safety was comfortable sitting shallow??   Because he read no flat route allowing the CB to sink  (but ahhh, we did have a delayed flat route and you will notice the corner see it late and break up towards the RB and pass the deeper route to the safety.  By that time the safety sat too long and the TE was open deep.   BTW…our head coach expected the TE to get open over the top.  
 

I 100% disagree that it wasn’t a great play design and the coaching staff did their homework on that one.  
 

here is his remarks at the 9:35 mark.  
 

Can you explain why the reads are deep to shallow?  To me, logically, the read would be the quick shallow routes first. Because, they are the quicker developing play. 
 

To me, the reads would be the short to medium, then the deep routes would have time to develop, then, if that’s not there, either tuck and run or the RB safety valve to the side. 

 

[Archy1221]

Can you explain why the reads are deep to shallow?  To me, logically, the read would be the quick shallow routes first. Because, they are the quicker developing play. 
 

To me, the reads would be the short to medium, then the deep routes would have time to develop, then, if that’s not there, either tuck and run or the RB safety valve to the side. 

Sure and it’s a great question.  Obviously easier to explain with video but will try my best with a few scenarios…..

1). The play we have been talking about.   The first read is the safety.  QB waits to see which route the safety jumps because it’s designed to put him in choice mode.  Safety obviously didn’t make a choice and the read is throw the deep out and up.  If the CB would have dropped and taken the deed route then the QB progresses down to the RB with the middle-out cut.  If the safety would have dropped, then Fidone is the choice.  If the backers dropped too deep and covered it, throw short again to the RB before he gets too far towards sideline.  
2)  sometimes the deep read is done pre-snap.   If you See tight one on one coverage pre snap with a Trey Palmer type running a go route on the left with the primary routes on the right side, well give a quick look left to see if Trey beats the corner off the ball for a deep go route . If not, look back to the right and go through those progressions. 
3). Another scenario is a maybe a deep post clearing out for a backside crossing route/7 route.   The play is designed for the crosser to get the ball after a different receiver clears out, however you always check deep first in case the safety messes up and the post is running free or has 3 steps.  If safety drops and backers don’t get deep then the crossing route.  If safety drops and backers get deep there is usually a running back over the middle dig or a shallower crossing route the gets hit in front of the backer.   So a quick look for a freebie, down to the vacates safety area, down to the vacated backer area.  
 

More examples we could talk about, but that gives you a general idea of what I’m talking about.  Some routes are obviously designed for a quick step and throw.   Quick slants and quick outs based on presnap read etc… Other times it’s routes designed for the TE over the middle, but always take a quick peek to see if the defense  passed off the clear out route and the other defender didn’t take him (the busted coverage scenario)  QB would rarely see that if he looks short middle then deep.  
 

That’s my two cents on how I was thought throughout college.   

 

[Enhance]

Some of you have never played an honest game of Madden and it shows.  :lol:

Archy's explanations are pretty accurate though. Plays are usually designed to go to specific players, attack specific weak areas, or attack specific players in a defense, so safeties can sometimes be part of the first read. Four verts aka four vertical routes is perhaps the most obvious example because the safeties often immediately determine where you're going to go with the ball. And if you're not reading a specific player, sometimes you read an area. Like if you know your primary read on the play is about to run his route into a soft spot between two defenders, you'll read that area as opposed to just one specific defender.

 

[Undone]

I don't think I've ever seen a more needlessly drawn out discussion on this board about such an insignificant play than what we've had in this thread.

Haarberg struggles badly at throwing a deep ball. That's the problem. Let's be honest, if he would have tried to go to Boerkircher he probably f**** that up, too.

:leghump:    

 

[Mavric]

Can you explain why the reads are deep to shallow?  To me, logically, the read would be the quick shallow routes first. Because, they are the quicker developing play. 
 

To me, the reads would be the short to medium, then the deep routes would have time to develop, then, if that’s not there, either tuck and run or the RB safety valve to the side. 

As Chris Mortensen always says: "Touchdown to checkdown".

But there are definitely different combos designed to get different looks based on on a bunch of factors, such as down and distance (which I'm sure you know).  

It is not very often that you're expecting to get a deep throw against a two-high safety look, which is what Northwestern was in on that first play.  Two safeties splitting the field in half and not letting anything get behind them is a pretty standard look.  Pelini's defenses lived off it.  Either you have an absolute burner on the outside or you try to draw the safeties down the sidelines and run a secondary (in terms of timing) route down the middle, which is what Fidone was doing.

 

[floridacorn]

That first play NW is in cover 2 or at least cover 2 to that side of the field (cover 6) and NU runs a switch with the 2 TE's.  Surely something they saw on film to run on first play expecting to get exactly what they got, which was the S running with the #2 receiver and the CB getting lost on the switch and putting the S in conflict.  Although, soft play action likely would have opened this up further and the back still could have run to the flat.

I'm not with Rhule on this one, generally, "if you're even, you're leaving", Boerkircher is open, but he isn't housing that with a perfect throw.  The S only squats when he see's Haarberg turning the ball loose.  If the throw is deep, he's behind and out of phase with Boerkircher, but it's not like he was flat footed until he reads the intermediate pass, turns to recover, and the pass behind Fidone is thrown directly to him.  They expected to get Fidone free on this play, HH predetermined where he was going, and it was still open.  

In regards to the progression on pass plays being deep to shallow, somebody else pointed out the "touchdown checkdown" mantra.  It's a good question, the answer is a QB has to be able to read the defense pre and post snap to identify the deep threat being open before it's actually open and then throw him open.  That is why HH has been late on all the shot plays sans the Coleman TD.  He's waiting to see them open.    This play is perfect example.  Beorkircher is open, he's not 5 yards behind the defense running free, but he's about to be behind the S if the ball leads him there.  

 

[admo]

I like Haarberg.  I like that he has this team winning (4 out of 5) and I think having him as QB provides stability to the offense.  It's been ugly against bad teams, and the defense has kept us in it.  But the key is winning and that's why it's obvious to keep him as the starter as long as possible.

Having said that, should HH continue the recent trend of poor passes, tipped passes at the LOS, dropping a snap, fumbling exchanges with running backs, and throwing interceptions, I would not hesitate to sit him down and put Sims in the game, should it happen again in the first half of the Purdue game.  HH has done all of that and I just cannot continue to give him a free pass for that type of football.  Especially when the offense has been struggling to put points on the board and stretching the field on routine passing plays.

When HH is throwing the ball well, protecting the football and running hard, it's exactly what you want.  He doesn't have to be perfect.  Just move the chains and give the offense a chance to score touchdowns in the redzone.  

I don't think it should be too difficult to score 12-16 points per half against Purdue at home.  And if the Huskers want to be 5-3 after Saturday with a sorry Michigan State the following week, the offense needs to take charge and not depend on the defense to win a game because you score 13 or 17 or 20 points.  

Nothing against HH, but this offense will not score (even though they are due) with bad QB play.  I'd put Sims in the game if the offense struggles again and wouldn't wait if them to get down 10 or 14 points.  

I hope none of that happens.  I hope HH plays clean and great and the offense puts up 30+ points on Purdue.  All I am trying to say is that the staff needs to have a contingency plan ready to go just in case.  We really need this win, and Purdue isn't all that good.  Can't lose this one.  

 

[Hagg]

I like Haarberg.  I like that he has this team winning (4 out of 5) and I think having him as QB provides stability to the offense.  It's been ugly against bad teams, and the defense has kept us in it.  But the key is winning and that's why it's obvious to keep him as the starter as long as possible.

Having said that, should HH continue the recent trend of poor passes, tipped passes at the LOS, dropping a snap, fumbling exchanges with running backs, and throwing interceptions, I would not hesitate to sit him down and put Sims in the game, should it happen again in the first half of the Purdue game.  HH has done all of that and I just cannot continue to give him a free pass for that type of football.  Especially when the offense has been struggling to put points on the board and stretching the field on routine passing plays.

When HH is throwing the ball well, protecting the football and running hard, it's exactly what you want.  He doesn't have to be perfect.  Just move the chains and give the offense a chance to score touchdowns in the redzone.  

I don't think it should be too difficult to score 12-16 points per half against Purdue at home.  And if the Huskers want to be 5-3 after Saturday with a sorry Michigan State the following week, the offense needs to take charge and not depend on the defense to win a game because you score 13 or 17 or 20 points.  

Nothing against HH, but this offense will not score (even though they are due) with bad QB play.  I'd put Sims in the game if the offense struggles again and wouldn't wait if them to get down 10 or 14 points.  

I hope none of that happens.  I hope HH plays clean and great and the offense puts up 30+ points on Purdue.  All I am trying to say is that the staff needs to have a contingency plan ready to go just in case.  We really need this win, and Purdue isn't all that good.  Can't lose this one.  

I'm pretty much on the same page there.  But... there's another factor and that is Heinrich's (perceived) athleticism.  I expect more quickness and speed on the run/options, bullet passes on the shorter throws and fine-tuned arcs on the longer ones, as we used to see here, and see every Saturday with several other teams.  He ain't no Crouch in any respect, and certainly no Frazier.  But, as said there, he most certainly does seem to have the stability factor with his t'mates.  I just wish it were so strong in that respect that we would be seeing more fire on the O-line. 

The 4-Star Sims thing I'm on the fence as we blame him for a couple of losses. 

Overall something in the right direction seems to be happening now. 

 

[Scarlet]

Anyone know if Zac Lee has been on some sort of 14 year Mormon mission?

 

[ZRod]

Sims needs to be kindly asked to leave after this season. I was happy to see him come in and get another shot, but holy s#!t man... Nothing changed.

 

[Enhance]

I'm guessing Sims was already planning to transfer. He's lost his job and I'm fairly confident next year's starting QB is either going to be Haarberg or someone not yet on the roster.

I do feel bad for him, though. Was really hoping he'd play well the next time he was given an opportunity, for his own sake. That was a dud.

 

[RedDenver]

I'm guessing Sims was already planning to transfer. He's lost his job and I'm fairly confident next year's starting QB is either going to be Haarberg or someone not yet on the roster.

I do feel bad for him, though. Was really hoping he'd play well the next time he was given an opportunity, for his own sake. That was a dud.

By all accounts, Sims is a good teammate and has been really supportive of Haarberg. Always going to root for a guy like that. It's a shame he just can't seem to get out of his own way on the field. He might make a good coach - here's hoping he finds something he enjoys and excels at.

 

[Dogs In A Pile]

By all accounts, Sims is a good teammate and has been really supportive of Haarberg. Always going to root for a guy like that. It's a shame he just can't seem to get out of his own way on the field. He might make a good coach - here's hoping he finds something he enjoys and excels at.

Agreed. I just posted something similar in another thread before seeing this. Don't like what he's done of the field but can't complain about his character during what must be a very difficult time for him. I'm sure he hates what has transpired on the field more than anybody.