What did we learn? Northwestern Version

olddominionhusker said:
I’m not necessarily advocating a benching of HH. But he put us behind the 8 ball early with bad throws and decisions. I think giving Sims a series or two is fine and maybe even gives the O a spark. No harm in trying at this point. You can always go back to HH. And if Rhule is going to be true to his word then HH should be forced to sit after multiple turnovers like everyone else. 
Click to expand...
I think it boils down to the fact that Simms simply has the yips.  I dont know how else you can explain those dropped snaps in boulder.  His int at the end of the first half against minnesota was inexcusable for a veteran QB- you either throw to an open guy or ya throw it out of the back of the end zone and kick a FG, instead he threw it into double coverage right to minny.  His int in the 2nd in boulder was horrific, completely gave the game away in addition to the dropped snaps.  While HH did put us in the hole against NW, none of his turnovers come even close to the ones I outlined above.  

We'd be better off leveraging Simms in a bobby newcombe type capacity.  He clearly has wheels, let's sprinkle in some formations where its a reverse pass or option pass.  Make the defense think a bit.  

Some fans might not like this but HH is a convenient as hell option for Rhule.  In state kid, has the team rallied around him, rhule has a cop out excuse to go find an upgrade in the portal (please with no turnover history).  If rhule goes back to Simms and simms is the same choke artist he was, rhule faces the possibility of losing this team for this year and losing the goodwill he's built up with the fans, quickly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gossamorharpy said:
I think it boils down to the fact that Simms simply has the yips.  I dont know how else you can explain those dropped snaps in boulder.  His int at the end of the first half against minnesota was inexcusable for a veteran QB- you either throw to an open guy or ya throw it out of the back of the end zone and kick a FG, instead he threw it into double coverage right to minny.  His int in the 2nd in boulder was horrific, completely gave the game away in addition to the dropped snaps.  While HH did put us in the hole against NW, none of his turnovers come even close to the ones I outlined above.  

We'd be better off leveraging Simms in a bobby newcombe type capacity.  He clearly has wheels, let's sprinkle in some formations where its a reverse pass or option pass.  Make the defense think a bit.  
Click to expand...
Yeah I think he is too good of an athlete to leave off the field entirely. Maybe some packages for him like you mentioned. Maybe if he’s not “the guy” he will play more loose. Look IDK but this offense needs more athletic guys who have the ability to make plays and I think he could help somehow

 
olddominionhusker said:
Yeah I think he is too good of an athlete to leave off the field entirely. Maybe some packages for him like you mentioned. Maybe if he’s not “the guy” he will play more loose. Look IDK but this offense needs more athletic guys who have the ability to make plays and I think he could help somehow
Click to expand...
Diamond formation with hh, simms, Malachi and fleeks

 
Lorewarn said:
Which position coach are you getting rid of?
Click to expand...
To me this is just another version of “we need a dedicated special teams coach!” argument. The only way to achieve this would be to combine two other assistants together since you can only have a HC + 10 assistants. Below are the assistant coach positions on staff currently, doesn’t look like there are a lot of options to me. If you combine TE with WR or OL people will complain, if you get rid of ST in lieu of QB people will complain, etc. 

HC

OC/QB

WR

OL

TE

RB

ST

DC

DL

LB

DB

 
I've said since last year that I'm not sure Hartzog is really that good.  Perhaps that is a little harsh as it may be more accurate to say he likes to gamble on big plays and gets burned when he's wrong.  Which kind of has the same effect. 

This is kind of an example.  He gambles on jumping the out route and gets burned by the double move.  He seemed to get a lot of credit for running the guy down but that seems to be the minimum he could do at that point.  If he gave up I'd have put him on the bench.


 
Mavric said:
I've said since last year that I'm not sure Hartzog is really that good.  Perhaps that is a little harsh as it may be more accurate to say he likes to gamble on big plays and gets burned when he's wrong.  Which kind of has the same effect. 

This is kind of an example.  He gambles on jumping the out route and gets burned by the double move.  He seemed to get a lot of credit for running the guy down but that seems to be the minimum he could do at that point.  If he gave up I'd have put him on the bench.
Click to expand...
I've read where one drawback to this defense is that sometimes the CBs are on an island and sometimes they are going to get beat.  If he screwed up on this, I'm sure he was shown it in the film room.  Where I give him credit is that he didn't give up and he had the speed to accomplish it.

 
Mavric said:
I've said since last year that I'm not sure Hartzog is really that good.  Perhaps that is a little harsh as it may be more accurate to say he likes to gamble on big plays and gets burned when he's wrong.  Which kind of has the same effect. 

This is kind of an example.  He gambles on jumping the out route and gets burned by the double move.  He seemed to get a lot of credit for running the guy down but that seems to be the minimum he could do at that point.  If he gave up I'd have put him on the bench.
Click to expand...




There was a popular Twitter post celebrating the fact that he ended up making the tackle.  I remembered instantly why I shut down a ton of Husker fan/ran Twitter accounts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
I've said since last year that I'm not sure Hartzog is really that good.  Perhaps that is a little harsh as it may be more accurate to say he likes to gamble on big plays and gets burned when he's wrong.  Which kind of has the same effect. 

This is kind of an example.  He gambles on jumping the out route and gets burned by the double move.  He seemed to get a lot of credit for running the guy down but that seems to be the minimum he could do at that point.  If he gave up I'd have put him on the bench.
Click to expand...


In Hartzog's defense, we have an unblocked safety blitz so sitting on the short route makes some sense. You can't be bite that hard, but letting Sullivan even get this pass off is also a problem. Jeudy flies right by him, to the point where Sullivan was able to stop, set his feet, and throw.

AA1Y1ht.png


rbu286G.png


But I do agree Hartzog has been the weakest link in the secondary. And yeah, if you give that up you better at least catch him.

 
BigRedBuster said:
I've read where one drawback to this defense is that sometimes the CBs are on an island and sometimes they are going to get beat.  If he screwed up on this, I'm sure he was shown it in the film room.  Where I give him credit is that he didn't give up and he had the speed to accomplish it.
Click to expand...


CBs are going to get beat from time to time.  Hartzong gets beat a lot.

 
Mavric said:
CBs are going to get beat from time to time.  Hartzong gets beat a lot.
Click to expand...
He might be the best of the options available though. I believe Tommi Hill is more athletic and a bigger corner, but often got caught taking a risky gamble or looking into the backfield. I haven't seen enough of Lynum to make a reasonable argument, but Hartzog does have some pretty good wheels and agility to him. 

 
How do know the CB isn’t coached to be aggressive on the out route?  The blitzing whiffed and didn’t do its job.   If he’s soft on the outside coverage and the QB completes a quick pass before the blitz gets home, then we would be critical of the soft coverage.   

 
Decoy73 said:
How do know the CB isn’t coached to be aggressive on the out route?  The blitzing whiffed and didn’t do its job.   If he’s soft on the outside coverage and the QB completes a quick pass before the blitz gets home, then we would be critical of the soft coverage.   
Click to expand...
Although I don't know what the defensive play was, Hartzog was playing almost 10 yards off the WR. The linebackers and safeties are all bunched on the short side of the field. So, I'm fairly confident he's in single coverage, which to me would suggest he's intended to play that situation safe precisely because of what happened - if he gets beat on a double move, he risks a huge play.

The only possible excuse I could think of that wouldn't be his fault is if the safety was supposed to provide help over the top, but from the pre-snap, the safety is not really in a place to help.

Also, this is more of a question than an assertion, but what do we constitute as a "blitz" in this defense? Because it's 3-3-5, is anything more than three considered a blitz? Because I only see four pass rushers. I guess it could be a "blitz" but something about four pass rushers just feels normal to me, even in a 3-3-5. IDK how they classify/analyze that.

Either way, I don't put much of this on the pass rush. They had a field day against Northwestern. They can't get home every play, and as a corner, you can't just hope the pass rush bails you out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top