What did we learn? Wiscy Edition

LennynSquiggy said:
Satterfield isn't going anywhere.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree, but he should

This program has become Billy bob thortons character from tombstone. Somebody needs to come in and Wyatt Earp the s#!t out of it. Looks like Rhules nepotism is keeping him from doing his job. 
 

Satterfield had ALL off season and this season to do something with the qb room. He’s hot garbage

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Packerhuskerfan said:
How come he could not develop Sims?  He wanted him.  Thompson was pushed out for him.
Click to expand...


Sker fer life said:
Sims has a history of turning the ball over,  coaches knew this.  Not sure if this is something that can be coached out of him,  the kid plays nervous IMO.
Click to expand...


Jeff Sims was fairly highly regarded coming out of high school. It seems that about a half dozen programs were interested in him. It's possible that he just couldn't transition to the next level and/or there's other contributing factors.

While it's possible that these issues might be able to be corrected, it's possible too that's simply not the case. It might've been an oversight on Rhule's part. He wasn't the only one that seen potential however inaccurate the estimation may have been. What to do? Apologize for the decision of bringing in someone not "up to the task" and that it was foolish to ever consider him...

Both the coaches and the player had the intention of succeeding and, indications are that the young man in a fine human being. It just hasn't worked out as anticipated. Perhaps an alternative arrangement where another staff member coaches the QB's addresses some of this. There was reasoning behind bringing Sims in and Casey Thompson wasn't forced out. In hindsight, Thompson remaining might've been the better route to go. It's best that they all continue to focus on improving and achieving their personal and collective objectives. 

 
Archy1221 said:
Because if you get to fourth down, then you know if you have to go for a touchdown or field goal when the other team has the ball first 
Click to expand...
I know, but I thought if you are advocating to go for the win with nothing to lose in regulation, then don't take a different approach about it in overtime.  Or else, that would be contradictory to everything being said.  You see my point?  

Because you are saying "do it this way in regulation - don't worry - nothing to lose - play to win - go for it".   

But in overtime, suddenly it's "woah, woah, WOAH!  Let's do it differently and be conservative now. Let them have ball first, and hopefully we can tie if need be"  

That thinking doesn't make sense.  I know we think different, but I stand by my thinking as much as you do yours. 

Me:  clock management was fine.  Deciding who gets ball first in OT was not fine.  I say, kick FG in reg, send it to OT, live another day, put Wisconsin back on defense in OT, take the ball first, and go from there.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin said:
I'm just saying from a time-management standpoint, that includes the ability to run a final drive that gets you in position to at least kick the game-tying field goal, while taking a couple legitimate (and safe) shots at the end zone, ideally without leaving time on the clock for Wisconsin to respond. Our chance to win was Purdy connecting in the corner of the end zone, or getting most or all of it himself in a scramble, and the Husker's tried both. We definitely could have used another :04 to run one more play, but I watch games like this all seasons -- NFL and college -- and coaches (with much better quarterbacks) making similar decisions. 
Click to expand...
I doubt you can find any examples of other teams waiting to snap the ball until there are under 8 seconds on the play clock multiple times in one drive, especially with three time outs in their pocket. 
 

If we had decent clock management, we would have had the ball on their 20 yard line with over two minutes to play and all the time outs. That seems to be a much better situation than one throw from the 20. 
 

Throwing to the corner of the end zone seems to be the only play we can run in that situation. And it has failed significantly more than it has succeeded. 

 
Sker fer life said:
Sims has a history of turning the ball over,  coaches knew this.  Not sure if this is something that can be coached out of him,  the kid plays nervous IMO.
Click to expand...
A good OC should have seen that before pursuing SIMS. Even though I believe that Satterfield will be our OC next season, I still think he does not have what it takes to get us where we want to be. He just does not know how to play to his team’s strengths.

 
Mavric said:
I doubt you can find any examples of other teams waiting to snap the ball until there are under 8 seconds on the play clock multiple times in one drive, especially with three time outs in their pocket. 
 

If we had decent clock management, we would have had the ball on their 20 yard line with over two minutes to play and all the time outs. That seems to be a much better situation than one throw from the 20. 
 

Throwing to the corner of the end zone seems to be the only play we can run in that situation. And it has failed significantly more than it has succeeded. 
Click to expand...


Really? Seems like standard operating procedure for a lot of teams in that situation. As mentioned, the Huskers needed to bank a few more seconds to get a third shot at the end zone, otherwise you want to time your two or three plays and possible field goal to leave as little time as possible on the clock, a luxury you have if you think you're already in field goal range. The game announcers were even speculating whether Fickell should take a second time out to give his offense a shot.   

The end zone fade isn't the only play we can run, but it is the one the defenders are less likely to intercept. If you watch the Maryland game-ender it was a pretty good call and Coleman probably had a touchdown for the taking if he thought the pass was intended for him. Last I checked, a lot of folks here hated that call. This team definitely has red zone problems, and precisions routes against loaded prevent defenses probably aren't the strength of a new QB and young receivers who just blew the last game.

The play I would have called? A fullback counter, and he woulda just gone whoopin' and hollerin' straight to the end zone.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Really? Seems like standard operating procedure for a lot of teams in that situation. As mentioned, the Huskers needed to bank a few more seconds to get a third shot at the end zone, otherwise you want to time your two or three plays and possible field goal to leave as little time as possible on the clock, a luxury you have if you think you're already in field goal range. The game announcers were even speculating whether Fickell should take a second time out to give his offense a shot.   

The end zone fade isn't the only play we can run, but it is the one the defenders are less likely to intercept. If you watch the Maryland game-ender it was a pretty good call and Coleman probably had a touchdown for the taking if he thought the pass was intended for him. Last I checked, a lot of folks here hated that call. This team definitely has red zone problems, and precisions routes against loaded prevent defenses probably aren't the strength of a new QB and young receivers who just blew the last game.

The play I would have called? A fullback counter, and he woulda just gone whoopin' and hollerin' straight to the end zone.
Click to expand...
This is the type of running I was hoping to see with the mention of a FB and/or 2 back sets.  Some more of TO's counters or traps.  Especially when defenses quickly realized we have no passing game and crowd the box.  Use the counters and misdirection to make a D pay for the aggressive rush or make them back out and play "slower".  Can't remember if it was the 1st or 2nd drive, but we used misdirection and went for a good gain.  Don't remember seeing it again tbh.  

 
Back
Top