QB depth

[Hercules]

I don't think a comparison to either Darron Thomas or Cam Newton is apt.

 

With Thomas, it could change this year I suppose, but that is a player who made his zone reads, just as one example of the 'total package' side of being a QB (I'm sure his acceleration is not as good as Taylor's).

 

Making those zone reads is something that Rex Burkhead, a second-year player at a different position, was also able to do, actually since his true freshman year if I remember correctly. I guess it isn't that complicated, but the light just needs to come on, and hopefully it has for Taylor this offseason. Then he can get to the other quarterbacking aspects.

 

Neither Thomas nor Newton are great passers and they, along with players like Locker or Young or Pryor or Troy Smith or Nate Davis, will always get criticism in this area. You could argue then that the criticism is against an unreasonable, and probably a next-level standard. In Taylor's case, it's just against a D1 standard. We can all agree that he was a redshirt freshman and that he has a chance of reaching that level, though. Taylor is very new to his position so it's not really his fault. He's not the athletic guy who is a bit quirky in his mechanics; he's the guy that has barely scratched the surface of how to run an offense at this level, and will need a lot of time and work just to get to be that athletic guy who is quirky with his mechanics.

 

The plus-side, is that his athleticism blows those other guys out of the water, for the most part.

 

My point with comparing Martinez to Darron Thomas or Cam Newton had nothing to do with skill sets or experience (it was their first season as starters, too). It was the idea that Martinez is being criticized for his play during a time when he was hurt. He couldn't run and cut, and that is his game! If Darron Thomas or Cam Newton had been injured, would either of their teams have made it to the national championship game? If Cam Newton couldn't run against Alabama, when they were down 21-0, would he have been able to become a pocket-passer for the rest of the game and lead them to victory? Would Darron Thomas have been successful if he was reduced to being a pocket passer, not able to run Oregon's zone read?

 

The point is, both of those teams would have struggled and lost down the stretch had their QBs been injured like Martinez was. They got lucky, and we didn't, and if you aren't lucky, you better have depth. We had average or weak depth, and we were even unlucky enough to have both our backup QBs get beat up as well.

 

Martinez wasn't really our problem last year. Our problem was that our depth was such that a guy with a high ankle sprain and a turf toe was forced to play at times when he was nowhere close to 100%.

[GMoose]

That makes me wonder how much of the Martinez dislike simply comes from the fact that he's not a pro-style QB, which makes me wonder how many people over the age of, say, 30 have these same concerns. It would seem that those of us old enough to vividly remember the 80s and 90s are more likely to be unconcerned with such things, having seen a number of run-first QBs succeed.

 

The funny thing is, the same biases against run-first quarterbacks that were being exhibited by the pundits in the 90s exist today, and just like the 90s, they are completely misplaced in college football. Run-first QBs can succeed today, just like they could then.

 

The most successful class in college football history, the Huskers who went 60-3 in their five-year careers, came from a run-first offensive philosophy. And they did it in an era where it was "impossible" to succeed doing it that way.

It's not that I don't like him because he isn't pro style. I know this sounds like the 90's argument that run-first offense can't possibly succeed, but that's not my argument. With the right staff and team it can be unstoppable.

 

In my opinion, the best chance to be successful in the most situations is to be equally good at throwing the ball as running the ball. I understand we don't have that because we don't run that offense. In fact, I embraced it to an extent when we had Ganz. Since I'm not the O-coordinator, I want the QB that gives us the best chance to succeed within our offense.

 

I think our offense has the capacity to be balanced, which deep down I think is what we all really want. I think in our offense, a good passer with quickness, mobility, and some running ability gives us the best chance to be balanced. (Todd Reesing, Matt Groethe, Colt McCoy, Jerrod Johnson). I also think its easier to come by (but that's a different discussion). I think we can agree that Martinez is on the other side of the spectrum - he's got blazing speed with some decent throwing ability.

[mnhusker]

I just got done watching last years Missery game and I had forgotten how good the pre-injury Martinez was. I hope he gets back to that form, a little better passing will be great and I expect that will happen. If his is hurt and is not mobile than lets hope we have an offense this year that does not go down in flames with an injury. Even that game stopped on a dime as soon as he went out.

[bshirt]

With that defense we could have went 10-4 with Richard Simmons taking the snaps.

 

 

With that defense we could have went 10-4 with me at qb.

[Hujan]

I wasn't directing my post at you, Knap (though I think it's somewhat telling that you would assume it was). Truth be told, Saunders is, to me, the prototypical example of a "Martinez first, Nebraska second" type of fan. At least, that is the impression I get from his passionate defense of Martinez every time the topic is brought up. (Sorry, Saunders.)

 

This just proves that you don't even read anything that people post, and you just spew pointless drivel that suits whatever the hell your retarded agenda is. I want you to find a single post of mine where I specifically state that I want Taylor Martinez, and Taylor Martinez only, to start. You can't. Why? Because I've never said that. In fact, last year, I was for Lee starting, until the WKU game was in the books. If you actually read what I post, you'd see what I'm getting at. I have not attacked a single person for saying anything negative about Taylor's play on the field. I've attacked the horrible "evidence" or straight up lies that people have made up, and tried to pass as fact.

 

It's beyond ridiculous that I would even have to defend myself as well. All I've done is shoot down all the bullsh#t that some people (including you) are spreading on this, and other boards. It's funny, because when you guys are backed into a corner and proven wrong...you vanish. You continually say he's selfish, a terrible leader, a teamkiller, whatever, and when people ask you to prove this garbage, you bail, and start a new thread or start pooping all over another one. It's happened over, and over, and over, and over.

 

Frankly, I'm tired of it. Don't get all butthurt when someone calls you out and asks for evidence when you're trying to pass your entirely unsubstantiated opinion as fact.

 

Once again, for the 5,000 time. I want the best player to start (I can't believe I'm doing this again). But If your gonna make sh#t up, don't get pissed when you get called out.

 

 

Saunders, the fact that you resort to profanities and personal attacks is where I draw my sense that you are as much or more a fan of Martinez than of the team. You really seem to take it personally when someone criticizes him. Take your above post as evidence of that. Why the anger?

 

By the way, having an affinity for a player is not necessarily a bad thing that you would have to "defend" yourself against. It's not like being called a bigot. It is totally normal and to be expected. But it does make it difficult for you to be impartial and objective about their weaknesses. Frankly, I would have a hard time being impartial about Rex, I love the kid's attitude so much.

 

All of you guys swear up and down that you don't care who starts so long as they are the best, but many of you sure froth at the mouth when someone criticizes Martinez. It goes beyond having a calm, adult debate about a player and into personal attacks. I just don't get you guys.

[Hujan]

 

Again, no one has satisfactorily explained why there would be so many rumors about Martinez if there wasn't at least a kernel of truth to the belief that he has some attitude issues. Why pick on Martinez if there is absolutely nothing there? If our experience has taught us anything, rumors rarely appear entirely out of thin air and are usually shown to be somewhat accurate in the end. The team is not air tight and things (be it coaching changes, injuries, player discipline) usually leak out long before an official acknowledgment is made.

 

As far I'm concerned, I don't believe it's my role in this discussion to explain to you why all of those rumors would persist if there wasn't some truth to them. Ever heard the saying, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes?" As far as I'm concerned, its your responsibility to convince me that there's some truth to the rumors when so far they've all been wrong.

 

Your comment above assumes I intend to convince you. I honestly don't care what you think about Martinez. My sole intent is to show that reasonable minds can differ about Martinez's character and ability to lead this team. You guys won't even acknowledge that much.

 

WHETHER OR NOT YOU REMAIN FIRM IN YOUR OPINION OF MARTINEZ, can you not at least see why others would have reason to doubt his leadership and attitude? At all?

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

Jeez give it a rest

[The Dude]

You see Hujan, rumors are simply just rumors until they are proved to be true. That's how, ya know, logic works.

[Hujan]

You see Hujan, rumors are simply just rumors until they are proved to be true. That's how, ya know, logic works.

 

Your statement is circular and makes no sense. A rumor is an unverified account. Nothing more, nothing less. Some people insist on waiting for complete confirmation before they believe something; others are content to make a decision based on the information available, even if there is no absolute confirmation of that fact.

 

I suppose you believe Osama bin Laden is still alive?

[The Dude]

You see Hujan, rumors are simply just rumors until they are proved to be true. That's how, ya know, logic works.

 

Your statement is circular and makes no sense. A rumor is an unverified account. Nothing more, nothing less. Some people insist on waiting for complete confirmation before they believe something; others are content to make a decision based on the information available, even if there is no absolute confirmation of that fact.

 

I suppose you believe Osama bin Laden is still alive?

No, I don't. His death has been confirmed. That has nothing to do with this.

 

If you're going to claim something about Taylor Matinez, the burden of proof lies on your shouders. You can't say "it hasn't been disproved, therefore it's true". Doesn't work that way. That's a logical fallacy.

[Hercules]

 

Again, no one has satisfactorily explained why there would be so many rumors about Martinez if there wasn't at least a kernel of truth to the belief that he has some attitude issues. Why pick on Martinez if there is absolutely nothing there? If our experience has taught us anything, rumors rarely appear entirely out of thin air and are usually shown to be somewhat accurate in the end. The team is not air tight and things (be it coaching changes, injuries, player discipline) usually leak out long before an official acknowledgment is made.

 

As far I'm concerned, I don't believe it's my role in this discussion to explain to you why all of those rumors would persist if there wasn't some truth to them. Ever heard the saying, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes?" As far as I'm concerned, its your responsibility to convince me that there's some truth to the rumors when so far they've all been wrong.

 

Your comment above assumes I intend to convince you. I honestly don't care what you think about Martinez. My sole intent is to show that reasonable minds can differ about Martinez's character and ability to lead this team. You guys won't even acknowledge that much.

 

WHETHER OR NOT YOU REMAIN FIRM IN YOUR OPINION OF MARTINEZ, can you not at least see why others would have reason to doubt his leadership and attitude? At all?

 

No. I don't see why others have reason to doubt his leadership and attitude, or at least not any more than any other player on the team. I explained that in this other post in response to your list of reasons you doubt Martinez's leadership and attitude:

 

The A&M fiasco has been about as thoroughly investigated as a situation like that could be. I don't see how that is evidence of an attitude problem. Sketchy decision making and miscommunication maybe, but not an attitude problem.

 

There were no "reports" that he quit the team on multiple occasions. Reports are something filed by journalists. You're talking about rumors on message board with no sourcing. There were rumors that Martinez quit the team, on multiple occasions, all of which turned out to be false. So why do you still bring them up?

 

The off-putting involvement of his father has absolutely nothing to do with Martinez's attitude or leadership ability. That is more flimsy evidence than "Aaron Green tweeted that Martinez helped him out in drills today."

 

The fact that Martinez felt compelled to issue a statement at the end of the season also has nothing to do with his attitude or leadership. It was a response to the never-ending rumors that he was leaving the team. With that example, your logic is about as sound as, "There are rumors that Taylor Martinez is a witch. He denied it, which means he's a witch."

[ronsss]

its beginning to look like t martinez is injury prone, espically that ankle, didn,t he get it hurt again in spring practice...what i read he did, though bo said it was nothing compared to the injury during last season. my gut feeling is t martinez is breakable, and carnes will be snapping the ball soon. the depth after that is a concern, though the coaches stated they had a lot of faith in kellog.

 

 

cody green leaving is a sort of a surprise, thinking the starting qb was between him and t magic..my gut feeling is that brion carnes was sliding into the #2 depth chart

[corncraze]

its beginning to look like t martinez is injury prone, espically that ankle, didn,t he get it hurt again in spring practice...what i read he did, though bo said it was nothing compared to the injury during last season. my gut feeling is t martinez is breakable, and carnes will be snapping the ball soon. the depth after that is a concern, though the coaches stated they had a lot of faith in kellog.

 

 

cody green leaving is a sort of a surprise, thinking the starting qb was between him and t magic..my gut feeling is that brion carnes was sliding into the #2 depth chart

 

Martinez didn't get hurt over spring, he just hadnt fully recovered from his previous injury he had from the missouri game.

[sdhusker82]

With that defense we could have went 10-4 with Richard Simmons taking the snaps.

 

[bshirt]

That makes me wonder how much of the Martinez dislike simply comes from the fact that he's not a pro-style QB, which makes me wonder how many people over the age of, say, 30 have these same concerns. It would seem that those of us old enough to vividly remember the 80s and 90s are more likely to be unconcerned with such things, having seen a number of run-first QBs succeed.

 

The funny thing is, the same biases against run-first quarterbacks that were being exhibited by the pundits in the 90s exist today, and just like the 90s, they are completely misplaced in college football. Run-first QBs can succeed today, just like they could then.

 

The most successful class in college football history, the Huskers who went 60-3 in their five-year careers, came from a run-first offensive philosophy. And they did it in an era where it was "impossible" to succeed doing it that way.

 

I think that's a very, very good point.

 

The old geezers like me don't overly worry about Tmart's passing qualities because we've seen NU for decades crush opponents like bugs with qbs like Crouch, Frazier, Frost, etc who were all at best marginal pocket passers. Actually "very" marginal. Their passing stats while small were efficient due to them only having to hit wide-open wrs on PA that simply didn't require a Joe Montana. Oh boy, they were WIDE open so frequently. Yeah, Tmart isn't going to be a D. Marino but can he pass the ball as well as those guys? No sweat.....

 

The younger posters haven't seen those offenses steamroll opponents into dust and so of course go what they've seen in the Callahan & SW years (last seven years). For that they're perfectly correct that a good pocket passer is essential to success and a Tmart would be hopeless. Again, for the WCO or something similar they're probably on the money.

 

No one knows what kind of offense we'll run but by all indications we'll be a run-first scheme that hangs our hat on being able to do just that. "If" that's true, a good pocket passer like Z. Taylor just couldn't hack it. But if not, he could excel.

 

I really think that's a major pivot point that we all argue about our qbs strengths or downfalls.. Heh, as we don't really know for sure what we're gonna run it's probable none of us will change our minds.

 

 

GBR!!