Subbing in Tommy Armstrong this year?

[kchusker_chris]

I don't really care when he gets in there, so long as they are meaningful snaps. Lately it seems like when Carnes or someone would enter the game it would be 1 pass an 8 designed runs up the middle. If that's all we're going to do, might as well leave Taylor in there. It's doing little to no good. Gotta get the backups RBs reps too...but at least make it realistic.

There are what, 10-12 series a game maybe? TA should get 6 against Wyoming, 4 against Southern Miss, 4 against SD, 1-2 against Illini, 1-2 against Purdue, 2 against Minnesota, and maybe 1-2 more throughout the season. That's around 20 series (assuming Taylor isn't chasing the Heisman). As long as he doesn't have some stat line like 8-15, 45yrds. 3 rush attempts for 12 yards. 95 handoffs to our backup RBs...i'll be fine.

Much of that depends if the Offense can get a decent lead, and the defense can hold the other team down. I'm all for getting the backups work, but not at the expense of winning a game. For instance, last year, our backups threw 4 less passes than Alabama's. It's just something that's not done very much.

of course. i think we'll be able to blow out a few teams this year - which hasn't happened in quite a while. the athleticism on D will be enough to overmatch some of these opponents and make the D look better than it probably is.

and that's suprising w/ Alabama. They basically had 11 blowout wins (including the NC). that's kind of why I noted (if Taylor isn't chasing the Heisman) - because I think that will play into it a lot. he'll need numbers to have a chance...because we won't be winning an NC. so Bo needs to get him those numbers. sorry Tommy, in that instance.

 

[Saunders]

I don't really care when he gets in there, so long as they are meaningful snaps. Lately it seems like when Carnes or someone would enter the game it would be 1 pass an 8 designed runs up the middle. If that's all we're going to do, might as well leave Taylor in there. It's doing little to no good. Gotta get the backups RBs reps too...but at least make it realistic.

There are what, 10-12 series a game maybe? TA should get 6 against Wyoming, 4 against Southern Miss, 4 against SD, 1-2 against Illini, 1-2 against Purdue, 2 against Minnesota, and maybe 1-2 more throughout the season. That's around 20 series (assuming Taylor isn't chasing the Heisman). As long as he doesn't have some stat line like 8-15, 45yrds. 3 rush attempts for 12 yards. 95 handoffs to our backup RBs...i'll be fine.

Much of that depends if the Offense can get a decent lead, and the defense can hold the other team down. I'm all for getting the backups work, but not at the expense of winning a game. For instance, last year, our backups threw 4 less passes than Alabama's. It's just something that's not done very much.

of course. i think we'll be able to blow out a few teams this year - which hasn't happened in quite a while. the athleticism on D will be enough to overmatch some of these opponents and make the D look better than it probably is.

and that's suprising w/ Alabama. They basically had 11 blowout wins (including the NC). that's kind of why I noted (if Taylor isn't chasing the Heisman) - because I think that will play into it a lot. he'll need numbers to have a chance...because we won't be winning an NC. so Bo needs to get him those numbers. sorry Tommy, in that instance.

I sure hope so.

 

[Hooked on Huskers]

Northwestern was successful in two shared quarterbacks, Colter and Siemian.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Northwestern was successful in two shared quarterbacks, Colter and Siemian.

I didn't realize Northwestern won championships last year.

 

[The Dude]

Northwestern was successful in two shared quarterbacks, Colter and Siemian.

I didn't realize Northwestern won championships last year.

I'd say their first bowl victory since Truman was president constitutes a successful season, for them.*

*Knowing these boards, I feel compelled to clarify in advance that this does not imply Nebraska should run a 2-QB system.

 

[Hooked on Huskers]

Northwestern was successful in two shared quarterbacks, Colter and Siemian.

I didn't realize Northwestern won championships last year.

Final 2012 USAToday/Coaches poll

Northwestern: #16

Our Huskers: #23

 

[Count 'Bility]

If we sub in Tommy for some "meaningful" snaps in a game, and something goes wrong and we lose momentum and the game turns out being much closer than it should, or god forbid, we lose, this place and the entire state would be in meltdown mode. It would be torches and pitchforks outside the North stadium offices. Dont kid yourself.

As long as any game is even remotely in question, you play your best 11. EVERYONE DOES THIS. Okay. Maybe not ever......well, yes, everyone does this.

 

[The Dude]

If we sub in Tommy for some "meaningful" snaps in a game, and something goes wrong and we lose momentum and the game turns out being much closer than it should, or god forbid, we lose, this place and the entire state would be in meltdown mode. It would be torches and pitchforks outside the North stadium offices. Dont kid yourself.

As long as any game is even remotely in question, you play your best 11. EVERYONE DOES THIS. Okay. Maybe not ever......well, yes, everyone does this.

Is there a legitimate reason for concern that letting Armstrong get a series in the Wyoming, Southern Miss, and SDSU games could cost us a victory? If so, I think people are smart enough to deduce that we have bigger problems than letting the backup QB get a series.

And who cares about what everyone else does? That's the worst argument for anything.

 

[OH HSKR FAN]

Florida won the NC in 2006 with a two QB system. It can be done. Osborne rotated Frazier and Berringer in 95 Orange Bowl. Granted their were extenuating circumstances that led to that happening.

If the starter is playing well. Then by all means keep him in the game if the defense is not letting the team getting seperation. However, if the offense is stagnant perhaps a new signal caller can give the team a spark.

 

[Count 'Bility]

If we sub in Tommy for some "meaningful" snaps in a game, and something goes wrong and we lose momentum and the game turns out being much closer than it should, or god forbid, we lose, this place and the entire state would be in meltdown mode. It would be torches and pitchforks outside the North stadium offices. Dont kid yourself.

As long as any game is even remotely in question, you play your best 11. EVERYONE DOES THIS. Okay. Maybe not ever......well, yes, everyone does this.

Is there a legitimate reason for concern that letting Armstrong get a series in the Wyoming, Southern Miss, and SDSU games could cost us a victory? If so, I think people are smart enough to deduce that we have bigger problems than letting the backup QB get a series.

And who cares about what everyone else does? That's the worst argument for anything.

Because you just never know in college football now a days. Anyone can beat anybody on any given day. You put in a backup, he makes a mistake, the other team gets back in the game or even takes the lead, now they're starting to believe and you're still a little lackadazical and playing down to the competition a bit and then it could be a snowball.

As far as caring about what everyone else does, when it comes to something like this, it really does matter what everyone else does. Because in this instance if no one else is doing it, then it's obviously not a good idea.

Play the best guys, in all three phases at all positions until the game in undoubtedly in hand. Then the backups can get their snaps.

 

[The Dude]

If we sub in Tommy for some "meaningful" snaps in a game, and something goes wrong and we lose momentum and the game turns out being much closer than it should, or god forbid, we lose, this place and the entire state would be in meltdown mode. It would be torches and pitchforks outside the North stadium offices. Dont kid yourself.

As long as any game is even remotely in question, you play your best 11. EVERYONE DOES THIS. Okay. Maybe not ever......well, yes, everyone does this.

Is there a legitimate reason for concern that letting Armstrong get a series in the Wyoming, Southern Miss, and SDSU games could cost us a victory? If so, I think people are smart enough to deduce that we have bigger problems than letting the backup QB get a series.

And who cares about what everyone else does? That's the worst argument for anything.

Because you just never know in college football now a days. Anyone can beat anybody on any given day. You put in a backup, he makes a mistake, the other team gets back in the game or even takes the lead, now they're starting to believe and you're still a little lackadazical and playing down to the competition a bit and then it could be a snowball.

So no? There isn't a legitimate reason for concern? "You just never know" doesn't qualify.

As far as caring about what everyone else does, when it comes to something like this, it really does matter what everyone else does. Because in this instance if no one else is doing it, then it's obviously not a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[Count 'Bility]

If we sub in Tommy for some "meaningful" snaps in a game, and something goes wrong and we lose momentum and the game turns out being much closer than it should, or god forbid, we lose, this place and the entire state would be in meltdown mode. It would be torches and pitchforks outside the North stadium offices. Dont kid yourself.

As long as any game is even remotely in question, you play your best 11. EVERYONE DOES THIS. Okay. Maybe not ever......well, yes, everyone does this.

Is there a legitimate reason for concern that letting Armstrong get a series in the Wyoming, Southern Miss, and SDSU games could cost us a victory? If so, I think people are smart enough to deduce that we have bigger problems than letting the backup QB get a series.

And who cares about what everyone else does? That's the worst argument for anything.

Because you just never know in college football now a days. Anyone can beat anybody on any given day. You put in a backup, he makes a mistake, the other team gets back in the game or even takes the lead, now they're starting to believe and you're still a little lackadazical and playing down to the competition a bit and then it could be a snowball.

So no? There isn't a legitimate reason for concern? "You just never know" doesn't qualify.

As far as caring about what everyone else does, when it comes to something like this, it really does matter what everyone else does. Because in this instance if no one else is doing it, then it's obviously not a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia...ntum_ad_populum

I dont care what wiki says. Mama's right. You're wrong.

 

[The Dude]

Something's wrong with his medulla oblongata.

 

[Landlord]

There is a distinct and noticeable difference between a two-quarterback system and subbing in your 2nd string quarterback.

They aren't the same thing.

 

[NUinID]

Other than Brook B. and the OB in 1995. There is not many instances of NU playing 2 QBs for any other reason than injury or ineffectiveness. I think most of you have a jaded or rose colored glass view of how much the back up qb played in TO's hay day. No more than 3-4 games at most in a season, and TO wasn't putting anyone into the game until they were up at least 28pts. Tell me about all the times over the last 5 years that NU has been up by 28pts to get the back up QBs significant playing time.