Armstrong update

[trouble]

The defense is a dumpster fire, BUT YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO PUT THE DEFENSE IN sh**ty POSITIONS BECAUSE YOU CAN't PRODUCE ON OFFENSE.

We got away with a dumpster fire of an offense in 09/'10 because of some of our players on defense(experienced and talented.), we cannot get away with it this year because of all the youth that will make some mistakes.

So being #28 in the country last year, scoring 35 points per game (including 30 or more points in our four losses last year) equates to "can't produce on offense." Got it.

And handing the defense a 21-3 lead midway through the second quarter against UCLA - all three TDs which came on brilliant passes by Martinez - that's also "can't produce on offense." Understood.

And being the #15 scoring offense in the country and #9 rushing offense in the country is obviously a dumpster fire.

Obviously your reading comprehension could be better.

The dumpster fire offense was 2009. 2010 was still bad regardless of the #15 and #8. That offense wasn't as good as those stats look.

 

[Mavric]

Obviously your reading comprehension could be better.

The dumpster fire offense was 2009 and 2010.

The defense is a dumpster fire, BUT YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO PUT THE DEFENSE IN sh**ty POSITIONS BECAUSE YOU CAN't PRODUCE ON OFFENSE.

We got away with a dumpster fire of an offense in 09/'10 because of some of our players on defense(experienced and talented.), we cannot get away with it this year because of all the youth that will make some mistakes.

Or it's your memory/writing ability. "we cannot get away with it this year" leaves two options:

- You're ignoring that we don't have to worry about getting away with it this year because our offense, while not perfect, has been very good.

- You're just babbling on and throwing s#!t against the wall hoping something will sound like you're making a valid argument.

 

[RedPhoenix]

I think that's likely just because the defense has been bad for the past couple of years. It's old news. Now they're still struggling, but there seem to be some signs of hope. So the predominant sentiment is low expectations based on a couple of years of struggles combined with hope that things seem to be getting somewhat better and that there's hope that as the youngsters get more experience they could actually be pretty good.
With Martinez, I think people hoped he would develop into a better and more consistent player than he has. As a fourth year starter, I think people hoped that he would have outgrown the mental errors and figured out a way to reduce his turnovers. We have a ton of weapons on offense now and just need someone to get them the ball consistently. I think Armstrong is better at that than Martinez. I see Martinez as a sort of boom or bust sandlot player. He's wired like Brett Favre, to be a high risk/high reward kind of player. When your offense is struggling and lacks playmakers, there's a value to having a guy like that. As you have more weapons, the risks start to outweigh the rewards. Then you're better off with a consistent game manager who can find ways to get the ball in the hands of your playmakers. So I think the offense has outgrown Martinez and that we're better off with Armstrong running the show.

But regardless, the topic is far more current and interesting than dissecting for the 300th time why the defense is still struggling.

I WAS going to post a nice long post describing my thoughts but instead ill just reply with... Yeah..What HE said.

Great post.

 

[trouble]

Obviously your reading comprehension could be better.

The dumpster fire offense was 2009 and 2010.

The defense is a dumpster fire, BUT YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO PUT THE DEFENSE IN sh**ty POSITIONS BECAUSE YOU CAN't PRODUCE ON OFFENSE.

We got away with a dumpster fire of an offense in 09/'10 because of some of our players on defense(experienced and talented.), we cannot get away with it this year because of all the youth that will make some mistakes.

Or it's your memory/writing ability. "we cannot get away with it this year" leaves two options:

- You're ignoring that we don't have to worry about getting away with it this year because our offense, while not perfect, has been very good.

- You're just babbling on and throwing s#!t against the wall hoping something will sound like you're making a valid argument.

Do some of you just suck at reading or what?

I'm not bitching about the offense as a whole this year. I'm talking about the UCLA game, you know, that one game we lost because our offense couldn't sustain a drive longer than 2 minutes or score in the last two and a half quarters? Our defense surely had issues but I'm not absolving the offense of that total ******** they put on those two quarters.

Our offense has very much improved the last 3 years, but if our offense is containing a UNHEALTHY Martinez, it's not that good.

The only damn thing Im arguing is how that UCLA game wasn't entirely the defenses fault. It lies on that offense too, which in turn lies on the coaches for throwing an injured Martinez out there.

It doesn't matter if you score 50 points in 11 games, that doesn't automatically make you disregard that one game that you scored 10 and got your a$$ beat.

Go through my posts, I'm for the most part a total sunshine pumper when it comes to NU football, but I can also tell when it's not just one part of the teams fault.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The offense has been improving since Beck took over and there has been no drop off since TA took over but I agree, that UCLA game was horrendous offensively and made it very hard for our young defense to gather themselves.

When you're trying to figure out if the offense or defense was more to blame in a meltdown, it usually goes to the coaching staff. Motivation, focus and discipline are teamwide traits, and it's really been at the heart of Nebraska's frustrating losses, moreso than playcalling or an individual performance.

 

[trouble]

The offense has been improving since Beck took over and there has been no drop off since TA took over but I agree, that UCLA game was horrendous offensively and made it very hard for our young defense to gather themselves.

When you're trying to figure out if the offense or defense was more to blame in a meltdown, it usually goes to the coaching staff. Motivation, focus and discipline are teamwide traits, and it's really been at the heart of Nebraska's frustrating losses, moreso than playcalling or an individual performance.

Can't really disagree with that.

Coaching staff put out a QB whos' injury took away his biggest strength.

I'm glad they have learned their lesson on doing that.

Disclaimer: I'm not throwing Bo and Co. under the bus, as Im not on that hate train, but that was a mistake.

 

[knapplc]

Our offense has very much improved the last 3 years, but if our offense is containing a UNHEALTHY Martinez, it's not that good.

The only damn thing Im arguing is how that UCLA game wasn't entirely the defenses fault. It lies on that offense too, which in turn lies on the coaches for throwing an injured Martinez out there.

How big of a lead should the offense have spotted the defense before it stops being the offense's fault we lost that game? 18 points clearly wasn't enough.

Should it have been 24?

30?

35?

Because none of those numbers would have sufficed. The defense gave up 38 unanswered points. The Martinez-led offense would have had to give the defense a six-touchdown cushion the way they just quit in that game.

That's completely unrealistic.

 

[Mavric]

The offense has been improving since Beck took over and there has been no drop off since TA took over but I agree, that UCLA game was horrendous offensively and made it very hard for our young defense to gather themselves.

When you're trying to figure out if the offense or defense was more to blame in a meltdown, it usually goes to the coaching staff. Motivation, focus and discipline are teamwide traits, and it's really been at the heart of Nebraska's frustrating losses, moreso than playcalling or an individual performance.

Not saying you're wrong, but do we then give most of the credit to the coaching staff for keeping the team going and fighting and the ability to engineer several great comeback wins?

 

[trouble]

Our offense has very much improved the last 3 years, but if our offense is containing a UNHEALTHY Martinez, it's not that good.

The only damn thing Im arguing is how that UCLA game wasn't entirely the defenses fault. It lies on that offense too, which in turn lies on the coaches for throwing an injured Martinez out there.

How big of a lead should the offense have spotted the defense before it stops being the offense's fault we lost that game? 18 points clearly wasn't enough.

Should it have been 24?

30?

35?

Because none of those numbers would have sufficed. The defense gave up 38 unanswered points. The Martinez-led offense would have had to give the defense a six-touchdown cushion the way they just quit in that game.

That's completely unrealistic.

If the offense sustained one or two drives, let the defense catch their breath and regroup, that game would have been completely different. I can't understand how you can defend that absolutely terrible offensive performance the second half. Or how about the offense sustaining just a FOUR MINUTE drive at the end of the first half instead of two 3 and outs? How about not going 3 and out 5 out of the last 9 drives of the game? How many teams have an offense sputter like that against good teams and still win? Not many, no matter how good or bad the defense is.

i'm not asking the offense to go out and score every possession, thats unrealistic, but can I get a score at some point in 10 drives? This shouldn't be tough, considering the offense is one of the best in the B1G. I'm sorry, but the offensive performance in the latter part of the UCLA game can't be defended. Your complete overlook of that is biased as hell.

 

[knapplc]

If the offense sustained one or two drives, let the defense catch their breath and regroup, that game would have been completely different. I can't understand how you can defend that absolutely terrible offensive performance the second half. Or how about the offense sustaining just a FOUR MINUTE drive at the end of the first half instead of two 3 and outs? How about not going 3 and out 5 out of the last 9 drives of the game? How many teams have an offense sputter like that against good teams and still win? Not many, no matter how good or bad the defense is.

i'm not asking the offense to go out and score every possession, thats unrealistic, but can I get a score at some point in 10 drives? This shouldn't be tough, considering the offense is one of the best in the B1G. I'm sorry, but the offensive performance in the latter part of the UCLA game can't be defended. Your complete overlook of that is biased as hell.

I'm not defending the offense's performance in the second half. They went scoreless, and that sucked. But that is entirely irrelevant to the far greater problem of our defense giving up 38 points when spotted an 18-point lead, including 28 points and 248 yards in an 11-minute stretch of one quarter.

So what if the offense gets a score in one of those ten drives? It wouldn't have been enough when the defense utterly collapsed. Let's say the offense gets two TDs in that span - still not enough.

With an 18-point lead, a VERY loud crowd and an opponent on their heels that defense shouldn't have needed anything from anyone to win that game.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Sigh...

Taylor Martinez has been at the helm for some of Nebraska's greatest comebacks in school history. For the past year(s), he's been at the helm of one of the nation's most productive offenses. He holds a numerous amount of Husker records. He has been one of our best players on the team since he's started at QB.

But you can't accurately evaluate a player without looking at both the good and the bad. He has at times committed mistakes that have been the beginning of but not the only reason for the blowout losses.

It is fair to say that Taylor receives a whole lot more criticism than any other unit on our team, especially for the losses. Probably because his mistakes are a lot easier to criticize and quantify than the defense.

 

[jmfb]

If the offense sustained one or two drives, let the defense catch their breath and regroup, that game would have been completely different. I can't understand how you can defend that absolutely terrible offensive performance the second half. Or how about the offense sustaining just a FOUR MINUTE drive at the end of the first half instead of two 3 and outs? How about not going 3 and out 5 out of the last 9 drives of the game? How many teams have an offense sputter like that against good teams and still win? Not many, no matter how good or bad the defense is.

i'm not asking the offense to go out and score every possession, thats unrealistic, but can I get a score at some point in 10 drives? This shouldn't be tough, considering the offense is one of the best in the B1G. I'm sorry, but the offensive performance in the latter part of the UCLA game can't be defended. Your complete overlook of that is biased as hell.

I'm not defending the offense's performance in the second half. They went scoreless, and that sucked. But that is entirely irrelevant to the far greater problem of our defense giving up 38 points when spotted an 18-point lead, including 28 points and 248 yards in an 11-minute stretch of one quarter.

So what if the offense gets a score in one of those ten drives? It wouldn't have been enough when the defense utterly collapsed. Let's say the offense gets two TDs in that span - still not enough.

With an 18-point lead, a VERY loud crowd and an opponent on their heels that defense shouldn't have needed anything from anyone to win that game.

Thats not the whole story

When you get the defense off the field to regroup and get a breather- that helps the defense, and there are fewer possessions for the other teams offense.

When you get the defense good field position, that helps the defense

Like you always say, it's a team game- both work together

Defense was awful, offense didnt help matters from midpoint of 2nd quarter in.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

If the offense sustained one or two drives, let the defense catch their breath and regroup, that game would have been completely different. I can't understand how you can defend that absolutely terrible offensive performance the second half. Or how about the offense sustaining just a FOUR MINUTE drive at the end of the first half instead of two 3 and outs? How about not going 3 and out 5 out of the last 9 drives of the game? How many teams have an offense sputter like that against good teams and still win? Not many, no matter how good or bad the defense is.

i'm not asking the offense to go out and score every possession, thats unrealistic, but can I get a score at some point in 10 drives? This shouldn't be tough, considering the offense is one of the best in the B1G. I'm sorry, but the offensive performance in the latter part of the UCLA game can't be defended. Your complete overlook of that is biased as hell.

I'm not defending the offense's performance in the second half. They went scoreless, and that sucked. But that is entirely irrelevant to the far greater problem of our defense giving up 38 points when spotted an 18-point lead, including 28 points and 248 yards in an 11-minute stretch of one quarter.

So what if the offense gets a score in one of those ten drives? It wouldn't have been enough when the defense utterly collapsed. Let's say the offense gets two TDs in that span - still not enough.

With an 18-point lead, a VERY loud crowd and an opponent on their heels that defense shouldn't have needed anything from anyone to win that game.

Momentum is a powerful thing. An offensive score would have probably slowed UCLAs production. It's hard to think that it would if you look at it without any regard to momentum.

Again, not to say that the defense didn't do anything to slow UCLAs momentum.

 

[knapplc]

If the offense sustained one or two drives, let the defense catch their breath and regroup, that game would have been completely different. I can't understand how you can defend that absolutely terrible offensive performance the second half. Or how about the offense sustaining just a FOUR MINUTE drive at the end of the first half instead of two 3 and outs? How about not going 3 and out 5 out of the last 9 drives of the game? How many teams have an offense sputter like that against good teams and still win? Not many, no matter how good or bad the defense is.

i'm not asking the offense to go out and score every possession, thats unrealistic, but can I get a score at some point in 10 drives? This shouldn't be tough, considering the offense is one of the best in the B1G. I'm sorry, but the offensive performance in the latter part of the UCLA game can't be defended. Your complete overlook of that is biased as hell.

I'm not defending the offense's performance in the second half. They went scoreless, and that sucked. But that is entirely irrelevant to the far greater problem of our defense giving up 38 points when spotted an 18-point lead, including 28 points and 248 yards in an 11-minute stretch of one quarter.

So what if the offense gets a score in one of those ten drives? It wouldn't have been enough when the defense utterly collapsed. Let's say the offense gets two TDs in that span - still not enough.

With an 18-point lead, a VERY loud crowd and an opponent on their heels that defense shouldn't have needed anything from anyone to win that game.

Thats not the whole story

When you get the defense off the field to regroup and get a breather- that helps the defense, and there are fewer possessions for the other teams offense.

When you get the defense good field position, that helps the defense

Like you always say, it's a team game- both work together

Defense was awful, offense didnt help matters from midpoint of 2nd quarter in.

I'm providing the other half of the story. trouble and yourself are on about the offense in the UCLA game. That's one half of the story. I'm discussing the other - and far greater - problem in that game. Providing the other half of the story.

 

[knapplc]

Momentum is a powerful thing. An offensive score would have probably slowed UCLAs production. It's hard to think that it would if you look at it without any regard to momentum.

Case in point to jmfb. Again - it's not the offense's fault the defense took 2 1/2 quarters of the UCLA game off. No matter how you spin it.