Fyfe (nothing bad)

[BigRedBuster]

I personally thought Tommy looked great against Fresno as well. Let's not forget that this is a Fresno team that has given up 50+ points their first 3 games. When it's all said and done I feel much more confident with Tommy Armstrong going up against the likes of Miami, Michigan St., and Wisconsin over Ryker. He has the experience, and he's 10-1 as a starter. I like our QB situation it's good to know that we have a solid backup in Fyfe, but make no mistake Tommy is and should be the starter of this team.

tommie has the experience........but his passing skills are far from great...... staring down his receivers is a basic flaw that should be corrected in practice....doing this in game time will prove troublesome.

People act like Tommie stares down receivers on every play. In fact, he doesn't do it very often. Wh do Husker fans need to exaggerate flaws of our own players?

He doesn't do it every play but he does it A LOT, and usually at the most in opportune time. A la trying to force a deep ball when a check down gets you a first down and keeps the drive alive.

No he doesn't. He does it every once in a while. Just because he doesn't check down to a RB doesn't mean he stared down the receiver. Most passing plays he looks at multiple options or at least looks off the safety.

But, people make it sound like he does it constantly.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Im a huge fan of Tommy Armstrong and I think he has tremendous potential. But I heard something on overreaction the other night/morning from Matt Vrzal. He said flat out that he doesnt think Tommy is the qb by the end of the year. The other guys laughed and joked about him opening pandora's box and such. But then he went on his serious explanation. He says look, we all saw the fall practices. They were open to the media. We all know this qb "battle" was much closer than what folks are being lead to believe. And seeing what Beck is good at managing, and knowing the direction that Bo wants the offense to go, I just think we have the wrong guy managing it. There are other guys that fit that direction much better.

Just repeating what was said. Kind of a kick in the nuts for someone like me who's excited as hell about Tommy.

I would take Matt Vrzal's opinion about Ryker Fyfe with a huge grain of salt. They are both from Grand Island, so I am thinking Vrzal is sticking up for his GI boy.

True. But he never mentioned a particular althernative. Just what he thought. He could mean Stanton.

I saw the spring game as well, so I'm also under the assumption that if Stanton has the light turn on mentally and gets it between the ears, I believe he'll quickly blow past the other two and shoot to number 1 on the depth chart. It's happened before (Kiethen McCant)

There is a big difference between Stanton and Keithan McCant. Stanton is a RS Frosh, while McCant was a 5th year senior. Also, McCant just had to beat out Mickey Joseph who was coming off a terrible leg injury and Touchdown Tommy Haase.

I am not saying Stanton won't come back and eventually beat out Armstrong (this year or down the road), but your comparison doesn't make sense to me.

 

[cg_8]

People act like Tommie stares down receivers on every play. In fact, he doesn't do it very often. Wh do Husker fans need to exaggerate flaws of our own players?

He doesn't do it every play but he does it A LOT, and usually at the most in opportune time. A la trying to force a deep ball when a check down gets you a first down and keeps the drive alive.

No he doesn't. He does it every once in a while. Just because he doesn't check down to a RB doesn't mean he stared down the receiver. Most passing plays he looks at multiple options or at least looks off the safety.

But, people make it sound like he does it constantly.

Yes... I am glad someone said this. This is called a "coverage read" where you don't go through progressions. Where you go through progression is called a "progression read". You look at the coverage and if a defensive player (safety, for example) does this (move forward or backward) then you throw to this guy or this guy. These are dependent on the WR being on the same page as the QB. Of course, they should be since you learn that crap in high school.

Unfortunately, a WR made the wrong read on what could've been a TD for us against McNeese State. The ball was well overthrown. Why? Tommy made the right read, the safety moved forward. The WR went "under". He was supposed to go "over", so the ball looked like Tommy just over threw him because "OH, Tommy can't throw!" When in fact, the WR should have been where the ball was. The ball was well over thrown, but far from being picked off, showing that had the WR made the right read, he would have been in the right spot since no one was in coverage in that area.

 

[RedDenver]

I'd very much welcome Fyfe to prove me wrong, but if Tommy goes down, Stanton would have to be your long term answer I'd think.

Why? Because he was a highly touted recruit and fyfe is from GI?

Not at all. Simply upside potential as opposed to a lower ceiling with Fyfe. Like I said, I'd love for him to prove me wrong, but that's just what I see/feel, right, wrong, or indifferent.

By "Not at all," you really meant, "Yep, based on Stanton's hype as a highly touted recruit." Otherwise, what are you basing his "upside potential" on? And same thing for Fyfe having "a lower ceiling" - it's based on him being a walk-on.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

People on here blow a nut wondering why Tim Beck ever goes away from what is working.

Tommy to Westerkamp is working. Tommy to Bell is working. Now Tommy to Hovey and the tight ends is working. The passing game is working, All by its lonesome, and in its ability to open up the running game. Tommy Armstrong is working well, if not as perfectly as guys sitting on sofas are able to perform in their brains.

Barring injury, which can happen to anyone at anytime, are there people actively rooting for Stanton or Fyfe to take over mid-season?

 

[ColoradoHusk]

People on here blow a nut wondering why Tim Beck ever goes away from what is working.

Tommy to Westerkamp is working. Tommy to Bell is working. Now Tommy to Hovey and the tight ends is working. The passing game is working, All by its lonesome, and in its ability to open up the running game. Tommy Armstrong is working well, if not as perfectly as guys sitting on sofas are able to perform in their brains.

Barring injury, which can happen to anyone at anytime, are there people actively rooting for Stanton or Fyfe to take over mid-season?

+1

I know that Armstrong has made a few mistakes, but he has also played pretty well in the first 3 games. He could end up being a complete failure, but based on the first 3 games this season, I don't see any reason why there are fans calling for more Ryker Fyfe. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[Branno]

I love that this thread, instead of celebrating that we have a competent back up quarterback, has become a circle jerk arguing against the strawman argument that anyone would want to replace Tommy Armstrong with Ryker Fyfe.

 

[74Hunter]

If Fyfe can read defenses, make accurate short throws and go through progressions well vs live fire FBS competition, well, I'll believe it when I see it.

How does that make him any different than TA?

 

[BigRedBuster]

I'd very much welcome Fyfe to prove me wrong, but if Tommy goes down, Stanton would have to be your long term answer I'd think.

Why? Because he was a highly touted recruit and fyfe is from GI?

Not at all. Simply upside potential as opposed to a lower ceiling with Fyfe. Like I said, I'd love for him to prove me wrong, but that's just what I see/feel, right, wrong, or indifferent.

By "Not at all," you really meant, "Yep, based on Stanton's hype as a highly touted recruit." Otherwise, what are you basing his "upside potential" on? And same thing for Fyfe having "a lower ceiling" - it's based on him being a walk-on from central Nebraska.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I watched the game again last night. Most of Tommy's incompletions were actually pretty smart, the same incompletions NFL qbs throw every game. Some came from the higher degree of difficulty, like the deep ball Alonzo Moore almost caught and a quick crossing pattern here and there. Can't recall a throw that was plain stupid or lousy. And every time an RB is wide open in the flat doesn't mean Tommy is missing a wide-open receiver, it can mean the RB was a check down option and the primary receiver may have been open for a potentially big gain. If Tommy wasn't completing 70 yard touchdowns to Jordan Westerkamp, you might have a case.

Also, Tommy's yards per attempt is considerably better than his predecessor. Better than most quarterbacks in the NCAA at the moment. That's a pretty good measure of overall effectiveness, if you can get past the modest percentage.

Things will get tougher for Tommy, but they got tougher when he was a Freshman last year and he held his own. By all accounts he's gotten better. Again, he's in the Top 10 for Total Offense in the frikking nation.

I can imagine everyone's numbers getting better if they do everything better, but I'm at a loss as to how speculating on Tommy Armstrong's replacement helps anything.

 

[knapplc]

I love that this thread, instead of celebrating that we have a competent back up quarterback, has become a circle jerk arguing against the strawman argument that anyone would want to replace Tommy Armstrong with Ryker Fyfe.

We have no idea if we have a competent backup quarterback. We've seen Fyfe look pretty good in the Spring Game and not too shabby in mop-up duty in two blowouts. Here's hoping he's even better than he looked there, because we'll need better if we're going to accomplish anything if Tommy gets hurt. At this point, we have no idea if Fyfe is competent from the get-go.

 

[HuskerShark]

I'd very much welcome Fyfe to prove me wrong, but if Tommy goes down, Stanton would have to be your long term answer I'd think.

Why? Because he was a highly touted recruit and fyfe is from GI?

Not at all. Simply upside potential as opposed to a lower ceiling with Fyfe. Like I said, I'd love for him to prove me wrong, but that's just what I see/feel, right, wrong, or indifferent.

I think his question was basically, what are you basing that "see/feel" on?

You guys realize that he's not like most recruits we get where all we have is the highlight film, right? He was in the Elite 11 QB camp where he performed extremely well and Trent Dilfer raved about his ability. That would be basically where I draw my opinions from.

 

[Branno]

I love that this thread, instead of celebrating that we have a competent back up quarterback, has become a circle jerk arguing against the strawman argument that anyone would want to replace Tommy Armstrong with Ryker Fyfe.

We have no idea if we have a competent backup quarterback. We've seen Fyfe look pretty good in the Spring Game and not too shabby in mop-up duty in two blowouts. Here's hoping he's even better than he looked there, because we'll need better if we're going to accomplish anything if Tommy gets hurt. At this point, we have no idea if Fyfe is competent from the get-go.

Mop-up time against Fresno State's 1st string defense, you do remember that they left their starters in the whole game right? I'm not saying the guy is gonna start on Sundays, but he looks like a pretty good backup. I still have no idea where the nonsense "why do you guys want Fyfe as the starter" came from.

 

[sd'sker]

I love that this thread, instead of celebrating that we have a competent back up quarterback, has become a circle jerk arguing against the strawman argument that anyone would want to replace Tommy Armstrong with Ryker Fyfe.

We have no idea if we have a competent backup quarterback. We've seen Fyfe look pretty good in the Spring Game and not too shabby in mop-up duty in two blowouts. Here's hoping he's even better than he looked there, because we'll need better if we're going to accomplish anything if Tommy gets hurt. At this point, we have no idea if Fyfe is competent from the get-go.

Mop-up time against Fresno State's 1st string defense, you do remember that they left their starters in the whole game right? I'm not saying the guy is gonna start on Sundays, but he looks like a pretty good backup. I still have no idea where the nonsense "why do you guys want Fyfe as the starter" came from.

i just thought it was weird to be so high on fyfe with such little evidence and so critical of tommy when he is producing good numbers and wins. i mean, he is now 10-1 as a starter.

 

[knapplc]

Actually, I've made the "Fyfe as the starter" argument before (way back in some other thread). Not what I was intending to do there, though.

Not necessarily Ryker Fyfe, but a quite-competent passer. If that's Fyfe, great. If that's Stanton, great. Don't really care about the name on the jersey.

In that earlier discussion, I said we have more than enough RBs to carry the load, and with the talent we have at WR (like this Hovey kid who came out of nowhere - who knew?!?) it would be a shame if we weren't fully utilizing our WR talents.

If Tommy keeps moving the offense to the tune of 400+ yards and 30+ points a game, there's no reason to make a change. But if we get bogged down, and we need to pass and he's not effective, gotta move to the next man up.

I like Tommy a lot, but I'm not "100% he's gotta start all the time HURRRRR!" or anything.