Recent Recruiting Success & Failure

[cm husker]

My whole problem with that spin on Epley's comments, which I think taken some of his statements well out of context, is that NU has been competitive during the past 7 years. NC championship competitive? No.

Way to trash current players.

You've never really understood nuanced arguments, so I can't blame you for translating them into something you can understand, to borrow a paraphrase.

I've never said players are beyond critique. But critiques should be accurate and also respectful in tone. Placing most or even half of the blame for 6-7 on the players (or 5-7 back in '05) is scapegoating them in an effort to keep up hope.

It really boils down to two perspectives: this season is a result of players like Armstrong failed to execute or a belief that it is mainly a result of the coaches, on average, failing to put the players in a position that improved their chances of successful execution.

As to talent, I think this roster had the talent to easily win the B10W this year and compete well for a B10 title (as evidenced by the fact we actually had the talent to beat the eventual champ). I don't think odds would have favored winning in the playoff.

It seems many on the board disagree with that assessment of our talent level (and seem to think this was, at best, an 7-5 type team) Do you agree with my assessment or the other?

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Your definition of "facts" never ceases to crack me up.

Feel free to post the stats that refute those posted previously.

You're actually the one making a claim, and the way that conversations like this work is that you provide the evidence for claims made. It's your job to prove that you're actually speaking accurately before it's anyone else's job to prove that you're full of sh#t.

Guy Chamberlin, is another hallmark of teenage girl esque behavior completely ignoring vast amounts of topics that don't fit someone's self image, only to come swooping in out of the blue the second they sniff the chance at making another trolling contrarian point without anything to back it up? Just wondering.

Ive posted the numbers repeatedly. No one addresses them; they just keep repeating that Armstrong is an awful decision maker. Feel free to search for them. A key term would be Anderson. Or try interception ratio.

In a couple posts you are about to whine about people mischaracterizing what you say.

Since you're so good at the detective work, you can trace most of these "debates" to a gross mischaracterization you made in the first place, typically using words like "always" "never" and "awful" that nobody else is actually using.

Dude, I saw the stats about the poor statistical performances of OSU quarterbacks their first year in Riley's system. Nobody is running away from this startling revelation. It's such a tortured bit of blame throwing it's hard to know where to begin. Even the most rudimentary analysis would provide the stats and context for first year QBs on other teams. You think passing offenses are too complicated for simple prairie folk to pull off. We get it.

Tommy Armstrong was a third year starter running a very similar system to the previous year, where he exhibited the same promising but maddening tendencies under a different coaching staff, led by a coach hand picked by Tom Osborne.

Seems pretty clear to me that Mike Riley is tool of the Illuminati. Unless you can prove otherwise.

 

[cm husker]

A problem apparently shared by 11 other first time starters in that system, including at least a couple of NFL caliber guys.

Facts are facts.

I appreciate Tommy for taking it upon himself, but, historically speaking, there's not a lot of evidence that another first timer in the system would have had more success (in fact, no others did, even though most had the benefit of teammates that had been in the system for a while).

How many other 1st year starters under Riley were 4th year Junior (2 year starters) and how many were playing their first season of bullets flying live game action?

I dont have a dog in this fight Im just curious to see if that has been addressed before.

I think I put it in the original post, but I'd have to look back. As I recall, at least Derek Anderson was a two year starter prior to Riley arriving. Many others on the list had experience as backups prior to assuming the reigns as a starter. I believe there were two freshman starters (one true and one redshirt).

Search "mannion" under my posts, and it should come up. He was one of the freshman (a redshirt who threw 18 picks in 10 games his first season).

I think it's fair to compare the first year starters because Armstrong was seeing the terminology and scheme for the first time, as were his teammates, which isn't the case for any of the other players, except Anderson and the guy who was QB in Riley's first OSU stint.

 

[cm husker]

Your definition of "facts" never ceases to crack me up.

Feel free to post the stats that refute those posted previously.

You're actually the one making a claim, and the way that conversations like this work is that you provide the evidence for claims made. It's your job to prove that you're actually speaking accurately before it's anyone else's job to prove that you're full of sh#t.

Guy Chamberlin, is another hallmark of teenage girl esque behavior completely ignoring vast amounts of topics that don't fit someone's self image, only to come swooping in out of the blue the second they sniff the chance at making another trolling contrarian point without anything to back it up? Just wondering.

Ive posted the numbers repeatedly. No one addresses them; they just keep repeating that Armstrong is an awful decision maker. Feel free to search for them. A key term would be Anderson. Or try interception ratio.

In a couple posts you are about to whine about people mischaracterizing what you say.

Since you're so good at the detective work, you can trace most of these "debates" to a gross mischaracterization you made in the first place, typically using words like "always" "never" and "awful" that nobody else is actually using.

Dude, I saw the stats about the poor statistical performances of OSU quarterbacks their first year in Riley's system. Nobody is running away from this startling revelation. It's such a tortured bit of blame throwing it's hard to know where to begin. Even the most rudimentary analysis would provide the stats and context for first year QBs on other teams. You think passing offenses are too complicated for simple prairie folk to pull off. We get it.

Tommy Armstrong was a third year starter running a very similar system to the previous year, where he exhibited the same promising but maddening tendencies under a different coaching staff, led by a coach hand picked by Tom Osborne.

Seems pretty clear to me that Mike Riley is tool of the Illuminati. Unless you can prove otherwise.

You keep claiming the systems are similar. They aren't.
The point of my posts isn't that only first year Riley QBs struggle. It's that relative to all other first year Riley QBs, Armstrong actually struggled the least. That raises concerns, because, apparently, Armstrong was not up to par and we need a POB to come to the rescue in the eyes of many (or, the claim is at least that we will do much better once Riley has a QB that fits his system).

Your exasperated exaggerations are quite revealing.

 

[cm husker]

And for the record, though I thought Beck did a lot of good things as an OC here, I would have liked to have seen him move toward the 65%+ run to pass ratio even more than he did. The thing I did like about his system, for college QBs, is that it cut down on the number of reads, and by employing a mobile QB threat, it consistently required D's to roll a guy down out of coverage (therefore making reads even easier, especially out of play action).

It's not that I hate the forward pass. I just think that the pro style principles, that rely mainly on match ups and pre-snap reads/adjustments is a bit harder to execute than what we see a lot of teams moving toward (and what TO pioneered).

 

[Redux]

A problem apparently shared by 11 other first time starters in that system, including at least a couple of NFL caliber guys.

Facts are facts.

I appreciate Tommy for taking it upon himself, but, historically speaking, there's not a lot of evidence that another first timer in the system would have had more success (in fact, no others did, even though most had the benefit of teammates that had been in the system for a while).

How many other 1st year starters under Riley were 4th year Junior (2 year starters) and how many were playing their first season of bullets flying live game action?I dont have a dog in this fight Im just curious to see if that has been addressed before.

I think I put it in the original post, but I'd have to look back. As I recall, at least Derek Anderson was a two year starter prior to Riley arriving. Many others on the list had experience as backups prior to assuming the reigns as a starter. I believe there were two freshman starters (one true and one redshirt).

Search "mannion" under my posts, and it should come up. He was one of the freshman (a redshirt who threw 18 picks in 10 games his first season).

I think it's fair to compare the first year starters because Armstrong was seeing the terminology and scheme for the first time, as were his teammates, which isn't the case for any of the other players, except Anderson and the guy who was QB in Riley's first OSU stint.

It's not fair to compare Tommy because Tommy is at a program with better talent, in a new system that requires the QB to throw (I know I know, brain surgery level difficulty), and he has always struggled to make good decisions. Meanwhile you are comparing him to QB's on teams with scarce talent to protect them.

 

[BigRedBuster]

My whole problem with that spin on Epley's comments, which I think taken some of his statements well out of context, is that NU has been competitive during the past 7 years. NC championship competitive? No.

Way to trash current players.

You've never really understood nuanced arguments, so I can't blame you for translating them into something you can understand, to borrow a paraphrase.

I've never said players are beyond critique. But critiques should be accurate and also respectful in tone. Placing most or even half of the blame for 6-7 on the players (or 5-7 back in '05) is scapegoating them in an effort to keep up hope.

It really boils down to two perspectives: this season is a result of players like Armstrong failed to execute or a belief that it is mainly a result of the coaches, on average, failing to put the players in a position that improved their chances of successful execution.

As to talent, I think this roster had the talent to easily win the B10W this year and compete well for a B10 title (as evidenced by the fact we actually had the talent to beat the eventual champ). I don't think odds would have favored winning in the playoff.

It seems many on the board disagree with that assessment of our talent level (and seem to think this was, at best, an 7-5 type team) Do you agree with my assessment or the other?

BS......

Anytime someone says something about TAs decision making (something that the coaches on the last staff and this staff have commented on) your first reaction is...."Stop trashing the player".

TAs decision making is simply something that needs to improve for us to be as successful as we all want to be. That doesn't matter if he was playing in the last staff's system or the new system. It's just a plain fact his decision making is suspect with the ball.

Heck....I would guess that even if you asked HIM, he would say the same thing.

So...what it boils down to....in your mind if someone says something critiquing a player...they are "trashing the current players". But, if you say the something, it's...."simply critiquing".

You're catching crap about this from multiple people because of all your preaching to people acting like you know soooo much better about how to talk about these things.

But...hey.....you're the ex college player so I guess we all don't know anything....and...I almost forgot....you've read all of TOs books.

 

[cm husker]

Armstrong's decision making this past year was consistent with (or, arguably, better than) all other first year QBs in a Coach Riley system.

Take from that what you will about Armstrong and/or the system.

P.s. Every player would/should always say they need to and can improve. That's a given. The question when assessing performance is not to decide whether improvement is desired but where the existing performance ranks against other benchmarks.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I've never said players are beyond critique. But critiques should be accurate and also respectful in tone.

So...let me ask you this....

What players do you think need to improve for us to be as successful as we want to me?

Of course....put it in a respectful tone.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Armstrong's decision making this past year was consistent with (or, arguably, better than) all other first year QBs in a Coach Riley system.

Take from that what you will about Armstrong and/or the system.

That has absolutely nothing to do with someone saying his decision making needs to improve.

He can need to improve AND be better than the other QBs in their first year....those two things are not mutually exclusive.

And....nothing about that is not in a disrespectful tone.

 

[BigRedBuster]

P.s. Every player would/should always say they need to and can improve. That's a given. The question when assessing performance is not to decide whether improvement is desired but where the existing performance ranks against other benchmarks.

Fine....

I'll use the bench mark as comparing him to himself in the last staff along with TM.

Both amazing athletes that have the ability to do great things. But....both needed or still need to improve their decision making.

Nothing about that is disrespectful. I'm a big fan of both players.

 

[cm husker]

I've never said players are beyond critique. But critiques should be accurate and also respectful in tone.

So...let me ask you this....
What players do you think need to improve for us to be as successful as we want to me?

Of course....put it in a respectful tone.

Why are you being so disingenuous?

Many people on this board say, in effect, this offense was limited by poor decision making and lack of execution by the quarterback (and often the OL).

What they ignore is the fundamental questions of: (1) is this system suited to be productive in NE, and (2) did the coaches do a good job of teaching and then calling the system in a way that would put the players in a position to be successful?

My only point is, our struggles last year may be a reflection of fundamental flaws in underlying system and people teaching it than the failures of a player or group of players. Based on history, NU's player (and players) performed consistently with all other players in a Riley system.

We see the coaching thing maybe more on the defensive side, where coaches didn't have consistent terminology for players.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

It really boils down to two perspectives: this season is a result of players like Armstrong failed to execute or a belief that it is mainly a result of the coaches, on average, failing to put the players in a position that improved their chances of successful execution.
As to talent, I think this roster had the talent to easily win the B10W this year and compete well for a B10 title (as evidenced by the fact we actually had the talent to beat the eventual champ). I don't think odds would have favored winning in the playoff.

See, you don't get to make the case for nuance, and then immediately make the most un-nuanced declaration possible.

It really boils down to a new coach replacing a fired coach and the adjustment period for both players and coaches proving more difficult than was hoped or expected. It boiled down to some bad luck, mismanaged debacles, near misses and our first victory over a Top 5 team in years. It boiled down to a very weird season that ended on an upswing, and with a nice and not-at-all overhyped recruiting class and staff upgrades, some posters around here are engaging in nuanced optimism.

I don't know what world you live in where "Tommy Armstrong needs to make smarter decisions" is scapegoating to protect Mike Riley, but that's a lonely place to live.

Come join us. We're not naive. We're not necessarily in disagreement. Just burnt out on your agenda and tactics.

 

[cm husker]

P.s. Every player would/should always say they need to and can improve. That's a given. The question when assessing performance is not to decide whether improvement is desired but where the existing performance ranks against other benchmarks.

Fine....
I'll use the bench mark as comparing him to himself in the last staff along with TM.

Both amazing athletes that have the ability to do great things. But....both needed or still need to improve their decision making.

Nothing about that is disrespectful. I'm a big fan of both players.

Martinez improved every year. His junior year was quite good and he was off to a great start his senior year.

It's unfair to expect Tom Brady level decision making out of a college QB. Or even college level Andrew Luck. If that's what we need to make this system tick, we are in deep trouble regarding hitting the stated championship goals.

 

[Redux]

I've never said players are beyond critique. But critiques should be accurate and also respectful in tone.

So...let me ask you this....
What players do you think need to improve for us to be as successful as we want to me?

Of course....put it in a respectful tone.

What they ignore is the fundamental questions of: (1) is this system suited to be productive in NE

This is why so many can't take your argument seriously.

With the right staff, the right players and the right chemistry it doesn't matter what system is being run. If you have those three things, you will be successful regardless of system. Just because this is BRASKA doesn't mean we have to be married to a zone read run the ball 95% of the time offense.

I assume your stubborness on this ideal is directly related to the fact you played in a different system.