Tommy A. - And various other Husker QBs

[BigRedBuster]

Crouch, Frost and Jamaal Lord were the kind of passers who would make you yearn for Tommy Armstrong.

I think that's the reason they ran more often.

True...and our WR group is light years ahead of our WRs back then as far as being threats catching the ball.

 

[Savage Husker]

Crouch, Frost and Jamaal Lord were the kind of passers who would make you yearn for Tommy Armstrong.

I think that's the reason they ran more often.

True...and our WR group is light years ahead of our WRs back then as far as being threats catching the ball.

Edit: Double Post

 

[Savage Husker]

Crouch, Frost and Jamaal Lord were the kind of passers who would make you yearn for Tommy Armstrong.

I think that's the reason they ran more often.

True...and our WR group is light years ahead of our WRs back then as far as being threats catching the ball.

It looked as if Frost took his mom's T/F background and applied the shot put mechanics to throwing a football.

I sometimes wonder if Tommy was in favor of slinging the ball around 30+ times a game last year.

I just want him to quit the gunslinger mentality and play smart. If he can do that, we will have a great year.

I sometimes wonder if Tommy was in favor of slinging the ball around 30+ times a game last year.

I just want him to quit the gunslinger mentality and play smart. If he can do that, we will have a great year.

Hopefully the Manning camp rubs off on him more than the one-on-ones with Favre.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Favre was certainly a master gunslinger, but he was also quick to make the 6 yard checkdown pass when he didn't like what was happening downfield.

That's a lesson that could really help Tommy, and I'm sure the Manning camp teaches it, too.

 

[Savage Husker]

Favre was certainly a master gunslinger, but he was also quick to make the 6 yard checkdown pass when he didn't like what was happening downfield.

That's a lesson that could really help Tommy, and I'm sure the Manning camp teaches it, too.

Favre was dynamite and I loved watching him play, but the years/throws where his footwork and mechanics were bad and he relied on his arm strength, were the years/plays he didn't look like a HOFer.

 

[Mavric]

Forgive me, Mavric, but based on your faulty memory about Lance Brown, I don't trust your memory of what "actually happened."

Feel free to post some examples from YouTube. A lot of games are there.

I don't really understand the point of your last paragraph. I quoted Osborne himself. People wrongly criticized him. And they similarly criticized Solich. That's the point here.

Plus, since Newcombe only played six games in 1998 and Crouch therw over 100 passes that year, it would seem that Crouch actually was playing a decent amount of QB that year. In fact, it would be entirely possible that what I described "actually happened".
So, again, you like to find one little thing and make it seem like it means significantly more than it does.

Newcombe was hurt that year. He didn't play wingback. He switched positions later in '99 as I recall.

It's not one little thing. Your entire original premise was disproved.

If you want to argue that he should have been used more in the option game in 2000, that's fine.

To me, it's become pretty clear that you were want a solich fan and no amount of facts or other examples or clips would dissuade you from that opinion. That's fine. I won't waste either of our times.

You are nowhere near disproving my entire original premise. You've pointed out that I probably had one detail wrong - it wasn't Lance Brown who was the other wingback in the wingbone with Newcombe. You have provided no other facts to disprove my actual assertion that we rarely ran the wingbone option play away from Newcombe and it was also often run to the short side of the field.

I'm more than open to actual facts that disprove that. But you have yet to provide any.

 

[Mavric]

Crouch, Frost and Jamaal Lord were the kind of passers who would make you yearn for Tommy Armstrong.

I think that's the reason they ran more often.

Eh, that's probably stretching it.

Armstrong - 474/878, 54.0%, 6691 yard, 7.6 ypa, 53 TDs, 36 INTs

Crouch - 312/606, 51.5%, 4481 yards, 7.39 ypa, 29 TDs, 25 INTs

Frost - 192/359, 53.5%, 2677 yards, 7.5 ypa, 18 TDs, 7 INTs
Lord - 194/404, 48.0%, 4848 yards, 7.05 ypa, 18 TDs 22 INTs

I'd agree with you on Lord - TA is significantly better. TA is also a better passer than Crouch but also running a system that is more passing friendly so I'm not sure it's a huge difference.

But TA is almost identical to Frost. Their completion percentage and yards per attempt are very similar. If you adjust Frost's stats to TA's attempt numbers, Frost would have 6531 yards, 44 TDs and 17 INTs - basically the same yards, fewer TDs but a much better TD:INT ratio.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Well Frost, Crouch and Lord played in a system designed for passing efficiency: far fewer attempts, element of surprise and safe routes that rarely involved multiple options or checkdowns.

Backed by outstanding offensive lines that gave them lots of time, and play action that got defenses to bite because we ran so often.

So my memories are of those QBs standing tall in the pocket, spotting wide open receivers, and hitting them roughly 50% of the time.

There was one televised game Frost was playing and iirc Joe Theisman or another former NFL QB was doing color, and he telestrated several plays showing Frost's poor mechanics, often holding the ball a split second too long so that the tip was pointing down and the pass went to the receivers feet. Theisman showed plays where the receivers managed to catch the ball, but Frost's failure to simply lead his receivers left lots of yards and potential TDs on the field.

When Crouch was given the chance to play in one of the Senior Bowls as the reigning Heisman Trophy Winner, I think he threw three interceptions.

They threw well enough for option football, but they didn't throw as well or with the degree of difficulty as Tommy Armstrong.

 

[cm husker]

Forgive me, Mavric, but based on your faulty memory about Lance Brown, I don't trust your memory of what "actually happened."

Feel free to post some examples from YouTube. A lot of games are there.

I don't really understand the point of your last paragraph. I quoted Osborne himself. People wrongly criticized him. And they similarly criticized Solich. That's the point here.

Plus, since Newcombe only played six games in 1998 and Crouch therw over 100 passes that year, it would seem that Crouch actually was playing a decent amount of QB that year. In fact, it would be entirely possible that what I described "actually happened".
So, again, you like to find one little thing and make it seem like it means significantly more than it does.

Newcombe was hurt that year. He didn't play wingback. He switched positions later in '99 as I recall.
It's not one little thing. Your entire original premise was disproved.

If you want to argue that he should have been used more in the option game in 2000, that's fine.

To me, it's become pretty clear that you were want a solich fan and no amount of facts or other examples or clips would dissuade you from that opinion. That's fine. I won't waste either of our times.

You are nowhere near disproving my entire original premise. You've pointed out that I probably had one detail wrong - it wasn't Lance Brown who was the other wingback in the wingbone with Newcombe. You have provided no other facts to disprove my actual assertion that we rarely ran the wingbone option play away from Newcombe and it was also often run to the short side of the field.

I'm more than open to actual facts that disprove that. But you have yet to provide any.

What year are you remembering?

It's hard to prove something didn't happen. It would make more sense for you to post some links to video showing the plays you're describing. My sense is that it was rare considering how few carries our receivers/wingbacks posted. Unless the contention is that Crouch ran the play but almost never pitched the ball.

And again, even if that play was a regular part of the offense, it's not as though they purposely ran it away from Newcombe. Direction on an option is usual dictated by defensive alignment.

 

[desertshox]

Well Frost, Crouch and Lord played in a system designed for passing efficiency: far fewer attempts, element of surprise and safe routes that rarely involved multiple options or checkdowns.

Backed by outstanding offensive lines that gave them lots of time, and play action that got defenses to bite because we ran so often.

So my memories are of those QBs standing tall in the pocket, spotting wide open receivers, and hitting them roughly 50% of the time.

There was one televised game Frost was playing and iirc Joe Theisman or another former NFL QB was doing color, and he telestrated several plays showing Frost's poor mechanics, often holding the ball a split second too long so that the tip was pointing down and the pass went to the receivers feet. Theisman showed plays where the receivers managed to catch the ball, but Frost's failure to simply lead his receivers left lots of yards and potential TDs on the field.

When Crouch was given the chance to play in one of the Senior Bowls as the reigning Heisman Trophy Winner, I think he threw three interceptions.

They threw well enough for option football, but they didn't throw as well or with the degree of difficulty as Tommy Armstrong.

that seems to be a criticism of the past 2-3 qb's as well.

 

[cm husker]

Well Frost, Crouch and Lord played in a system designed for passing efficiency: far fewer attempts, element of surprise and safe routes that rarely involved multiple options or checkdowns.

Backed by outstanding offensive lines that gave them lots of time, and play action that got defenses to bite because we ran so often.

So my memories are of those QBs standing tall in the pocket, spotting wide open receivers, and hitting them roughly 50% of the time.

There was one televised game Frost was playing and iirc Joe Theisman or another former NFL QB was doing color, and he telestrated several plays showing Frost's poor mechanics, often holding the ball a split second too long so that the tip was pointing down and the pass went to the receivers feet. Theisman showed plays where the receivers managed to catch the ball, but Frost's failure to simply lead his receivers left lots of yards and potential TDs on the field.

When Crouch was given the chance to play in one of the Senior Bowls as the reigning Heisman Trophy Winner, I think he threw three interceptions.

They threw well enough for option football, but they didn't throw as well or with the degree of difficulty as Tommy Armstrong.

that seems to be a criticism of the past 2-3 qb's as well.

And one for about 90% of QBs.

The reason why NU had guys running open where "leading them properly" would have resulted in more yards and tds is that you had a legit running threat QB which pulls a guy or of coverage.

Take away that running threat and replace him with a "good thrower" and those receivers suddenly aren't running as loose.

That's why I wouldn't trade a mobile QB for a guy who can efficiently throw the ball 30+ times a game.

 

[MichiganDad3]

Armstrong without the mistakes and looking to run would be in Eric Crouch territory, maybe close to Frazier...without the mistakes...

Crouch and Frazier also threw plenty of dumb interceptions, but TA has taken it to another level. TA is strong, fast, elusive, and IMO is the best passer out of Crouch, Frazier and TA. He needs to learn to take the first down when it is presented instead of going for the deep ball.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Well Frost, Crouch and Lord played in a system designed for passing efficiency: far fewer attempts, element of surprise and safe routes that rarely involved multiple options or checkdowns.

Backed by outstanding offensive lines that gave them lots of time, and play action that got defenses to bite because we ran so often.

So my memories are of those QBs standing tall in the pocket, spotting wide open receivers, and hitting them roughly 50% of the time.

There was one televised game Frost was playing and iirc Joe Theisman or another former NFL QB was doing color, and he telestrated several plays showing Frost's poor mechanics, often holding the ball a split second too long so that the tip was pointing down and the pass went to the receivers feet. Theisman showed plays where the receivers managed to catch the ball, but Frost's failure to simply lead his receivers left lots of yards and potential TDs on the field.

When Crouch was given the chance to play in one of the Senior Bowls as the reigning Heisman Trophy Winner, I think he threw three interceptions.

They threw well enough for option football, but they didn't throw as well or with the degree of difficulty as Tommy Armstrong.

that seems to be a criticism of the past 2-3 qb's as well.

And one for about 90% of QBs.

The reason why NU had guys running open where "leading them properly" would have resulted in more yards and tds is that you had a legit running threat QB which pulls a guy or of coverage.

Take away that running threat and replace him with a "good thrower" and those receivers suddenly aren't running as loose.

That's why I wouldn't trade a mobile QB for a guy who can efficiently throw the ball 30+ times a game.

Properly leading an open receiver is Passing 101. Not sure your rationale makes much sense here. A bit with linebackers maybe. Not with DBs.

Frost wasn't a good passer. That's not too controversial.

Good passing quarterbacks don't have to be immobile. They don't have to perform like running backs, either.

Nebraska has been enamored with dual threat quarterbacks for years now, but running is priority and the passing tends to suffer because these guys never throw as pretty as they do in those high school films.

And if you look across the college and NFL landscape, everyone is enamored of dual threat quarterbacks but it seems more often than not they bring a liability with them. As exciting as dual threats are, the competent passer and game manager is usually the QB left standing.

I know you think pro-style passing QBs are a rare talent, but I don't think they're any less common than a good dual threat QB. I'll take either one, myself.

 

[Scratchtown]

Armstrong was a 4 star recruit right? He's got great combination skills. He was trending up since his freshman year, except during the season he and his entire set of teammates were thrown into a new system.

Ask him to throw 18-25 times a game and run 6 to 12 designed runs, and he could have an extraordinarily special year.

Ask him to throw 30+ times a game and design run 5 or less times, and we'll probably be disappointed.

He's an all conference caliber player if used correctly.

Speculation at best.

 

[cm husker]

Well Frost, Crouch and Lord played in a system designed for passing efficiency: far fewer attempts, element of surprise and safe routes that rarely involved multiple options or checkdowns.

Backed by outstanding offensive lines that gave them lots of time, and play action that got defenses to bite because we ran so often.

So my memories are of those QBs standing tall in the pocket, spotting wide open receivers, and hitting them roughly 50% of the time.

There was one televised game Frost was playing and iirc Joe Theisman or another former NFL QB was doing color, and he telestrated several plays showing Frost's poor mechanics, often holding the ball a split second too long so that the tip was pointing down and the pass went to the receivers feet. Theisman showed plays where the receivers managed to catch the ball, but Frost's failure to simply lead his receivers left lots of yards and potential TDs on the field.

When Crouch was given the chance to play in one of the Senior Bowls as the reigning Heisman Trophy Winner, I think he threw three interceptions.

They threw well enough for option football, but they didn't throw as well or with the degree of difficulty as Tommy Armstrong.

that seems to be a criticism of the past 2-3 qb's as well.

And one for about 90% of QBs.

The reason why NU had guys running open where "leading them properly" would have resulted in more yards and tds is that you had a legit running threat QB which pulls a guy or of coverage.

Take away that running threat and replace him with a "good thrower" and those receivers suddenly aren't running as loose.

That's why I wouldn't trade a mobile QB for a guy who can efficiently throw the ball 30+ times a game.

Properly leading an open receiver is Passing 101. Not sure your rationale makes much sense here. A bit with linebackers maybe. Not with DBs.

Frost wasn't a good passer. That's not too controversial.

Good passing quarterbacks don't have to be immobile. They don't have to perform like running backs, either.

Nebraska has been enamored with dual threat quarterbacks for years now, but running is priority and the passing tends to suffer because these guys never throw as pretty as they do in those high school films.

And if you look across the college and NFL landscape, everyone is enamored of dual threat quarterbacks but it seems more often than not they bring a liability with them. As exciting as dual threats are, the competent passer and game manager is usually the QB left standing.

I know you think pro-style passing QBs are a rare talent, but I don't think they're any less common than a good dual threat QB. I'll take either one, myself.

I'll take a system that can win more with an lower skilled QB, because I don't think high skilled QBs are regularly findable and coachable in the college game. Most of the best pros were average CFB qbs, and that's telling. Because on the flipside, many of the most successful college QB were washouts as pros.

Anyway, you're right; we have a fundamental disagreement on the type of athlete that can hurt college D's the most from the QB positon. I think we can agree to disagree on that point.