Passing offense under Frost

Mavric said:
I'm not going to say they've been great.  But I think they're an easy target for several reasons.  First, it's easier to call them out as a unit than to single out a specific player.  A lot of people don't want to be seen as jumping on an individual but when you can speak in more generic terms it "feels" better.  Second, it's easy to see something go wrong on a play and just say "the OL screwed up."  Any missed blocking assignment seems like it should be the OL's fault.  But unless you really go back and watch everything that's going on, that's mostly a guess on most people's part.  Third, without really going back and watching, it's really hard to separate bad play from a bad call or scheme.  The OL may have missed a block but if they were being asked to execute a block that they basically had no chance of making, I don't see how that's really their fault.  And it's also one of those positions that gets all the blame when something goes wrong and barely any credit when things go right.  They could run 10 plays perfectly and they'd just be seen as "doing their job" but they screw up once on the 11th play and people are all over them.

People have accused us of having bad OL play for a long time.  And it's not that there isn't any truth to that.  But starting in 2010 we had the #9, #15, #8, #19 and #19 rushing offenses in the country for those years.  Plus we generated four of the Top 10 All-Time rushing yardage players in Husker history.  You don't do that without getting a lot of help from your OL.  The last three years has been shaky at best but I think a lot of that has to do with predictability in play-calling and questionable scheme.

So I think the OL has gotten more blame than they deserve and not as much credit.  Not that they couldn't be better - everyone could.  But I don't think they've been nearly as bad as a lot of people try to claim.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif


Someone has needed to say this for a long time. People(correctly so) just regurgitate that we need good oline play to win, but unless you are watching all-22 film and know the scheme well then you are just talking out of your a$$.

 
PasstheDamnBallGuy said:
giphy.gif


Someone has needed to say this for a long time. People(correctly so) just regurgitate that we need good oline play to win, but unless you are watching all-22 film and know the scheme well then you are just talking out of your a$$.
Click to expand...
That's a tad disingenuous, though, because there are a lot of things you can look at whether or not you know the scheme well.

I'm not saying they've been terrible or that they haven't gotten a bad rap for some things that may not be their fault.

However, when's the last time we could say Nebraska had the best line in their conference, let alone their division? Certainly not within the last three years. You'd have to go back even further to find a time we could say Nebraska had the best line in a conference. We could probably go page after page determining how much we should blame scheme versus how much we blame the talent, coaches and the fundamentals. The end result is what ultimately matters: Nebraska's lines (offensively and defensively) haven't been consistently great for a long time and there's a correlation between that and their lack of conference titles.

 
Could Tommy Armstrong and Taylor Martinez have thrived in a different system?

I'm not sure they could have started for many programs other than Nebraska, and certainly wouldn't have set career records.

We've been the program that lets outstanding athletes play quarterback, when other teams wanted to move them to different positions.  

That can be a really exciting way to go, but there's a double-edged sword to having playground ballers rather than high-percentage passers and game managers. 

 
Enhance said:
That's a tad disingenuous, though, because there are a lot of things you can look at whether or not you know the scheme well.

I'm not saying they've been terrible or that they haven't gotten a bad rap for some things that may not be their fault.

However, when's the last time we could say Nebraska had the best line in their conference, let alone their division? Certainly not within the last three years. You'd have to go back even further to find a time we could say Nebraska had the best line in a conference. We could probably go page after page determining how much we should blame scheme versus how much we blame the talent, coaches and the fundamentals. The end result is what ultimately matters: Nebraska's lines (offensively and defensively) haven't been consistently great for a long time and there's a correlation between that and their lack of conference titles.
Click to expand...


Right, I guess that was a bit of hyperbole on my part. I do agree that(no matter what you want to blame it on) there is something that hasn't been right for a while. Like most things in life it is way more complicated than a single answer can provide, and imo would take a deep dive and some serious film watching to actually know. 

In the end I guess it doesn't matter. We have a whole new staff now, and we just need to see if they can cook. 

 
PasstheDamnBallGuy said:
Right, I guess that was a bit of hyperbole on my part. I do agree that(no matter what you want to blame it on) there is something that hasn't been right for a while. Like most things in life it is way more complicated than a single answer can provide, and imo would take a deep dive and some serious film watching to actually know. 

In the end I guess it doesn't matter. We have a whole new staff now, and we just need to see if they can cook. 
Click to expand...
They cook like Walter White

 
HerbieHancock said:
I’d take lord, crouch, frost, fraizer, MickeyJo, and Steve Taylor over any qb we’ve had in close to two decades.

Tommy was NUs game changer at that time because they built that offense tailored to only his strengths. Obviously if he had a bad game, we’d lose. He won games that without he we may not have, tough as nails, and earns respect for how he played the game. But I’d slow down on the heisman talk. If any of the qbs mentioned above got as many attempts... don’t think their numbers would be close. 

Also, you can’t tell me you’d take a handful of qbs the big 10 has had over tommy and Martinez during their playing time. Tommy was better than Taylor but let’s slow down with heisman talk here. 
Click to expand...


All I was responding to was your assertion that we haven't had a "game changer" at QB in a long time.  It would seem that you're admitting TA was one now but you're trying to argue some other points about him.  I'm not sure I'm following any of them but it seems like you're saying that: 1) he wasn't an all-time Husker great; and 2) I'd have rather had at least five B1G contemporaries of TA's in place of him at NU.

As for the first point, I don't think I have to do much more than point at the career stats to support that he belongs in the conversation.  I'd never argue TA was the greatest NU QB of all time but, as I shared in my original response to you, he did a lot relative to his situation.  Neither Lord nor Joseph belongs in the list of quarterbacks you shared either.  They were option quarterbacks, for one thing, such that "taking them" over the guys who've played more recently wouldn't have worked out too well.  Jammal's career high for completions in a game was 12.  Mickey's best passing game, per Wiki (because Huskers.com doesn't have a bio page for him), was against Kansas when he completed 7 of 16 for 164 yards and two touchdowns.  Jammal only started a couple of seasons.  Mickey's injuries meant he didn't complete one.  TA started 8 games his (redshirt) freshman year, won in the Big House, and earned the starting role the next three seasons.

Your second point is ridiculous (if I'm reading you correctly).  Who are all these great quarterbacks in the conference?  I would consider J.T. Barrett  (or Cardale Jones?) from Ohio State but Connor Cook is the only other name that's even worth bringing up and part of that has to do with his having made it to the NFL.  Where are you getting "a handful"?

As for the Heisman talk, I don't think it's so far-fetched.  What I wrote was this:

"I feel like TA could have been a Heisman contender in a better program."

Are you trying to argue that TA couldn't have put up big numbers (to put him in the Heisman conversation) at, for example, Ohio State?  Do you think only absolute superstars win the Heisman?  I think some people don't watch enough other games (aside from Nebraska's) and get a false sense of how many great quarterbacks there are.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Could Tommy Armstrong and Taylor Martinez have thrived in a different system?

I'm not sure they could have started for many programs other than Nebraska, and certainly wouldn't have set career records.

We've been the program that lets outstanding athletes play quarterback, when other teams wanted to move them to different positions.  

That can be a really exciting way to go, but there's a double-edged sword to having playground ballers rather than high-percentage passers and game managers. 
Click to expand...
I think it's possible they thrive in other systems but you bring up some great points. They were also four year starters which helps in the record column, but both of them (sadly) missed significant portions of their final seasons due to injury.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Could Tommy Armstrong and Taylor Martinez have thrived in a different system?

I'm not sure they could have started for many programs other than Nebraska, and certainly wouldn't have set career records.

We've been the program that lets outstanding athletes play quarterback, when other teams wanted to move them to different positions.  

That can be a really exciting way to go, but there's a double-edged sword to having playground ballers rather than high-percentage passers and game managers. 
Click to expand...


Scout.com ranked Tommy as the fifth-best QB prospect in the nation coming out of HS.  I already commented on his peer rating in a response to HH in this thread.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Could Tommy Armstrong and Taylor Martinez have thrived in a different system?

I'm not sure they could have started for many programs other than Nebraska, and certainly wouldn't have set career records.
Click to expand...
I have no doubt those two players would have thrived in another system or program.  It all depends on what that system is and how they utilize them.

Guess what Milton was listed as when he came out of HS as far as position?

LINK

 
Martinez and Armstrong (initially) were quarterbacks in a run-option system tailored specifically to their strengths and supported by three NFL quality running backs – Helu, Burkhead & Abdullah. We had an 8 year run of the two most prolific total offense leaders in Nebraska football history, so it's hard to imagine them thriving more elsewhere, especially knowing other programs were reluctant to let them play QB.  What Martinez and Armstrong didn't do is play for championship teams, and that's where the Greatness always comes in.

I think they both got a reasonable amount of kudos from the college football world, but they also had reputations for high risk play, game-changing turnovers and poor decision making.

That was fair criticism, and I think it was on them more than the scheme or system.

Then again, could Martinez and Armstrong have been championship QBs with the 2009 Husker Defense behind them?  That's a pretty good daydream right there. 

 
Tommy Armstrong was a good QB at times and a very good athlete.  He would have done much better in Osborne's offenses (post 1970s).  But, Osborne would have used any of our QBs of the past 20 years better than the coaches they played under.  Mickey Joseph was not a great QB or even a good one really.   

Jamaal Lord was an exceptional runner in the QB spot but was borderline awful at passing.   He was our run offense basically.  He does not rate in NU's list of top twenty QBs in my view.

I would doubt that I would rate Lord, Joseph, or Armstrong in our top twenty QBs.  Taylor Martinez (as a freshman) would likely make that list and was putting up heisman like performances before he was hurt.  Never really was the same after that.  

Tagge, Van Brownson, Humm, Ferragamo stand out in the 70s.   Gill, Godowski are two of the very best ever.     Frazier, Berringer, Crouch all played terrific QB.   Not going back to look at the list, I am sure I am forgetting half a dozen or so as well.  Claridge was good too although I barely remember him and never saw him play in person.    

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top