Starling is a cheeky dude

[Hercules]

Hujan, your argument seems to boil down to the fact that Taylor will never be Andrew Luck in the passing game. Wouldn't you also concede that Andrew Luck will never be Taylor in the running game? Wouldn't you also concede that there's a place for both a great running QB and a great passing QB in college football, and that a player does not have to be both to win?

A QB doesn't need to have both, but he cannot succeed by being only a "great running QB." In order to succeed, an offense needs to carry the threat of the deep play (downfield passing) as well as the run. A QB that is a great runner but a deficient passer does the offense a disservice because now there is no real downfield threat. In a sense, it becomes redundant because there are already players who can run (we call them "Running Backs"), so having a QB who can run but not pass makes the offense too one-dimensional. Defenses respond by crowding the box, and you have what we saw as the season wore on.

Having a pure passer with limited running ability does not diminish the offense's ability to be two-dimensional because, again, you will have running backs to keep the defense from overplaying the pass, and the quarterback will keep the defenses from overplaying the run.

This, of course, is why you will see successful teams led by pure pocket passers far more frequently than successful teams led by pure scrambling QBs with little or no passing skills. Regardless of how fast and agile he is, at some point a QB who cannot pass effectively will be about as useful as an ejection seat on a helicopter.

This simply isn't true.

The offense as a whole needs to be balanced, and that can be achieved in different ways. A "running QB" usually adds to the offense's ability to run the ball, and that in turn opens up the passing game. That's what we saw from Taylor before he got hurt - teams crowded the line of scrimmage to stop the run, and we went over the top. It was only after he got hurt that they didn't have to worry about defending the run anymore, which forced Taylor to be a dropback passer, which he isn't.

On the other hand, you see plenty of teams with "passing QBs" where that does limit the offense's ability to be two-dimensional. There are many teams that are unable to establish a strong running game, and while they might succeed for a while with a strong passing game, great defenses will eventually focus on shutting down their running game and force them into being one-dimensional passing teams.

There's a reason that every single defensive coordinator goes into every game with the same idea in mind: stop the run. That is the most important part of any offense. Championships are won by teams who run the football well, and who play great defense.

Again, just look at the history of college football, and you're going to see a plethora of national championship-winning QBs who used their running game to open up the pass. Cam Newton (against Darron Thomas), Tim Tebow, Vince Young, Tee Martin, Scott Frost (whose offense outscored Peyton Manning's offense by 25 head to head), Tommie Frazier, Charlie Ward, etc...

Taylor Martinez doesn't have to be a great passing QB. He needs to be a healthy QB, and we've already seen that when he's healthy, his ability to run the ball opens up the pass enough that even he can exploit defenses with his arm (as long as his receivers catch the ball when it hits them in the hands).

You're comparing apples to oranges. Obviously a dual-threat QB is the ideal scenario since he would have the best of both. But Taylor is not a "dual-threat" QB. He is a running QB. All of the QBs you mentioned are as exceptional of passers as they are runners. Taylor had a single game in which he threw the ball very well.

How many successful teams can you think of that feature running QBs without any real ability to throw? I can't think of any. How many successful teams can you think of that feature pure pocket passers? I can think of dozens.

You act like you can't have a successful offense without a dual-threat QB and Stanford, USC, Boise State, TCU, and countless others would beg to differ.

You understand that when a team lines up in the pro set with a QB under center and a tailback behind, the defense has to anticipate both the run and the pass, yes?

Sure. I also understand that it's easier to stop the run when there's only one guy who might run, and it's easier to defend the pass when you know that the guy throwing is no threat to just take off with his legs. Everything becomes pretty black and white, which defenses like the Blackshirts eat for lunch. That's why offenses this year HAD to resort to forcing their QB to run the ball (Gabbert, Gilbert, Locker). It was the only way to create some semblance of balance, it was the only way to move the ball on us.

Again, "without any real ability to throw," is exaggerating. We saw Martinez make throws this year before he was hurt. He definitely needs the defense off balance, trying to defend the run in order to exploit them with his arm, but that's how he did it.

As far as dual-threat QBs relate to success... Nebraska (with Martinez healthy) > Missouri. Nevada > Boise State. TCU has a dual-threat QB, Dalton can run. Oregon > Stanford/USC. Auburn > Alabama.

Anyways, I consider both Tommie Frazier and Scott Frost to be running QBs more than dual-threat QBs. But when you build a running game as strong as the ones those teams had, that opens up the passing game. And our running game was nearly that strong when Martinez was healthy.

 

[knapplc]

Regarding your basement comment, the only problem that some of us have is what if Taylor continues to flounder and never gets much better, and stands in the way of other, more deserving QBs. For all we know, Brion Carnes could be everything you all think Taylor is. But we'll never know because we are being implored to give Taylor a chance.

The point is, we are about to have an influx of dual-threat QBs onto this roster. I say that we should open up the competition and let the best man prove himself on the field. I think it's silly to press on with a QB who is not the best man on the job simply because we are afraid of starting yet another RS freshman (or true freshman) at QB. The fact that we might have erred in starting a RS freshman over a senior in 2010 should not prevent us from putting the best man in at QB in 2011.

Stop with the straw men. Nobody has ever said Taylor is a lock to move forward at QB. Bo has consistently stated - and this season's QB decision with Martinez/Lee has to prove that - that the best player will play. Taylor has play-making ability that none of the other quarterbacks offered, and he started. If Carnes, Turner or Starling (I know) come in and play better, Martinez won't start.

We put the best man in at QB in 2010, we'll do it again in 2011, and moving forward.

 

[knapplc]

I guess where you and I differ is that you think Taylor's injury caused his productivity to tail off, while I think it's because defenses adjusted and took away most of what he could do. He was electric . . . for awhile.

But even if you think it's totally due to his injury, does it concern you at all that the kid seems to have a glass jaw? How many games did he start after Mizzou when he appeared to be running alright on the ankle, only to be tackled and come up limping? It happened at A&M, against Washington (v2), and may have even happened in the CCG. I don't know whether the kid is fragile or just feels compelled to use injuries as an excuse when he isn't playing well, but neither scenario is very reassuring.

So now Martinez is faking injuries? :facepalm:

This argument has gone beyond ridiculous.

 

[Hujan]

I guess where you and I differ is that you think Taylor's injury caused his productivity to tail off, while I think it's because defenses adjusted and took away most of what he could do. He was electric . . . for awhile.

But even if you think it's totally due to his injury, does it concern you at all that the kid seems to have a glass jaw? How many games did he start after Mizzou when he appeared to be running alright on the ankle, only to be tackled and come up limping? It happened at A&M, against Washington (v2), and may have even happened in the CCG. I don't know whether the kid is fragile or just feels compelled to use injuries as an excuse when he isn't playing well, but neither scenario is very reassuring.

So now Martinez is faking injuries? :facepalm:

This argument has gone beyond ridiculous.

If you buy the prima donna label on Martinez, then absolutely it's possible. Have you ever played ball? Have you ever played ball with a prima donna? What's the first thing they do when they are having trouble lighting everyone else up? Start limping.

All I'm saying is that every time I've wondered if Bo was going to pull Martinez for poor play a la Texas, I noticed that Martinez gets injured very shortly thereafter. And I cannot be the only one who's noticed this. So there seems to be a bit of a coincidence there that does make me wonder a least a little.

 

[Hujan]

Regarding your basement comment, the only problem that some of us have is what if Taylor continues to flounder and never gets much better, and stands in the way of other, more deserving QBs. For all we know, Brion Carnes could be everything you all think Taylor is. But we'll never know because we are being implored to give Taylor a chance.

The point is, we are about to have an influx of dual-threat QBs onto this roster. I say that we should open up the competition and let the best man prove himself on the field. I think it's silly to press on with a QB who is not the best man on the job simply because we are afraid of starting yet another RS freshman (or true freshman) at QB. The fact that we might have erred in starting a RS freshman over a senior in 2010 should not prevent us from putting the best man in at QB in 2011.

Stop with the straw men. Nobody has ever said Taylor is a lock to move forward at QB. Bo has consistently stated - and this season's QB decision with Martinez/Lee has to prove that - that the best player will play. Taylor has play-making ability that none of the other quarterbacks offered, and he started. If Carnes, Turner or Starling (I know) come in and play better, Martinez won't start.

We put the best man in at QB in 2010, we'll do it again in 2011, and moving forward.

It's not a straw man. Your "basement . . . ceiling" comment seems to suggest that Taylor will become an all star QB if he's only given more time. But I think it's equally, if not more, likely that his basement is pretty much his ceiling and that he will always be a average QB who is a threat to break a big run every now and again. If you expect us to continue to crush teams by having Taylor run for multiple TDs in a game, keep dreaming because it won't happen. The secret's out. Taylor can run. Defenses will keep that in mind from this point forward and only the very worst of them won't be able to contain him. If he is going to do anything for us at all, then, he's going to have to reach into his bag of tricks and show us something else. And unless we really simplify what he needs to do in the passing game, I don't believe Taylor has the chops as a QB to make it happen on his own.

I guess my bottom line is this: I know it's been awhile at Nebraska since we've started a RS or true freshman QB, but you guys want to blame all of Taylor's faults on (1) his ankle or (2) him being young. But many of the faults we saw from post-ankle Taylor were there with pre-ankle Taylor. And the freshman thing is being way oversold. Having just watched USC go through the same thing, there is not a lot of difference between freshman Matt Barkley in 2009 and sophomore Matt Barkley in 2010. He had the mechanics to be a great QB both years. He knew how to manage the pocket both years. The only difference is that 2010 Matt Barkley learned not to try to force as many balls into tight spaces and to throw it away more when his reads are there. He also lost some weight and became a little more mobile in the backfield to evade pressure. And that's it. The only real result was a better TD/INT ratio in 2010. Again, incremental changes, not the dramatic changes Taylor needs to turn from the completely ineffective QB we saw against Oklahoma and Washington into an all star.

 

[knapplc]

It's not a straw man. Your "basement . . . ceiling" comment seems to suggest that Taylor will become an all star QB if he's only given more time. But I think it's equally, if not more, likely that his basement is pretty much his ceiling and that he will always be a average QB who is a threat to break a big run every now and again. If you expect us to continue to crush teams by having Taylor run for multiple TDs in a game, keep dreaming because it won't happen. The secret's out. Taylor can run. Defenses will keep that in mind from this point forward and only the very worst of them won't be able to contain him. If he is going to do anything for us at all, then, he's going to have to reach into his bag of tricks and show us something else. And unless we really simplify what he needs to do in the passing game, I don't believe Taylor has the chops as a QB to make it happen on his own.

I guess my bottom line is this: I know it's been awhile at Nebraska since we've started a RS or true freshman QB, but you guys want to blame all of Taylor's faults on (1) his ankle or (2) him being young. But many of the faults we saw from post-ankle Taylor were there with pre-ankle Taylor. And the freshman thing is being way oversold. Having just watched USC go through the same thing, there is not a lot of difference between freshman Matt Barkley in 2009 and sophomore Matt Barkley in 2010. He had the mechanics to be a great QB both years. He knew how to manage the pocket both years. The only difference is that 2010 Matt Barkley learned not to try to force as many balls into tight spaces and to throw it away more when his reads are there. He also lost some weight and became a little more mobile in the backfield to evade pressure. And that's it. The only real result was a better TD/INT ratio in 2010. Again, incremental changes, not the dramatic changes Taylor needs to turn from the completely ineffective QB we saw against Oklahoma and Washington into an all star.

Umm.... Taylor already is an All-Star - or at least, an All-American. It's a straw man because every single freshman out there could have reached his limit. But not every freshman gets named to a Freshman All-American team. Taylor did. It's not just Husker fans pimping Martinez, it's impartial third parties looking at his skill set and saying, "This guy is special." Claiming that he's reached some mythical ceiling that you've arbitrarily erected is unsupported.

The secret was out that Turner Gill could run. The secret was out that Steve Taylor could run. The secret was out that Tommie Frazier could run. The secret was out that Scott Frost could run. The secret was out that Eric Crouch could run. The secret was out that Jammal Lord could run. All had measures of success, none of them (with the possible exception of Gill, and maybe Taylor) could pass worth half a crap. The argument that defenses will shut Taylor down because they know he can run is moot. It's a team sport, and if we have a solid team around Taylor, all will be well. That's not on Taylor to accomplish, it's on the coaches and other players.

The question remains – what do you expect from this kid? What would have been good enough? It's the same question posed to the Anti-Zac Lee crowd last year, who continually threw him under the bus despite knowing of his injury. For some there's simply no explanation good enough – the player MUST play to X level, arbitrarily set by the individual, and if he doesn't then he's crap, he needs to ride the bench and bring in the backup. It's an argument that holds no water.

 

[knapplc]

I guess where you and I differ is that you think Taylor's injury caused his productivity to tail off, while I think it's because defenses adjusted and took away most of what he could do. He was electric . . . for awhile.

But even if you think it's totally due to his injury, does it concern you at all that the kid seems to have a glass jaw? How many games did he start after Mizzou when he appeared to be running alright on the ankle, only to be tackled and come up limping? It happened at A&M, against Washington (v2), and may have even happened in the CCG. I don't know whether the kid is fragile or just feels compelled to use injuries as an excuse when he isn't playing well, but neither scenario is very reassuring.

So now Martinez is faking injuries? :facepalm:

This argument has gone beyond ridiculous.

If you buy the prima donna label on Martinez, then absolutely it's possible. Have you ever played ball? Have you ever played ball with a prima donna? What's the first thing they do when they are having trouble lighting everyone else up? Start limping.

All I'm saying is that every time I've wondered if Bo was going to pull Martinez for poor play a la Texas, I noticed that Martinez gets injured very shortly thereafter. And I cannot be the only one who's noticed this. So there seems to be a bit of a coincidence there that does make me wonder a least a little.

You have zero leg to stand on without some substance to the allegation that Taylor was not injured. I have coaches and journalists verifying he was. What do you have?

 

[husker B-rent]

wow that starling sure is a cheeky dude.....just sayin....

 

[Hercules]

wow that starling sure is a cheeky dude.....just sayin....

Who's starling?

 

[huskerswrkhavoc]

wow that starling sure is a cheeky dude.....just sayin....

Who's starling?

Some kid that I hear is a pretty solid baseball player.. heard he's gonna get drafted pretty high up there.

 

[huskerswrkhavoc]

The "blame everything on Taylor's ankle" issue is a straw man. Nobody is blaming EVERYTHING on his ankle. It's his ankle, crappy play-calling, a shoddy O Line, his Freshman-ness, and poor receivers.

Despite that, he guided us, as a Freshman, to nine wins, against the 28th-ranked schedule in the country. All any of us are saying is lighten up a little, Francis.

Like I've said many a time - if this is his basement, imagine what his ceiling is. Give the kid a chance.

Again, as mentioned above, he gave us 8 wins. (Admittedly, this is nit picking, but CG deserves his credit, too.)

Regarding your basement comment, the only problem that some of us have is what if Taylor continues to flounder and never gets much better, and stands in the way of other, more deserving QBs. For all we know, Brion Carnes could be everything you all think Taylor is. But we'll never know because we are being implored to give Taylor a chance.

The point is, we are about to have an influx of dual-threat QBs onto this roster. I say that we should open up the competition and let the best man prove himself on the field. I think it's silly to press on with a QB who is not the best man on the job simply because we are afraid of starting yet another RS freshman (or true freshman) at QB. The fact that we might have erred in starting a RS freshman over a senior in 2010 should not prevent us from putting the best man in at QB in 2011.

Or Taylor could be everything that we think Taylor is. Or Carnes could be a complete flop. You don't know. And guess what, the coaches have proven before that the best player will play, regardless of age.. So there is nothing to worry about for that. As far as people saying to ease up on Taylor, they are right. The kid is still just that, a freaking kid, he's going to grow into everything, but it really is pretty petty for some of the grown men on here to talk down on him or any student athlete that is out there busting his/her a$$ for your entertainment.

Oh get off it. Honestly. No one is condemning him or attacking his character. We are critiquing an athlete's game. If that hurts his sensibilities, then perhaps he ought to find a new gig.

My God you guys defend Taylor from any criticism like he's your kid brother.

You're accusing the kid of faking an injury because he was playing bad.. That, in my book, is 100% an attack on his character and not at all a critique of his game.. Also, all the people that have said he is a cry baby, that's not an attack? I will not get off it because you can't admit what it is you're saying.. You say one thing and claim its another.

 

[C N Red]

Ya, but, starling is a cheeky dude!

 

[holvy83]

:blink: my eyes are tired just reading this last page.

 

[GM_Tood]

:blink: my eyes are tired just reading this last page.

Yeah. I just hope Derek makes it on campus and we can all get to making up sweet nicknames like 'Bubba Jesus', or Bubba 'Wish upon a shooting' Starling etc...

 

[knapplc]

His name is Derek? Well... that just ruins everything! :confucius