Quarterback Competiton!

[knapplc]

I'm just wondering why our resident 165 IQ'er hasn't gone completely batsh*t crazy about this thread yet...

Sorry, I'm sick today and not around a lot.

Wait... who are you talking about? :LOLtartar

 

[walksalone]

I'm just wondering why our resident 165 IQ'er hasn't gone completely batsh*t crazy about this thread yet...

Sorry, I'm sick today and not around a lot.

Wait... who are you talking about? :LOLtartar

hey, no mentions were made of pineapples, in any way shape or form

 

[Radio]

TM is definitely our biggest PROVE IT player going into the season. I'll think we'll find out rather quickly if he was a "flash in the pan" or if he really is solid D1 quarterback. We have no reason to believe he will not be the starter. It's obvious that Bo is enamored with what his skill set brings to the table. We heard all spring about how his leadership improved throughout the offseason, but I think a lot of that was rehearsed verbiage the team used. I suspect they were telling the media what they wanted to hear. TM's injury issues are also a big concern. It appears he may be one of those players that if one thing is "off" they are just not right at all.

Does anybody see the similarities btwn TM and Tiger Woods? When things are going well they are the greatest thing this side of the mason dixon line, but when things are going bad, it's always because of a tweaked ankle or knee.

 

[knapplc]

Does anybody see the similarities btwn TM and Tiger Woods? When things are going well they are the greatest thing this side of the mason dixon line, but when things are going bad, it's always because of a tweaked ankle or knee.

Don't most athletes struggle when they're injured? Heck, MLB pitchers take weeks off because of blisters. At high levels even small injuries can cause major problems.

 

[Radio]

Does anybody see the similarities btwn TM and Tiger Woods? When things are going well they are the greatest thing this side of the mason dixon line, but when things are going bad, it's always because of a tweaked ankle or knee.

Don't most athletes struggle when they're injured? Heck, MLB pitchers take weeks off because of blisters. At high levels even small injuries can cause major problems.

You make a good very good point. TM's quickness is his best asset and if he doesn't have that, it makes for a rough go of it on game day. More importantly, I think it's imperative the coaches have QB2 (whoever that may be) ready to go this season should TM go down. It seemed last season once TM got dinged up, we had no direction on offense whatsoever.

 

[knapplc]

More importantly, I think it's imperative the coaches have QB2 (whoever that may be) ready to go this season should TM go down. It seemed last season once TM got dinged up, we had no direction on offense whatsoever.

Agreed, although last year was an odd confluence of injuries with both Martinez and Lee getting banged up in the same week, followed closely by Green's concussion against ISU. I would hope we don't go through that again, but we could.

I think this year we'll be better off depth-wise if only because Martinez and Green both have another year under their belts. Carnes may be ready to go as well, meaning we could be legit three deep at QB. We should be so lucky.

 

[Enhance]

You make a good very good point. TM's quickness is his best asset and if he doesn't have that, it makes for a rough go of it on game day. More importantly, I think it's imperative the coaches have QB2 (whoever that may be) ready to go this season should TM go down. It seemed last season once TM got dinged up, we had no direction on offense whatsoever.

I personally believe this had a lot to do with a large amount of injuries at other positions besides quarterback, but it also had something to do with the offensive scheme as a whole.

First and foremost we must consider the truth that Watson was running an offense he wasn't supposed to be running. He was deeply rooted in west coast offense principles and would probably have been a more successful OC if he had had complete autonomy of the offense. The only problem with that was when he was running his offense (2009) it was pathetic amidst a slew of injuries. With the amount of injuries we had, however, it was tough to avoid poor offensive output. Therefore he got a free pass from me.

Second, in 2010, we must consider the basis of our offense - the zone-read with an terrifyingly fast Taylor Martinez. Once Martinez got hurt and we didn't have that speed at the quarterback position, you could see the offense rehashing some of the old wounds from 2009. Our greatest offensive performance after Martinez' injury (2010) was against Colorado, and we needed two gimmick plays plus a healthy dose of the wildcat in order to score. That's not very reassuring, at least by my approximations.

 

[Hujan]

I'll let it go, but the bolded parts say it all, IMO. You say there is a problem with point I'm trying to make, then accuse me of assuming that Martinez's ability to make long runs is why people want Martinez.

I AM FREAKING TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THAT IS THE REAL REASON WHY PEOPLE WANT MARTINEZ!!! I AM TRYING TO AVOID MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY QUESTION!!

And when I try to explore that, all I get is: "It's unfair to make hypotheticals." "Your question is stupid."

For the very reason you highlight, I think it's fair to ask guys how much weight they place on Martinez's ability to break those long runs. There is no agenda, there is no trick waiting around the bend. I am just geniunely curious.

As to the other points:

1) Yes, we all want to best guy to start. But some people have favorites that they would rather see. Even if Carnes and Martinez were both sophomores and both had a year of experience under the belt, my hypothesis is that some of you guys would be pulling for Martinez based on the allure of his running ability. So it makes me wonder how much that is true.

2) We are not bashing Martinez on the basis of Carnes' spring game performances. At all. The same criticisms you hear on this board you would have heard after A&M, the CCG, and the Holiday Bowl. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CARNES, and everything to do with deficiencies in Martinez's game.

The question is not "Is Carnes better than Martinez," the question is, "Is Martinez so lacking in the fundamental things you need to succeed as a QB that many QBs, including Carnes, would be better."

The reality here is that Martinez has had ZERO legitimate competition. Green and Lee were damn near worthless. Whether Carnes wins the Heisman or not, the spring game at least showed, in my mind, that he is not worthless. So then the question emerges: Although Martinez gets the nod compared to a pair of worthless QBs, does he still get the nod compared to a QB who is at least mediocre?

And that is the reality for a lot of Husker fans. We have so little faith in Martinez that we look to Carnes not because Carnes is god-like, but because he doesn't suck. You guys have continuously failed to grasp that subtle, but fundamental, difference.

Except you don't have clue one as to whether or not Carnes sucks. Which is why the logic of your Martinez bashing essays falls flat time and time and time again.

Question: How good would Carnes have to be in order to be better for us than Martinez post-Mizzou?

Answer: Not very.

Do you get it now, Dude?

You all seem to believe Martinez will magically be better once his ankle heals. I say:

1) That is as shaky an assumption as the assumption that Carnes will be good; AND

2) There is ample reason to believe that his ankle problem ain't exactly in the rearview.

 

[Hercules]

I understand that Martinez's ankle problems could be chronic, that they might never go away. But seriously, how is assuming that he'll be better if he heals a "shaky assumption?" Anybody would be better once they heal. If Martinez gets back to pre-ankle injury form, then he's very likely going to be the best QB, that's all anyone is saying. If he never heals, then obviously things will get interesting. But none of those things will be resolved anytime soon.

 

[bshirt]

I'll let it go, but the bolded parts say it all, IMO. You say there is a problem with point I'm trying to make, then accuse me of assuming that Martinez's ability to make long runs is why people want Martinez.

I AM FREAKING TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THAT IS THE REAL REASON WHY PEOPLE WANT MARTINEZ!!! I AM TRYING TO AVOID MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY QUESTION!!

And when I try to explore that, all I get is: "It's unfair to make hypotheticals." "Your question is stupid."

For the very reason you highlight, I think it's fair to ask guys how much weight they place on Martinez's ability to break those long runs. There is no agenda, there is no trick waiting around the bend. I am just geniunely curious.

As to the other points:

1) Yes, we all want to best guy to start. But some people have favorites that they would rather see. Even if Carnes and Martinez were both sophomores and both had a year of experience under the belt, my hypothesis is that some of you guys would be pulling for Martinez based on the allure of his running ability. So it makes me wonder how much that is true.

2) We are not bashing Martinez on the basis of Carnes' spring game performances. At all. The same criticisms you hear on this board you would have heard after A&M, the CCG, and the Holiday Bowl. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CARNES, and everything to do with deficiencies in Martinez's game.

The question is not "Is Carnes better than Martinez," the question is, "Is Martinez so lacking in the fundamental things you need to succeed as a QB that many QBs, including Carnes, would be better."

The reality here is that Martinez has had ZERO legitimate competition. Green and Lee were damn near worthless. Whether Carnes wins the Heisman or not, the spring game at least showed, in my mind, that he is not worthless. So then the question emerges: Although Martinez gets the nod compared to a pair of worthless QBs, does he still get the nod compared to a QB who is at least mediocre?

And that is the reality for a lot of Husker fans. We have so little faith in Martinez that we look to Carnes not because Carnes is god-like, but because he doesn't suck. You guys have continuously failed to grasp that subtle, but fundamental, difference.

Except you don't have clue one as to whether or not Carnes sucks. Which is why the logic of your Martinez bashing essays falls flat time and time and time again.

Question: How good would Carnes have to be in order to be better for us than Martinez post-Mizzou?

Answer: Not very.

Do you get it now, Dude?

You all seem to believe Martinez will magically be better once his ankle heals. I say:

1) That is as shaky an assumption as the assumption that Carnes will be good; AND

2) There is ample reason to believe that his ankle problem ain't exactly in the rearview.

My goodness, Hujan. I can hardly believe you wrote that. The difference was night and day after his injuries (ankle and turf toe). I would think even the most casual NU fan could see that.

To state he won't be any better if/when he gets healthy is just crazy.

 

[gbr93]

I'll let it go, but the bolded parts say it all, IMO. You say there is a problem with point I'm trying to make, then accuse me of assuming that Martinez's ability to make long runs is why people want Martinez.

I AM FREAKING TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THAT IS THE REAL REASON WHY PEOPLE WANT MARTINEZ!!! I AM TRYING TO AVOID MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY QUESTION!!

And when I try to explore that, all I get is: "It's unfair to make hypotheticals." "Your question is stupid."

For the very reason you highlight, I think it's fair to ask guys how much weight they place on Martinez's ability to break those long runs. There is no agenda, there is no trick waiting around the bend. I am just geniunely curious.

As to the other points:

1) Yes, we all want to best guy to start. But some people have favorites that they would rather see. Even if Carnes and Martinez were both sophomores and both had a year of experience under the belt, my hypothesis is that some of you guys would be pulling for Martinez based on the allure of his running ability. So it makes me wonder how much that is true.

2) We are not bashing Martinez on the basis of Carnes' spring game performances. At all. The same criticisms you hear on this board you would have heard after A&M, the CCG, and the Holiday Bowl. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CARNES, and everything to do with deficiencies in Martinez's game.

The question is not "Is Carnes better than Martinez," the question is, "Is Martinez so lacking in the fundamental things you need to succeed as a QB that many QBs, including Carnes, would be better."

The reality here is that Martinez has had ZERO legitimate competition. Green and Lee were damn near worthless. Whether Carnes wins the Heisman or not, the spring game at least showed, in my mind, that he is not worthless. So then the question emerges: Although Martinez gets the nod compared to a pair of worthless QBs, does he still get the nod compared to a QB who is at least mediocre?

And that is the reality for a lot of Husker fans. We have so little faith in Martinez that we look to Carnes not because Carnes is god-like, but because he doesn't suck. You guys have continuously failed to grasp that subtle, but fundamental, difference.

Except you don't have clue one as to whether or not Carnes sucks. Which is why the logic of your Martinez bashing essays falls flat time and time and time again.

Question: How good would Carnes have to be in order to be better for us than Martinez post-Mizzou?

Answer: Not very.

Do you get it now, Dude?

You all seem to believe Martinez will magically be better once his ankle heals. I say:

1) That is as shaky an assumption as the assumption that Carnes will be good; AND

2) There is ample reason to believe that his ankle problem ain't exactly in the rearview.

My goodness, Hujan. I can hardly believe you wrote that. The difference was night and day after his injuries (ankle and turf toe). I would think even the most casual NU fan could see that.

To state he won't be any better if/when he gets healthy is just crazy.

Im not sure about you but i read it as being geared more towards the possibility of Martinez never fully recovering.

 

[bshirt]

Yeah, maybe I am reading it wrong. If so, sorry Hujan.

 

[The Dude]

I'll let it go, but the bolded parts say it all, IMO. You say there is a problem with point I'm trying to make, then accuse me of assuming that Martinez's ability to make long runs is why people want Martinez.

I AM FREAKING TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THAT IS THE REAL REASON WHY PEOPLE WANT MARTINEZ!!! I AM TRYING TO AVOID MAKING ASSUMPTIONS. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF MY QUESTION!!

And when I try to explore that, all I get is: "It's unfair to make hypotheticals." "Your question is stupid."

For the very reason you highlight, I think it's fair to ask guys how much weight they place on Martinez's ability to break those long runs. There is no agenda, there is no trick waiting around the bend. I am just geniunely curious.

As to the other points:

1) Yes, we all want to best guy to start. But some people have favorites that they would rather see. Even if Carnes and Martinez were both sophomores and both had a year of experience under the belt, my hypothesis is that some of you guys would be pulling for Martinez based on the allure of his running ability. So it makes me wonder how much that is true.

2) We are not bashing Martinez on the basis of Carnes' spring game performances. At all. The same criticisms you hear on this board you would have heard after A&M, the CCG, and the Holiday Bowl. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CARNES, and everything to do with deficiencies in Martinez's game.

The question is not "Is Carnes better than Martinez," the question is, "Is Martinez so lacking in the fundamental things you need to succeed as a QB that many QBs, including Carnes, would be better."

The reality here is that Martinez has had ZERO legitimate competition. Green and Lee were damn near worthless. Whether Carnes wins the Heisman or not, the spring game at least showed, in my mind, that he is not worthless. So then the question emerges: Although Martinez gets the nod compared to a pair of worthless QBs, does he still get the nod compared to a QB who is at least mediocre?

And that is the reality for a lot of Husker fans. We have so little faith in Martinez that we look to Carnes not because Carnes is god-like, but because he doesn't suck. You guys have continuously failed to grasp that subtle, but fundamental, difference.

Except you don't have clue one as to whether or not Carnes sucks. Which is why the logic of your Martinez bashing essays falls flat time and time and time again.

Question: How good would Carnes have to be in order to be better for us than Martinez post-Mizzou?

Answer: Not very.

Do you get it now, Dude?

You all seem to believe Martinez will magically be better once his ankle heals. I say:

1) That is as shaky an assumption as the assumption that Carnes will be good; AND

2) There is ample reason to believe that his ankle problem ain't exactly in the rearview.

My point still stands.

Also

1) It's obvious Taylor is much more explosive when 100%. Stevie Wonder could see that.

2) Right, luckily we're not playing tomorrow.

 

[Enhance]

Question: How good would Carnes have to be in order to be better for us than Martinez post-Mizzou?

Answer: Not very.

Do you get it now, Dude?

You all seem to believe Martinez will magically be better once his ankle heals. I say:

1) That is as shaky an assumption as the assumption that Carnes will be good; AND

2) There is ample reason to believe that his ankle problem ain't exactly in the rearview.

I feel like I have said this far too many times now and am just getting redundant, but here it goes anyways.

The truth of the matter is that when Martinez' ankle is healthy he has shown he can be successful. He had two hiccup games prior to his injury, but the guy was a redshirt freshman. He didn't perform well against Texas, but you might remember that the team itself (especially the wide receivers) did not perform well against Texas.

Martinez may never be 100% healthy. There is evidence to suggest the ankle problem isn't over and done with. No disagreement there.

All of this said, what exactly are you/we arguing at this point? You just said that believing Martinez' ankle is healthy is as shaky an assumption as believing Carnes will be a good quarterback. So are you now arguing we have no good quarterback choice? I'm confused as to why this keeps going in circles.

Whoever starts is the guy I support - cut and dry. I don't care if it's the bum-ankle Martinez, unproven Carnes or what-happened-to-this-guy Green.

 

[Saunders]

Question: How good would Carnes have to be in order to be better for us than Martinez post-Mizzou?

Answer: Not very.

Do you get it now, Dude?

You all seem to believe Martinez will magically be better once his ankle heals. I say:

1) That is as shaky an assumption as the assumption that Carnes will be good; AND

2) There is ample reason to believe that his ankle problem ain't exactly in the rearview.

I feel like I have said this far too many times now and am just getting redundant, but here it goes anyways.

The truth of the matter is that when Martinez' ankle is healthy he has shown he can be successful. He had two hiccup games prior to his injury, but the guy was a redshirt freshman. He didn't perform well against Texas, but you might remember that the team itself (especially the wide receivers) did not perform well against Texas.

Martinez may never be 100% healthy. There is evidence to suggest the ankle problem isn't over and done with. No disagreement there.

All of this said, what exactly are you/we arguing at this point? You just said that believing Martinez' ankle is healthy is as shaky an assumption as believing Carnes will be a good quarterback. So are you now arguing we have no good quarterback choice? I'm confused as to why this keeps going in circles.

Whoever starts is the guy I support - cut and dry. I don't care if it's the bum-ankle Martinez, unproven Carnes or what-happened-to-this-guy Green.

This. :wasted