trouble

The offensive gameplay and calls would have been completely different. Minnesota knew Martinez was hampered and wouldnt be able to take off liek he really can. There was no need to shadow Martinez or worry about his running. They sat back, played coverage and let thier front 4 guys go after Martinez. Martinez couldn't beat the coverage. RKII could have, and TA would have used his legs to make more plays. I couldnt count on my hands the number fo times Martinez could have ran and picked up 5 or 6 yards at least on broke passing plays. To say Martinez didnt hamper this offense in the least is ignorant as crap.

Thank you baby jesus.

Im typically a pretty positive kool-aid drinker about Husker football, but god help us if Martinez continues to start while he is injured. Will definitely be "Suicide by Martinez" for Bo.

No, absolutely not. When unhealthy, Martinez is an absolute hinderance to our offense. If he was heathly and could run like normal, Damn straight you start him. Its painfully obvious thats not the case though.

This is such a joke. Anybody that thinks Saban will leave Alabama for NEBRASKA is off their rocker. I don't care how much money we throw at him, Saban will never come to NU.

The only thing Im angry about after this game is the fact that martinez started, and played the entire game even though he is not 100%. The coaches have stressed to this point that he will not play until he is 100%, yet what happens? Thats absolutely infuriating.. Martinez is not an effective QB while injured. I admire and appreciate his grit and his perseverence but the coaches and Taylor himself has to know when to shut it down and know you are not effective. Before I get the Pro-Taylor crowd jumping all over my back, No, Taylor was not the only issue but the inept-ness of the offense did the defense no favors on Saturday and thats an issue. If Taylor is 100% healthy, I will get behind him and support him 150% but not until then.

Yeah, I already read that. I was looking more for first hand experiences with some of the lots. I think I'll end up using the bus system.

Talking about that Startran or whatever?

So, Im taking my father in law to the Northwestern game, and I cant particularly park where I normally do as he has MS and has issues walking long distances(I park up by the National Guard typically). I do see that there are handicap areas around the stadium but does anybody know how quickly these fill up or how to buy the $15 parking passes for them? Usually my google-fu is spot on but I can't seem to find these answers. Thanks!

Not I. The kid has guts and a lot of heart and pure talent. Obviously not the most refined QB in the sport though. Regardless, if he is injured, he is a liability to this team if he plays. As much of an improved passer as he is, he can't beat a good team with purely his arm(Without the threat of him taking it to the house on any given play..) <sigh> I'm providing a counter argument to people blaming Martinez for the team's woes - including on the defensive side of the ball. Providing that counter argument does not include every facet of the situation. I have not now, nor have I ever, said the offense - and Taylor Martinez - don't shoulder blame for what ails this team. You and me are arguing for the same reason. All I ever see is it being the defenses fault and no blame being put on the offense.

Nothing, because he can't run right now.. and he certainly didn't run in the first couple games he played either! And as far as the first bolded statement...and how many has he won? That's what I thought. From what I heard I thought Martinez got injured in the second half or the Wyoming game. It would explain the lack of zone reads we have seen this year.

Agreed, but ONLY if he is 100% healthy.

Had the offense sustained a drive and scored a TD at the beginning of that first half or after they scored a TD, that very well may have changed the entire game. Defense gives up a big score, gets down on themselves. Offense comes out, punts in 58 seconds. Do you not think if they offense spent more than a minute on the field that the defense would have responded better? The problems very well may lie deeper than the players themselves, but you cannot absolve the offense of some of the blame in that game. Momentum...it's kind of a big thing. If the offense ran down the field and scored, it would have been a big boost to that defensive unit that had some issues the prior drive. Does that come down to a lack of mental toughness? Sure, which is why the experience and leadership of that offense needs to come through and step up to make a play.

Not sure I can really argue that. Definitely may see both of them in the NFL in a couple years.

How big of a lead should the offense have spotted the defense before it stops being the offense's fault we lost that game? 18 points clearly wasn't enough. Should it have been 24? 30? 35? Because none of those numbers would have sufficed. The defense gave up 38 unanswered points. The Martinez-led offense would have had to give the defense a six-touchdown cushion the way they just quit in that game. That's completely unrealistic. If the offense sustained one or two drives, let the defense catch their breath and regroup, that game would have been completely different. I can't understand how you can defend that absolutely terrible offensive performance the second half. Or how about the offense sustaining just a FOUR MINUTE drive at the end of the first half instead of two 3 and outs? How about not going 3 and out 5 out of the last 9 drives of the game? How many teams have an offense sputter like that against good teams and still win? Not many, no matter how good or bad the defense is. i'm not asking the offense to go out and score every possession, thats unrealistic, but can I get a score at some point in 10 drives? This shouldn't be tough, considering the offense is one of the best in the B1G. I'm sorry, but the offensive performance in the latter part of the UCLA game can't be defended. Your complete overlook of that is biased as hell.

When you're trying to figure out if the offense or defense was more to blame in a meltdown, it usually goes to the coaching staff. Motivation, focus and discipline are teamwide traits, and it's really been at the heart of Nebraska's frustrating losses, moreso than playcalling or an individual performance. Can't really disagree with that. Coaching staff put out a QB whos' injury took away his biggest strength. I'm glad they have learned their lesson on doing that. Disclaimer: I'm not throwing Bo and Co. under the bus, as Im not on that hate train, but that was a mistake.

Or it's your memory/writing ability. "we cannot get away with it this year" leaves two options: - You're ignoring that we don't have to worry about getting away with it this year because our offense, while not perfect, has been very good. - You're just babbling on and throwing s#!t against the wall hoping something will sound like you're making a valid argument. Do some of you just suck at reading or what? I'm not bitching about the offense as a whole this year. I'm talking about the UCLA game, you know, that one game we lost because our offense couldn't sustain a drive longer than 2 minutes or score in the last two and a half quarters? Our defense surely had issues but I'm not absolving the offense of that total shitshow they put on those two quarters. Our offense has very much improved the last 3 years, but if our offense is containing a UNHEALTHY Martinez, it's not that good. The only damn thing Im arguing is how that UCLA game wasn't entirely the defenses fault. It lies on that offense too, which in turn lies on the coaches for throwing an injured Martinez out there. It doesn't matter if you score 50 points in 11 games, that doesn't automatically make you disregard that one game that you scored 10 and got your ass beat. Go through my posts, I'm for the most part a total sunshine pumper when it comes to NU football, but I can also tell when it's not just one part of the teams fault.

So being #28 in the country last year, scoring 35 points per game (including 30 or more points in our four losses last year) equates to "can't produce on offense." Got it. And handing the defense a 21-3 lead midway through the second quarter against UCLA - all three TDs which came on brilliant passes by Martinez - that's also "can't produce on offense." Understood. And being the #15 scoring offense in the country and #9 rushing offense in the country is obviously a dumpster fire. Obviously your reading comprehension could be better. The dumpster fire offense was 2009. 2010 was still bad regardless of the #15 and #8. That offense wasn't as good as those stats look.

So being #28 in the country last year, scoring 35 points per game (including 30 or more points in our four losses last year) equates to "can't produce on offense." Got it. And handing the defense a 21-3 lead midway through the second quarter against UCLA - all three TDs which came on brilliant passes by Martinez - that's also "can't produce on offense." Understood. My god. I'm not talking about the entire year, or even the entire UCLA game(Also, I never said a damn thing about last year). Handing a defense a 21-3 lead midway through the second is all fine and dandy, but averaging 2 minute drives the rest of the game without scoring is atrocious. What can't you understand about that. THAT is what I am talking about. Im not talking about a game that the offense was sustaining drives or scoring points. I'm talking about that bullsh#t that we saw in the UCLA game that produced absolutely NOTHING in 2.5 quarters. That loss is most assuredly 50% of the offenses fault. I don't care if you have a top 5 defense, you will give up points if your offense doesn't do absolute sh#t. You seem to be taking my complaints about a few quarters of sh**ty offensive football completely the wrong direction. I'm not completely defending the mistakes made on defense and I'm most assuredly not defending that dumpster fire last year that would give up 50+ points when our offense was scoring 35+. Im talking about that bullsh#t we saw in the UCLA game(2.5 quarters worth). If our offense could have sustained any sort of drives or scored any points that would have been completely different. This is a TEAM sport, the offense MUST support the defense when they are struggling, along with the defense supporting the offense. Obviously in the UCLA they both f'ing failed in the second half. My point is you can't sit here and say that the offense wasn't part of the problem in that game. It was. Lastly, I have stated many times before, if Martinez is 100% healthy he IS OUR STARTING QB, and I have ZERO issue with that. He is a big play threat and is our best chance for a title this year. With that being said, I do not want him anywhere near that huddle until he is 100% healthy. Not 85%, not 95% but 100%. Until he is at 100% he is a liability.

One more thing. Obviously Martinez wasn't the only problem with the offense in that UCLA game's second half as Abdullah fumbled away the ball on that one drive and there were a couple drops, but it always starts with the QB. Fair or not.

I've never said Taylor wasn't part of the problem. I've been critical of his mistakes. I guess I'll be the guy in the wrong here. I never imagined it would be controversial to call into question the mountain of criticism leveled at our record-breaking quarterback and comparing it to the (relatively) mole-hill size criticism directed at our record-breaking defense. Especially since the defense's records have been on the bad end of the record book. I apologize for pointing out this disparity in criticism. BTW - the Time of Possession exaggeration is noted. To date, Nebraska ranks 44th in the country in TOP, holding the ball for a cool 30 minutes a game. We were at #36 at the end of last season at 31 minutes per game. Through the first three games of this season we averaged 32 minutes per game, with UCLA being the lowest point at 28 minutes. We held the ball for 29 minutes against SDSU. We held the ball for 27 minutes against Illinois. But again, I apologize for failing to note that the defense has been put in horrible positions by being forced out on the field 75% of the time. My bad. I also stated the UCLA game specifically. Even more specifically the second half, in which the offense was on the field for just under TEN MINUTES. So, I apologize I overshot just a tad. 66% of the time. As I stated, I am a Martinez supporter, and I will never say he shouldn't have ever started or be the starter here, but to sit here and absolve the offense of a bunch of 3 and outs is f'ing ridiculous. Side note....TOP was certainly lower in the SDSU and Ill game as we scored quickly, and had the TOP been the way it was in the second half of the UCLA game because of that reason, I wouldn't complain, but it wasnt. 2 minute drives that end with points on the board are one thing, drives that last 45 seconds and dont put any points on the board are completely different, and totally unacceptable. The defense is a dumpster fire, BUT YOU CANNOT CONTINUE TO PUT THE DEFENSE IN sh**ty POSITIONS BECAUSE YOU CAN't PRODUCE ON OFFENSE. We got away with a dumpster fire of an offense in 09/'10 because of some of our players on defense(experienced and talented.), we cannot get away with it this year because of all the youth that will make some mistakes. One last thing, a ton of criticism is on the offense because it was expected to be Top 10 and to score at will on anybody. Obviously that has not happened. The defense was expected to have some growing paints, and it was expected that the offense would be able to sustain drives and put points on the board to help the defense through those growing pains. There is no excuse for the performance we got from the offense in the UCLA game. If Taylor was completely healthy(Which that was painfully obvious) then he should have been benched. End of story.

This whole convo is ridiculous. Knapp, I usually don't disagree with much you say but holy sh#t man. Chill out. Martinez isn't 100% of the problem but he has been A PART of it. I have always been a staunch Martinez supporter and will continue to be when he is 100% healthy but you cannot deny that he is completely ineffective if he is not able to be a running threat(Which is only when he is legitimately at 100%). Martinez cannot sit in the pocket and beat people with just his arm, he needs his running ability to keep defenses honest. Nobody is saying that he is the entire problem. The defense has obviously been a dumpster fire this year, but to expect the defense to perform lights out while being on the field 75% of the game is insane. Consistent 3 and outs like we saw in the second half of the UCLA game was absolutely huge in the outcome of that game. Martinez should be our undisputed #1 guy, but only if he is completely healthy. I do not want to see one snap of him if he can't plant that foot and take off like he is known to be able to do. As far as all the criticism. What do you expect? He's the QB. The QB gets the most attention and criticism on ANY team, and their mistakes are magnified more so than anybody else. it's just how it is.

As a whole, its much easier than the last couple years but we still Play Michigan, MSU and Northwestern. All should be tough games.

Im still going with this is absolutely absurd. Turf toe is an injury that lingers, and we should sit Taylor if he is not 100%. Who do you think has the best chance of leading us to a B1G title this year? an 75-80% TM or a 100% TM? Give Taylor three weeks to heal up and be ready for B1G play. Saying otherwise is absolutely asinine. An unhealthy Martinez is a recipe for disaster for this offense as we rely on his running ability to slow down defenses. We saw how well it worked out when Taylor couldn't run in the UCLA game. I would prefer not to frak around with this crap against a team we should handily beat with our backup QB. fine, but if either backup struggles i don't want to hear one damn word from anyone about the sky falling because we couldn't get 50 points out of our backups agasint NDSU. watching high school film and 15 plays of mop up duty against an 0-15 team and everyone is ready to anoint the 2nd coming of tommie frazier. that's ridiculous. plain freaking stupid actually. I'm not saying TA is the second coming of Frazier, but if he is to be the future next year then if Taylor is not 100% then there is no reason not to start somebody in his place. I do not care whether we win this next game by 30 or by 3. I just do not want to prolong the injury that is completely limiting Taylors best asset. If we are to win the B1G then we need a healthy Martinez, and starting him in a game thats as sure a bet as you have when he is not 100% is just stupid.

Why doesn't the fact that he's from here get to be included? That's a poor argument. "Take out where he played and we wouldn't hire him." Well.....yeah, that's because you'd be removing one of his strengths from his resume. It's important that we have a coach that wants to be here and understands what it's like here. And Scott has been coaching for a decade now. Just for the record. He has been a paid coach since 2007. I dont count the year he spent at Nebraska(2002) or the year he spent at KSU(2006) as he was a grad assistant so 2007-2013 = 6 years. Not quite a decade there Landlord. Also, I removed the fact that he is from here becuase just becuase he played here does not mean he will make a good coach. I do not have anything against Scott Frost, I just don't see the appeal of hiring an unproven COACH. Wait he was co-d coordinator at Northern Iowa in 2008. That must qualify him to be a Defensive coordinator at Nebraska right? The whole argument is asinine. The ONLY reason he is even remotely near this imaginary conversation is becuase he won a National title here as a player. That does not mean jack squat to me in terms of coaching. All sorts of people complained about the BP hire becuase he had no HEAD COACHING experience and now people want a guy that hasn't even proven himself as a coordinator. Thats just completely absurd.