Guy Chamberlin

Tommy Armstrong rollouts with an equal threat to run or pass is a genuine headache for opposing DCs.

Play action also meant selling the handoff to the RB when you've actually slipped it to the FB. I think we won a national championship on one of those.

Martinez got better as his receivers got better. And I actually thought he was a solid passer as a freshman -- more than you could expect from a QB who's even better as a running threat. I think Armstrong suffers from Brett Favre syndrome: he actually has an incredible arm and good accuracy and a history of miracle plays, so it convinces him he can complete passes he shouldn't throw. Again, that's more decision making than mechanics. But to hear the QB whisperers tell it, it's all about the footwork. They don't even care what the guys do with their arms until they understand the footwork. And both Martinez and Armstrong suffer(ed) from suspect footwork.

Although Nebraska ran the ball plenty the past six years, and Martinez and Armstrong were both legit dual threats, neither QB really excelled in the play action fake. They just go through the motions. Gill and Frazier and especially Scott Frost were masters at selling the play action. Stick the ball in the gut of the running back (except you're actually cradling it next to your leg) then standing almost straight up, relaxed, flat-footed, watching the running back hit the line...except you're really watching your receiver break open, at which point you reveal you still have the ball, to a defense that is nowhere near touching you. Those were always pretty cool. We should do that more. Current play action isn't fooling anyone.

Ozigbo. I don't thing he has to do much growing either. Just needs the reps.

Probably an accurate assessment. But it is debateable. 1. Decision making. While Frazier didnt throw a lot of passes, and didnt appear to be the most fluent passer, his TD to Int ratios were astounding. So even though his passing skill might not be as good as Armstrong, It would take some convincing to put Frazier behind Armstrong in this offense even. Not to mention, tendancy to run. Armstrong has shown pretty glaring tentativeness in simply running the ball on scramble situations. But in the end, it all boils down to how a coach would use each. I personally think Armstrong should be used more like Frazier. A thumper. The guy is 6-1, 220. That's LP/Green size. Run him more. Hell, as of right now, he could be the best running back on the team for all we know. We were such a rushing powerhouse in the 90s and our play action was so good that the 15 times a game we decided to pass, we could usually get a running back, tight end or wide receiver wide open in a low-risk zone. Decision making and accuracy weren't at such a high premium. Nebraska QBs almost never looked off a receiver (except on those designed screens in the flat) or checked through progressions or threw timing patterns in the end zone, and rarely had to thread the needle on crossing patterns. The play was designed to hit one wide-open receiver -- or tuck and run. Tommie was better at it than Scott Frost, who could hit wide open receivers but not always in stride.

I can think of anecdotal situations, too, but the fact is Tommy Armstrong was a 51.9% passer as a freshman, a 53.3% passer as a sophomore, and a 55.2% passer as a junior. Not as much progress as you'd like, but progress. And not exactly evidence that a demanding new system interrupted his natural progression. I agree that Martinez progressed as both a passer and a game manager, even post-injury, but never overcame his ball-handling liabilities and never benefitted from a reliable defense.

Armstrong's arm is good and sometimes incredible. It's the decision making thing.

I agree with a lot of your post. It's just worth noting that he's not just an athlete lining up at QB. He was a 4* QB out of HS. Only JT Barrett was ranked higher as recruit among B10 starting QBs this year. He had fairly typical to solid freshman and sophomore years. Then he and his team had to do a complete revamp on offense, and he took a step back (along with many of his teammates). I think that if they hadn't had to go through that, they would have been pretty damn good offensively last year. It's hard for me to judge him when the offense went through that total change over. Especially because he performed at the top among first time QBs in a Riley system. I know we're both repeating ourselves now, but I'm almost certain Tommy Armstrong displayed the same strengths and maddening tendencies under Pelini that he did under Riley. The new offense was by no means a total change over or complete revamp. Most plays were perfectly familiar to the players and fans. Adjusting the run/pass ratio to 50:50 rather than 60:40 is more tweak than overhaul, and reflects a team with stronger receivers than running backs -- and a team often behind in the fourth quarter -- more than a schematic change that threw the poor players in a tizzy. It seemed obvious as a spectator — and coaches diplomatically confirmed it — that Tommy Armstrong's versatility and leadership were his strength, so coaches allowed him to make in-play decisions. Too often in 2015, Tommy would ignore tons of open field that was his for the scrambling in order to launch a home run ball to a receiver who wasn't open. The coaches wanted Tommy to run more in those situations. Tommy wanted to pass. If you want to blame the coaches for something -- and that's all you really want to do -- blame them for not curtailing Tommy Armstrong's hero ball instincts. But the plays they called for Tommy were plays Tommy knew how to run. Because he'd been running them for two seasons under Beck. If Tommy Armstrong took a step back last year, it strangely enough landed him as the #2 Total Offense leader in the Big 10. There were games where Tommy could kill the opponent with his arm. Other times he could kill the Huskers with his arm. His legs are a threat only if he's a legitimate threat to pass, and visa-versa. It was a similar situation with Taylor Martinez. You can design schemes to maximize their strengths, but I'm not sure you can change their reckless and occasionally miraculous instincts.

There are also more bigger bodies to choose from than there were 20 years ago, for both the NCAA and NFL, regardless of offensive scheme. Many of them are better athletes, too. Always hard to make the argument that bigger isn't better, though smart coaches can make special cases out of guys who don't fit the mold. Really hard for any quarterback under 6' to get serious consideration, too. And QB's over 6'3" sometimes get more attention than they deserve. As CM has pointed out, it would be possible to steal undervalued OL recruits if they fit a run-based offensive scheme, but that commitment presents risks as well. If you can't pass block, you are going to have to be content with college football as the height of your career. Local OL talent has gone on to succeed at other programs with varying offensive schemes.

Yeah. 84HuskerLaw suggests we've been "seeing this for years" but I can't remember a single Iowa season finale where I wanted the team to admit defeat and play the young, unproven guys. Also, it's called Senior Day for a reason.

If you're unranked and you just keep winning, you will be ranked accordingly. Possibly even get hyped for being a sleeper. If you are highly ranked and lose a clunker, you will be punished accordingly. Possibly even mocked for being overrated. If you lose only one game, better to do it early than late. Given the conference championship games and four team playoffs, I don't see early season rankings determining squat. But you need them anyway, just because.

I don't think there's much argument here. Recruiting dropped off under Solich and never recovered. Some of this is on each coach, obviously, but some of it is the changing landscape of college football, bypassing a dynasty that couldn't rest on its laurels. Dropped off compared to the late 90's championship run, sure, but not compared to what Nebraska was historically capable of. Well that's kinda my point. A Bo Pelini 9-4 season is just one off the 9-3 seasons Tom Osborne was turning in during his first decade here. Fans grumbled about both. Except a Tom Osborne 9-3 season still landed Nebraska in the Top 10 in the 1970s. That's part of the changing landscape of college football thing. IIRC, Nebraska's recruiting classes have been drifting down into the lower 20s and 30s by the not always reliable ranking systems. But not surprisingly, Nebraska has been finishing near the bottom or out of the Top 25 entirely since our National Championship appearance in 2001. I don't think it's fan entitlement to say that's not acceptable for the program. You can blame individual coaches or the ADs who hire and fire them, but the decline in Husker football surely follows the slow drain of talent for a variety of reasons: this is no longer a program that can stockpile good players at every position. Maybe we can catch fire with the right guys in a tailored system, and/or slowly build the recruiting pipeline back by making Nebraska relevant again. Getting some coveted Southern Cal recruits to brag on social media about coming to Lincoln, Nebraska is a good start. My personal beef is that regardless of the "skill position" signings, Nebraska alway put a premium on the offensive line. If you were an offensive lineman anywhere in the country, Nebraska was the big time. You would be appreciated and drafted there. And it turns out a lot of those great offensive linemen were right in state. Good offensive line makes everyone look better.

Riley will play the best guy, every game, as his neck is on the line. LOL his neck is on the line. Maybe your line. Even if this year flubs again, he's got another 2 before his neck is on the line. Whether Riley is going to be fired or not, the AD should tell him to play the young guys. Period. end of discussion. Seniors can and should play if the team is competing for championships / upper half of the bowls, etc. but once the losing season becomes apparent, then you double down on the 'backups to the future' program. I agree that we should look for ways to get young players meaningful experience. Did you mean not to play seniors at all, or just to get young guys in the game? I mean we should basically swap the roles the seniors play with the backups. Let the seniors (formerly starters) play the mop up roles at the ends of games in the losing seasons. I've watched some many times as the teams who are mired in mediocrity or worse continue the same pattern of bringing in new recruits, redshirting them, letting be backups until they are juniors and seniors and then they get the playing time as 'they've earned it" and because they are the 'experienced' and have 'paid their dues' etc. To me the rule is 'the best guys play' UNLESS the team continues to not win and they are seniors. Then, they've had their chances and just didn't get it done. At that point, you move on to the younger guys with a chance to get better and to get it done. That's how you build up the program. Thisis a never ending cycle of watching the younger guys 'wait their turns' and sit around as the next class of seniors who patiently waited their turns like good little soldiers marching to die! To say "if I was a under classman on the team and saw the starters benched because they weren't getting the job done (losing repeatedly) I'd quit the team and transfer rather than get out there and work to win or get better so the next year you maybe could win!' is part of the problem. This notion that you're entitled to have something given to you without earning it by being successful is BS. That is the mentality at the core of many of country's problems today. You seem like a nice guy, but I'm glad you're not running the team.

I don't think there's much argument here. Recruiting dropped off under Solich and never recovered. Some of this is on each coach, obviously, but some of it is the changing landscape of college football, bypassing a dynasty that couldn't rest on its laurels.

It's called setting expectations based on a reasonable standard. Although Psycho is the only one who will say it out loud, what many here have ended up arguing is that we are justified in firing any coach who doesn't start off his career with a record equal to a future HOFer (and, imo, the goat). And that seems really really ill fated to me. Earlier this thread you said Solich and Pelini had not been picked up by another Power 5 school for "myriad reasons." I think you'll find there were myriad reasons for their firing, too. It wasn't merely the on field record. It wasn't merely the off-field liabilities. It wasn't just the AD's issues. It wasn't just the fan expectations. They all came together to create "myriad" reasons.

What is really going on in this country? I see a country (government) that can not, and will not, let racism die. They continually stoke the flames, to ensure racial tension is alive and well. but please, tell me what is really going on! I feel like people are honesty trying to tell you what's going on. If you see racism as a problem that was largely solved — but is now being propped up and stoked by the government — I just don't see a path to understanding. First off I didn't say anything about racism in this country, I said the government (and the liberal media) are making sure racial tensions do not subside. Your second sentence is in direct contradiction to your first. Also, the government has not created this new wave of racial tensions, nor have they stoked it. That credit goes to cell phone cameras, and people who aren't afraid to use them.

I believe the early analysis was that the Johnson/Weld ticket would draw from more Clinton voters than Trump voters.

What is really going on in this country? I see a country (government) that can not, and will not, let racism die. They continually stoke the flames, to ensure racial tension is alive and well. but please, tell me what is really going on! I feel like people are honesty trying to tell you what's going on. If you see racism as a problem that was largely solved — but is now being propped up and stoked by the government — I just don't see a path to understanding.

Pelini never hurt my feelings either. I didn't think he was mean or scary. He was just an a-hole. And no great coach, either. He was hired as a defensive guru, and proceeded to field some of the most embarrassing on-the-field defensive performance in Nebraska history. On national TV. Where he often made an ass of himself. He was frequently out-coached. His teams became notorious for their unwillingness to make in-game adjustments. Bo Pelini screamed at and spit on his coaching staff in games where he seemed shocked by what his own team was doing. He didn't like assistants outshining him, and hired underwhelming staffs and coordinators. He blamed the fans for team failures. He said he wanted out of Nebraska in 2011 and had his agent fish around for every major college HC opening since then. The AD gave him a contract extension, more recruiting resources and a 7th season to prove himself. Bo proved that he had simply hit his ceiling. Then Bo Pelini landed at the safest, most supportive, lowest pressure school he could ask for, and pulled his same tired schtick on the way to a losing season. What's not to love? Eichorst would have been an idiot to keep enabling an unremarkable coach who didn't want to be here.

lol, your selective understanding of the history of Indians and American in general is not that surprising in the least. You do realize Indians attack each other, and eradicated the less powerful tribes, right? I guess not, it was all those evil white people! The Crow and the Sioux hated each other so much that they refused to team up to stop the white man about to eradicate their entire lifestyle. The u.s military actively exploited these kind of tribal rivalries. But the white man was responsible for the genocide of the native American population. Why do you keep assuming a less savory victim excuses any action of the perpetrator? I am not excusing anything, I am saying the white man was not the evil people history is trying to make them out to be (there is still some truth on how things played out still available, instead of this new concocted history of the evil white man wiping out all the Indians). I am also saying that the depiction of the Indians today couldn't be farther from the truth. They attack each other and wiped out other tribes without any help from the white man. Dude, my last two posts were written specifically to acknowledge your semi-correctness on these two points. While respectfully suggesting you can't use them to dismiss the systemic de-humanization used against Native Americans and Blacks in this country to take their land and profit from their labor, and issues that clearly aren't solved just because you wish they would go away. If you're a law-abiding black man, who has worked hard, lifted himself and his family up to middle-class respectability, you will still get pulled over in your car for no reason. Unlike the white guys in your office, you will have spent time face down on the pavement because a police officer ordered you to. Worse things will have happened to your friends and family. There's no secret why you didn't get the small business loan a neighbor did. There's no breathless coverage on Nancy Grace when a little black girl gets kidnapped. You can't tell your kids they have nothing to fear because it simply isn't true. When white people don't believe this sh#t happens every single day, it gets a little frustrating I'm sure.

I like this board. The conversation is generally smart and informed, the posters have their own angles, several are pretty damned funny. I just don't see anyone promoting fairy tales, making unfair excuses or not caring about the Huskers enough.

I don't disagree. But I don't care about being fair to Frank and Bo......they are each doing just fine. Husker football is not doing just fine. That's what I care about. I'm gonna assume anyone who spends time on a Nebraska fan bulletin board cares about Husker football. But I don't think being constantly pessimistic is proof you care more.

An indictment on the mentality instilled in the players by the prior coaching staff? A simple analogy used to clarify what is meant by a "Teardown"? I've been a member here for awhile, and I don't think Guy has ever once taken shots at the players. History, and context, matter. Thanks.

Pretty sure we all have that hope. So let's not call it sunshine pumping.