3rd and long

I'm going to take it back a lot further than most have so far. My grandfather was a very stern and reserved gentleman. A WWII veteran who had built his business up from scratch, worked hard and was a very stern disciplinarian who rarely showed any emotion. Quite frankly, he scared me. Thats why it was such a shock to see him jumping up and down on the couch as Johnny Rodgers returned the punt against OU in 71. That is my first true Husker memory and that indeligble image will be in my mind forever.

Don't misunderstand my stance on Martinez. I recognize that he is the current best option we have, and that our other option is still learning. That does not equate to unequivocal support, or blind support, though. I am highly critical of Martinez' game, his ball-control, his errant reads, etc. I just end up spending more of my time dispelling myths about the guy than critically analyzing his game. If we could have threads that weren't angst-driven hyperbole and were simply focused on his game, your opinion of my opinion would be quite different. I wouldn't care to "show all of you" that you're wrong, because I don't think you're wrong (or that, by inference, I'm "right"). In fact, I agree with you that Carnes really should be getting reps in these games, even early, like we did with Cody last year where we planned to put him in for a series or two early in most every game. Carnes is one hit away from having to take over, and he's gotten, what? 15 snaps all year? To quote Goose, "This is not good! This is not good!" Well said, but one question. Are most of the myths you're dispelling really myths. The character assiginations on him are completely uncalled for, but most of the posts I've read really do address what (to me anyway) are very legimate concerns. I wil admit many probably are angst driven, that just shows the incredible passion of Husker fans. Most are not personal, if he can start to eliminate some of these issues, I think most people will happily jump back on his bandwagon.

Knapplc, being as it appears you and bshirt are the biggest TM supporter on here, I would think you would want Carnes to get a couple of series, because then when he fails (as it is so continuously pointed out that he is not ready) you can show all of us that want to see him how wrong we are and then we'll stop clamoring for him. I really do know that the most popular player is always the backup QB, and nine times out of ten, he ends up being worse than the guy on the field. But really, would it have done any damage to get Carnes a little time against Wisconsin?

That's exactly it. Unless he still doesn't have the playbook down (which would indicate a serious issue to me), how do we know if he's ready or not if we don't get to see him play in actual game time? Yeah, he didn't look very good against UTC, but he was only in for a few plays, and I'm pretty sure he only threw one or two passes, if that even. Let's say he really isn't ready. Should Beck put him in just to show the fans that he isn't? The consensus seems to be that we don't know whether he's ready or not, and we would like to see for ourselves. Is it really that important to show the fans on the field? No, he should put him in so that when or if TM gets hurt (we know he's not coming out any other way), the guy stepping onto the field at least as a little game time experience. Plus, if Bo says he's not afraid to put him in the game, then he must not be as "not-ready" as everybody says (how hard is that to read).

I'm not sure this is a change at all. Hasn't Bo always said he's not afraid to put Brion in the game? Hasn't he always said he likes his depth at QB. I think there's a difference between being far away from playing and being far away from starting. I'm curious which it is now. There have to be 100 posts in the last week quoting Bo saying that Carnes is not ready, and that Carnes himself says he is not ready. Like many have said, he may really not be ready, but we really don't know either, I would just like to see him get a series or two of meaningful time so we can see. As to Dilliard (which I think is the thread topic), I believe being a Husker player, past or present, is like being part of a big, extended family. And while I think he is certainly entitled to his opinion, and he is entitled to express it publically, phrase it in a way that isn't quite so blunt. Have a little tact.

For the record, this was exactly what they said about Nebraska in the early 90s when Osborne was in the midst of his seven-game losing streak in bowl games. 40 times have not increased so drastically that players are so much faster now that we cannot be successful running the ball. This is a fallacy. But it's not the 90's anymore, the game has evolved. And if all that mattered to the running game was 40 times, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we probably have the fastest QB in the nation in the 40. The game hasn't evolved at all. Do you talk to any coaches? None of these offenses we're seeing are new. Did you really just say the game hasn't evolved at all...seriously, c'mon man, wether I agree with you or not on something, you usually present a sound, logical argument, but this just leaves me shaking my head. I don't have to talk to coaches, I've watched the game for 40 years and seen that the game has changed. Sorry, you're talking about since the 90's so 40 years of watching is really quite irrelevant. Actually, that's a paraphrase from (I believe) Tom Osborne, who knows quite a bit more about this stuff than you or I. I can't find the link, but if you want it I'll keep looking. Basically he was saying that today's "flavor of the month" (paraphrasing) offenses aren't anything new. The Spread in particular was around decades before he went to the Option, and there's nothing magic about it that makes it better for today's game than the Option. These are the same offenses, with slightly different tweaks. I suppose we could go on a tangent about micro- and macroevolution, but that's not really productive to this conversation. But I've been watching football about the same amount of time as you. What have you seen that's changed? Where are the glaring differences between "then" and now? I would really like to see what he said, and if that is the case I wouldn't ever argue with it. But, would you agree the college game follows the trends of the pro game? And if so, the talk there is about the ever changing offenses and how the defenses have to change to keep up. Which says to me that the offenses do change and evolve. If you don't believe the college game reflects pro game , then it's not worth going any further.

I think there are positives, it's just after a loss like that, it's much harder to focus on those positives. And obvioulsy TM goes get the brunt of the criticism, but that's the nature of being the QB. The accolades after a win and much of the blame after a loss. But I don't' think anyone doubts his efforts. But there are still many positives, like others have said David and Burkhead to me epitomize Husker fb, they just never stop trying. I think Rex could go down as one the all-time favorite Huskers. He's just so classy, I love the way he jumps off the ground whether it was a two yard loss or a 50 yard gain, hands the ball to the ref, high fives his teammates and heads back to the huddle or sideline. And David also, no showboating. They both act like professionals who have done it before.

For the record, this was exactly what they said about Nebraska in the early 90s when Osborne was in the midst of his seven-game losing streak in bowl games. 40 times have not increased so drastically that players are so much faster now that we cannot be successful running the ball. This is a fallacy. But it's not the 90's anymore, the game has evolved. And if all that mattered to the running game was 40 times, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we probably have the fastest QB in the nation in the 40. The game hasn't evolved at all. Do you talk to any coaches? None of these offenses we're seeing are new. Did you really just say the game hasn't evolved at all...seriously, c'mon man, wether I agree with you or not on something, you usually present a sound, logical argument, but this just leaves me shaking my head. I don't have to talk to coaches, I've watched the game for 40 years and seen that the game has changed. Sorry, you're talking about since the 90's so 40 years of watching is really quite irrelevant.

For the record, this was exactly what they said about Nebraska in the early 90s when Osborne was in the midst of his seven-game losing streak in bowl games. 40 times have not increased so drastically that players are so much faster now that we cannot be successful running the ball. This is a fallacy. But it's not the 90's anymore, the game has evolved. And if all that mattered to the running game was 40 times, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we probably have the fastest QB in the nation in the 40.

Tommie Frazier and his career 50% completion rate say "Hello!" Yep, one example, 16 years ago, behind what was argueably the best O-Line ever put together in the college game. And honestly, I don't think it could be done now. The college game is much more sophisticated with coaches shuffling back and forth between college and the NFL, if you are a one demensional team, they will find a way to take away that demension. Lets look at the last 10 years, any of the teams have a QB who wasn't competent throwing the ball. I haven't looked but I would be surprised if thats the case.

When are we going to stop comparing him to the two best QB's in the history of the program? Crouch not only was faster, he could actually make a move. He didn't need a 'Dump Truck' size opening at the line of scrimmage. Tommie Frazier had a career of playmaking. Neither of them could throw any better than Martinez. Their throwing abilities are all even as far as I'm concerned. He isn't Crouch. He isn't Frazier. They don't run anything that even resembles that offense. If you would have grabbed the full quote string you would have seen that I wasn't the one who made that comparison. But dont you think that there comes a time where that needs to be his "thing" for us to be successful? We dont have the personnel to absolutely tear competition apart with the run game like we did in the glory days. At that time we were bigger and stronger than everyone else. I dont mind pounding the rock all game, but bottom line is, if we need a 2 min drill the length of the field to win the game, we might as well close up shop. We dont need a Peyton Manning arm, nor do we need Michael Vick legs, we need a QB that is that, a quarterback. If we're going down that road, don't we also have to go down the road that it has to be "the thing" of our O Line to blow up opposing defenses, too? There are a lot of positions out there that need to develop a different "thing" for us to relive the success we used to enjoy. And again, I can't believe we have to keep saying this - you don't have to be able to pass to be a successful college quarterback. This is not the NFL. You can succeed by running at this level. We proved that for decades. That all depends on your definition of successful. If you are content to win eight or nine games and go to mid-level bowl then yes. If you want to compete for the MNC I believe you have to be able to throw the ball, and throw it with a measure of compentcy. We did prove for decades that you can win running the ball....decades ago (decade and a half actually). Look back at the last 20 or so national champions and see how many of them could not throw the efficently. I'm still waiting for someone to anwser me honestly. If, and it's a big if, we have a compent defense, do you really think TM can or will develope into a QB who can lead a team to wins in big games over top quality opponents?

Rex tackled pretty well Saturday night....

This is an incredibly true statement. Hey bshirt, how about that, we agree!

I've been pretty pleased with him so far this year, but I do think the 2nd quarter showed a bit of panic causing him to fall back in the Watson mode. I think he's caugt too much flak ove the first play of the 3rd quarter. I think that was completely unexpected and a good call, just a really bad throw. If he dumps that ball to Rex it's probably a nice gain. I am still waiting though for some type of misdirection, something that will put one of our playmakers out in space. We keep hearing that something is coming with Turner....but we're still waiting.

You're comparing a sophomore to Crouch as a senior during his Heisman year, during his signature Heisman run. That's not a fair comparison. Martinez is not the same runner Crouch was, that's for sure, but he's still damned good, and probably the best threat to take it to the house we've had since Crouch. Just because he doesn't have the same running style doesn't mean he's worse - he's just different. It's like saying Ganz wasn't as good as Zac Taylor because Taylor was more of a pure pocket passer - this is true, but it's meaningless because Ganzie's game was completely different. Both were effective - but both played as upperclassmen. Martinez is still a sophomore. It probably wouldn't have hurt to put Carnes in when we were down 20-something points, and the game was pretty much decided. I can agree on that. But as far as putting Carnes in as the starter now, he'll be the first to tell you he's not ready - and I know this because I've talked to him. He isn't terrible, but he's not ready. He'll make mistakes that will cost us points and probably games, and we've already got that with Martinez. Why stop the growth process with Martinez in the middle, to start from scratch with Carnes? That makes no sense. As asked in other threads yesterday, when Carnes inevitably struggles, do we shelve him and get Ron Kellogg III some reps, just to see what he can do? It's a failing proposition. If you want an example from the coaches about Carnes' readiness (or lack thereof), just remember that they've told Martinez to avoid contact. There is only one reason they would do that - because we have nobody behind him. When comparing running styles, their class is irrelevant. Freshman come on the scene all the time that are that type of runner, Abdullah is right now. I'm just saying TM is a one dimensional runner, straight and fast. When the defense closes off the corner he is not the type who will cut back against the flow or make one or two people miss and turn that no-gain play into positive yardage. Absolutely, he is our best chance to take it all the way, if he can get the corner. And again, I'm not saying (yet) that Carnes should be the starter. You obvioulsy have some insight into his situation that many don't, but is it possible he is just saying "the right thing" and trying not to stir up controversy. How many elite athletes like him don't think they can do better than the guy currently on the field. It's the nature of the athlete that he thinks he can get the job done (see the Antonio Bell tweet thread). I just want to see him get a few reps in meaningfull time, some guys really do play better than they practice. Its become a circular argument between us on this, we both same the same thing over and over again, just in a different way. It is entertaining and enjoyable though. I don't think I'm going to convince you, and I know you won't change my mind. My question is this, do you honestly think he can/will develope into the type of QB who can lead us to wins against better teams in bigger games?

I have to admit, I've spent so much time on the QB threads discussing issues there that I've really haven't paid much attention to the other side of the ball. I'm curous to hear what others think the major problems are and what the fixes are. My take: First of all we miss way too many tackles. It doesn't matter if your scheme has you in the right place if you can't make the play. Second, why did we stop with the pressure. We got to Wilson a couple of times and at least hurried him on occasion, and those seemed to be the times when he missed. I understand that when you blitz a QB like Wilson, he is going to break out and make some big plays, but with our secondary, if he has that much time, he's going to pick us apart. I would rather try to force something to happen. When and why did we get away from an aggressive style of defense. Sorry, I just saw there is another thread just below this one with the same topic, please feel free to deplete this one and I'll join that one.

I understand being frustrated with a guy who's not leading us to victories, but this isn't even remotely true. I've watched Taylor lower his shoulder several times this year, and that's despite the fact that coaches have told him to avoid contact. He did it several times last year as well. Further, he's juked guys out of their socks several times - most notably the shoulder/ball fake against the Washington linebacker in the third quarter, and there are plenty of other examples. It's clear you're not in love with Martinez as a quarterback and that's OK, you don't have to be a huge fan. But if you're going to critique him and be taken seriously it helps if you talk about actual flaws. You're just making stuff up here, and that's no way to hold a conversation. I wouldn't use the ball fake against Washington has an example, because after that fake it threw it directly to a Washington defender, fortuantly he missed him too. Knapplc I apprecitate how strongly you and Bshirt defend him, he is just a kid and I'm sure he's trying 100% out there, but the reality is he really isn't a runner in the sense we talk about premier running backs. I think the Crouch run against Missouri is a really good example, he made numerous people miss, and that is something TM does not do. He is a sprinter, plain and simple. If he gets the corner, look out he can take it the distance, but he doesn't make people miss, he doesn't cut back against the flow. He is not the type of runner who makes something out of nothing. Again, as I've said numerous times, I'm not calling for him to be benched, but I really believe a series or two where he has a chance to get his head together, and give Carnes some real time would be beneficial. If he cant handle being on the bench for a series or two, is he mentaly strong enough to play the position? He's had every opportunity and still shows little to no improvement. I know the excuse of the day is "it's a new offense for him" and "Beck didn't play to his strengths". You know what excuses are like....everyone has one. And the statements that Carnes is not ready, how does anybody know. We've seen what, two series? What if it turns out that he can do it, when do we find out? Bottom line, when something is not working, try something different. If we had put Carnes in at some point in the second half, what would it have hurt?

Turning the ball over 3 times is a huge part of losing the game, it keeps the defense on the field and wears them down at the game goes on. That's the biggest problem with what Beck did throwing the ball, it didn't keep the offense on the field and led to the D wearing out. Here's what happened once we got the ball back with a 1 point lead 1st down- Burkhead gains 7 yards, but called back for illegal formation 1st down- Taylor sacked 2nd down- Taylor runs for 1 yard 3rd and 14- Rex catches a 9 yard pass Punt So now the D hits the field and stops White for a 1 yard loss on 3rd, Toon catches a 4 yard pass then Wilson gets sacked, punt back, D stepped up. Offense gets the ball back 1st- Burkhead stuffed for a 1 yard loss 2nd- Incomplete to Cotton (dropped) 3rd- False start on Reed to get us to 3rd and 16 at the 41, rather than check down Taylor forces it and Wisconsin gets the ball back at the 46 (TOP, 45 seconds) UW gets the ball back, 5 yard pass, incomplete, 6 yard pass 1st down, 5 yard run, 2 yard run, playaction over the top on 3rd and 3 for a TD So now you're down 20-14 with 2:00 left 1st down incomplete 2nd down 26 yards to midfield to a wide open Turner 1st, 4 yards to Kinnie, OB to stop clock 2nd incomplete 3rd picked again TOP 41 seconds So in that swing the Huskers held the ball for 2 possessions under 1 minute, and the D was forced right back on the field and gave up two long throws. Hindsight is 20/20, Beck got greedy since Taylor had thrown it pretty well up till then and it bit us, we could have ran the ball and probably made it into half within 3 or even in the lead. Then the start of the half was just greedy, once that pick was made it was over I agree with just about everything you've said. But the one thing I've been thinking about was that play call to open the second half. I gurantee no one was expecting us to throw it there. If that play hits for big yardage, everyone is talking about what a great play call it is. The thing is, any call is only has good as it is executed on the field. It was a horribly thrown ball that led to the interception, not the call itself. While I do agree %110 that we tried to throw the ball way too much in that second quarter, I'm not as upset over that particular call. We are going to have to be able to throw the ball at some point, it's going to be forced upon us, and if we are going to win those games where they do take away our runs, we just have to be able to execute in the passing game. Our 95 team could be one dimensional with that line, but obviously thats not the case now. I really believe if we could even just get TM to take his one look deep and if its not wide open dump it off to his back it would open up things dramatically.

But again, how do we know. We have not given him ANY meaningfull snaps. Kanpplc, you and I have discussed this seemingly many times, but right now, I really believe any of our other QB's could be just as effecitve. Any QB that can throw somewhat effectively is going to prevent defenses from loading the box, then maybe can run the ball for four quarters.

And when he wins it is against poor teams and it is ugly. Bo has simply done a very poor job as a head coach. Poor preparation. Teams fielded w/o heart or passion. Teams unprepared, poor assignment football --- worse than any team I have seen. They play flat, lifeless against weak competition. And freak out against good competition --- imploding and killing themselves. Poor offensive game plans. And now, oddly, even the defense is not fundamentally sound. I think that Bo has to be viewed now as coaching for his job --- that is, from here on out this season, he better improve a great, great deal or he will be on the hot seat. This game did not at all surprise me. I predicted a big loss and even stated that the potential for a blow out was there --- I went on record and said Wisconsin by 21-35 pts. Why? Because of our poor coaching (and the resulting play of under-prepared players who are not focused). Thus, my stating that Bo has been doing a poor job as a head coach is not an over reaction to one game. I cannot over-react to a game that I predicted, essentially would go precisely as it went. I have been softly posting for the past year that Bo is wildly over-rated by most posters here --- and that he has done well, well below average as a head coach. He is seemingly not getting better. I now fear that he has lost this team... or... at the very least, is losing the team. I predicted before the season began that NU would lose 4 games in conference. That again was predicated upon the past inability of Bo to ready his teams. We will lose 3 more times in conference --- maybe 4 more. That Bo has not played Carnes for at least 1 quarter of each of the first four games against the cream puffs is inexcusable. the kid needs reps. He may not be a D1 QB either... but the one starting is CERTAINLY not. As much as I wish it was not the case, Martinez is no D1 QB. That is clear now and it was clear long ago. An... he is not really that good of a runner either -- check his stats against conference competition. Last night, Martinez needed to sit some and get unrattled --- but Bo did not provide a context for such as he did not prepare his back-up earlier in the season. None of this is a surprise. It all plots as a pretty straight line --- Bo has been consistent from the start --- over his time here the NU team has game in and game out under-performed --- always weak on fundamentals, passion, drive, physicality, and focus --- almost always with poor coaching on offense, poor roster management from the start, and now even (and this is both new and odd) coaching problems on defense. Buckle up folks... this season is set for much of the same. The past always is the best predictor of the future. Holy cow- is this a joke? We have to be the most short-sighted, spoiled fans of all time. Sorry that Bo has only won 9, 10, and 10 games his first three seasons. Sorry that we haven't had a bad, beatdown loss since 2008. Looks like you've forgotten how to take it it's been so long. You're right, we're always under-prepared, play with no passion. That 2009 Big XII CCG, man I wish those guys had played harder. Same with Mizzou the last two years, or at TTU in 2008. I will take on your prediction right now that we'll lose 4 in conference. Not sure you follow B1G football, but the rest of the teams we're playing are not good. Thanks for the laughs though- Bo on the hot seat. Please just cool down and come back in a few days. Not sure you read the post. He doesn't need to 'cool down' and come back later because he thought it would happen in advance and is unsurprised that it happened as predicted. And his opinion that we should expect more of the same in the future under Bo is one that is steadily gaining the weight of facts and evidence to back it up. Nobody called for Pelini's head, but I'll reiterate something I said last year when we were hiring coordinators. I won't blame Tim Beck for the offensive meltdown. Pelini had the chance to go out and get basically anyone he wanted. He chose his buddy from a failed staff. From here on, our success or failure is on Pelini, and if we drop four conference games, you better believe lighters are flicking under his seat. I'll be sure to come back when we go 6-2 in conference. Ok, you be happy with a 6-2 conference record. That will just confirm what Rob was saying, We beat (sometimes barely) inferior opponents and fall apart against the quality ones. This conference is bad enough that there a multitude of teams that would go 6-2. Some of the lower level SEC teams would have just a Wisconsin loss. I don't think we should be looking at that record as somthing to crow about. We haven't had a bad beatdown loss since 2008? Did you forget the bowl game last year. I'm concerned. This year is looking eerily similar to last year, and that didn't end well. Like Rob, I hope I am completely wrong and things get turned around quickly....but I'm not holding my breath.

I truly believe that with TM as our starting QB, we will be consistently a eight or nine win team, beating most of the teams we should, but falling short in the bigger games against the more quality opponents. He is not the QB who will turn close game against a good team into our favor, just too many mistakes. Is or could Carnes or Turner be the answer, how will we ever know? Sometimes kids are just special when they get on the field under the lights, they are just game performers. Who knows, maybe neither one of them can play a lick, but why not sit TM a series or two when he's struggling, give him time to calm down and get his head together, and take a look at one of the others. But if we're content to win eight and go to a lesser bowl this year and the nex two, cotinue on....

But when the same mistakes are made over and over, coaching can be called into question. I'm not calling for anyone to be fired by any means, but I am questioning. When our defenders are constantly looking into the backfield while a receiver runs by them, or losing containment by biting hard on a ballfake (albeit a very, very good one), these are discipline things. Playing your assingments is playing disciplined. And you could be 100% correct, that may be something that they work extensively on in practice every day and then come out during the game and completely forget, but if thats' the case then maybe someone needs some pine time. I don't know, I just know that we are an incredibly undiscplined team, sloppy mistakes, blown assingments, and costly, costly stupid penalites.

Thats what the Chicago Cubs fan say every year too. We do have a ton of young talent, but the question is, are they going to get better as they get older. I'm starting to have some serious doubts.

He did throw the ball well early and it was stupid of Beck to suddenly think we were a throwing team. But it still doesn't change the fact that we when did decide to become a throwing team, he was awful. And we're going to see much more of the same coming down road. Teams are going to stack us up up front and make him throw, and more often than not, we are not going to have good results (and yes, I remember Okie ST). Yes, he'll hit the long ball on occasion, though more often than not, he'll turn a sure TD into a long gain by grossly underthrowing his receiver, but just as often we'll see what we did last night. Just not seeing any improvement.

I'd like him to be Russell Wilson too, but is he every going to get into a game? I think the only way TM ever gets pulled is if he comes out on a stretcher, then we'll send in our QB who has what, two series under his belt?