suh_fan93

^ Just denial speaking at this point :shrug:

We just lost to Purdont dude. We have hit bottom once again.

But that would mean Eichorst might have to come out of his foxhole.

We were saying the exact same thing. Seriously man. Retire. You had your run as a coach in the game. Just get it over with. You are a nice guy and I'll wish you nothing but the best but seriously it's time to spend time with the grandchildren. Time to end it.

Unless Ryker is 'lights out' like the other thread suggests I just don't see Armstrong being unseated. Of course his injury could unseat him by default. I think it would be really cool to see Fyfe come in and actually look good on Saturday. Purdue is the perfect opponent for breaking in a new QB besides maybe Southern Alabama in terms of what team would you most like to have to do that against on our schedule. Armstrong has the strong arm and has good/decent running ability. It's the other intangibles however that have so many questioning whether or not he is truly our guy at QB and it is certainly going to be interesting next year with O'Brien coming in. One second Tommy looks great. The next he's throwing the ball into the ground nowhere close to the receiver. The pick 6's. He's actually a lot more like Taylor Martinez than people talk about in terms of having good yet bad characteristics as a player.

When I look at the 'new' staff still not seeing the upgrade... More like even swap.

Nice work KazLong!

The staff was considered an upgrade by almost everyone at almost every position until a few weeks ago. Mike Riley and his staff were considered an upgrade???????!!!!!

Not how they actually played, chief, but how many games they won. And whether a Frazier, Gill or Crouch who went 9-4 with a lesser team would command the same level of reverence. Seriously, do you not see a drop off in team wide talent in the last decade, to the point where it might affect the success of the quarterback? And more mind-warping, can you really look at the last 5 seasons of Nebraska football and blame the offense for the defensive freefall? If Armstrong's 2 pick six's in three years has you in a tizzy, how do you explain away Melvin Gordon's 4 TDS in a single game, most of them untouched? I don't know anyone who doesn't see problems with Nebraska's offense. But you are the first person to suggest the defense hasn't been the bigger liability. Last year I believe we had the #19 scoring offense and the #57 scoring defense. You will tear both hamstrings trying to stretch that into Tommy Armstrong's fault. So you're switching what you're trying to say now yet again? I can't keep up with it. First you proclaimed that Tommy Armstrong was on his way to be one of the most prolific Huskers in the history of the program. Then you tried saying you implied that he wasn't going to be considered one of the greats even though the statement I mentioned was literally all you said. Then you resorted to bringing defense into the picture and trying to compare Turner Gill's, Scott Frost and Eric Crouch's defense vs Taylor's and Armstrong's to justify your ever changing argument. Then you went switched whatever argument you're going for yet again by referencing W-L records when no one made mention of anybody's win/loss record except for yourself. I'm gonna let you have the floor there kimosabe. You're all over the place after simply making one statement but then continually re directing whatever argument you were probably wrong about to begin with when you tried defending said statement. Cocaine is a helluva drug kids. I'll go slow. It's pretty simple. Tommy Armstrong is on pace to become Nebraska's all-time total offense leader. My position was basically "how do you feel about that?" So technically there were no wrong answers. Although you've certainly come the closest. My personal feelings are conflicted. Much as with Taylor Martinez, Tommy Armstrong is long on statistics and short on big wins, but also responsible for some terrifically exciting plays and games. You suggested some Husker fans would always be wowed by big stats, but they don't tell the story. My only disagreement is that I know virtually zero Husker fans who would take Taylor Martinez over the quarterbacks you listed. There's nothing wrong with being conflicted. So I wondered aloud how Taylor and Tommy might have done with the assets of a great Husker team. And conversely, how Frazier, Gill or Crouch might have done with a substandard offensive line and the #57 defense in college football. That's apparently where your panties got in a bunch, but I'm unclear what specifically you're disagreeing with. I made it clear I'd still take Frazier and Gill over Martinez and Armstrong. I brought up W/L records because they do seem to be a dividing line between legendary QBs and statistically gifted QBs, none of which contradicts anything we've been talking about. It was an interesting discussion there for awhile. My agenda was to waste some perfectly good time on a work day. But if we can now look at last year's Wisconsin game and blame Tommy Armstrong for Melvin Gordon then we've slipped into Bizarro World, and all bets are off. As for as your posts go and your 'agenda' which changes like the wind blows I must have missed that part... The part you missed was pretty much everything discussed. Ooooh boy....

I doubt many fans are overly gloomy about the staff because of the 3-5 record. Not sure but I doubt it. My guess is that most of the excessive negativity is coming from a small minority of vocal (vocal *now*) fans. Some of the small group are people who really don't understand analytics at all. 3-5 to them is dispositive. The end. Then there are some agenda folks anti mike, AD, or Perlman plus some pro Bo's. And last but not least are the complainers. They do it because it's what they do. 3-5 is good fodder. Zoogs thanks for the op. Interesting. We have one of the better receiving corps in the country, supposedly one of the better defensive lines in the country. A 3rd year returning quarterback. One of the best punt returners in the country yet having said all of that we are sitting at 3-5 but again it's not about the record. Coaching. Plain and simple it's the coaching. Nothing else for me at least.

Ummm... He must have went to Iowa. Sorry. He's had 8 rushes for 50 yards not 58 which is 6.3 average...

Ryker Fyfe's career stats so far... Passing: 10-18 for 78 yards. 55.8% completion percentage with 2 touchdowns and 1 interception for an overall 117.8 qb rating. He's also rushed 5 times for 58 50 yards with a 6.3 yards per carry average. FEAR THE FYFE

Not how they actually played, chief, but how many games they won. And whether a Frazier, Gill or Crouch who went 9-4 with a lesser team would command the same level of reverence. Seriously, do you not see a drop off in team wide talent in the last decade, to the point where it might affect the success of the quarterback? And more mind-warping, can you really look at the last 5 seasons of Nebraska football and blame the offense for the defensive freefall? If Armstrong's 2 pick six's in three years has you in a tizzy, how do you explain away Melvin Gordon's 4 TDS in a single game, most of them untouched? I don't know anyone who doesn't see problems with Nebraska's offense. But you are the first person to suggest the defense hasn't been the bigger liability. Last year I believe we had the #19 scoring offense and the #57 scoring defense. You will tear both hamstrings trying to stretch that into Tommy Armstrong's fault. So you're switching what you're trying to say now yet again? I can't keep up with it. First you proclaimed that Tommy Armstrong was on his way to be one of the most prolific Huskers in the history of the program. Then you tried saying you implied that he wasn't going to be considered one of the greats even though the statement I mentioned was literally all you said. Then you resorted to bringing defense into the picture and trying to compare Turner Gill's, Scott Frost and Eric Crouch's defense vs Taylor's and Armstrong's to justify your ever changing argument. Then you went switched whatever argument you're going for yet again by referencing W-L records when no one made mention of anybody's win/loss record except for yourself. I'm gonna let you have the floor there kimosabe. You're all over the place after simply making one statement but then continually re directing whatever argument you were probably wrong about to begin with when you tried defending said statement. Cocaine is a helluva drug kids. I'll go slow. It's pretty simple. Tommy Armstrong is on pace to become Nebraska's all-time total offense leader. My position was basically "how do you feel about that?" So technically there were no wrong answers. Although you've certainly come the closest. My personal feelings are conflicted. Much as with Taylor Martinez, Tommy Armstrong is long on statistics and short on big wins, but also responsible for some terrifically exciting plays and games. You suggested some Husker fans would always be wowed by big stats, but they don't tell the story. My only disagreement is that I know virtually zero Husker fans who would take Taylor Martinez over the quarterbacks you listed. There's nothing wrong with being conflicted. So I wondered aloud how Taylor and Tommy might have done with the assets of a great Husker team. And conversely, how Frazier, Gill or Crouch might have done with a substandard offensive line and the #57 defense in college football. That's apparently where your panties got in a bunch, but I'm unclear what specifically you're disagreeing with. I made it clear I'd still take Frazier and Gill over Martinez and Armstrong. I brought up W/L records because they do seem to be a dividing line between legendary QBs and statistically gifted QBs, none of which contradicts anything we've been talking about. It was an interesting discussion there for awhile. My agenda was to waste some perfectly good time on a work day. But if we can now look at last year's Wisconsin game and blame Tommy Armstrong for Melvin Gordon then we've slipped into Bizarro World, and all bets are off. As for as your posts go and your 'agenda' which changes like the wind blows I must have missed that part...

I doubt it, although some of the local guys (like Sean Callahan) have known all week he was likely to start. Gotcha. I still think Nebraska wins this game. I truly hope Fyfe does o.k.

Are these predictions made with consideration to Ryker Fyfe starting? Wonder if that would affect their picks.

This staff was never considered an upgrade. Not sure you need metrics to see how this one was/is going to play out.

I don't say this often. But, the refs cost us that game. If we had instant replay back then, we have another NC. However, that wouldn't have nullified the fantom block in the back. Yeah I'll never forget that. That definitely was a huge, huge missed call.

Not how they actually played, chief, but how many games they won. And whether a Frazier, Gill or Crouch who went 9-4 with a lesser team would command the same level of reverence. Seriously, do you not see a drop off in team wide talent in the last decade, to the point where it might affect the success of the quarterback? And more mind-warping, can you really look at the last 5 seasons of Nebraska football and blame the offense for the defensive freefall? If Armstrong's 2 pick six's in three years has you in a tizzy, how do you explain away Melvin Gordon's 4 TDS in a single game, most of them untouched? I don't know anyone who doesn't see problems with Nebraska's offense. But you are the first person to suggest the defense hasn't been the bigger liability. Last year I believe we had the #19 scoring offense and the #57 scoring defense. You will tear both hamstrings trying to stretch that into Tommy Armstrong's fault. So you're switching what you're trying to say now yet again? I can't keep up with it. First you proclaimed that Tommy Armstrong was on his way to be one of the most prolific Huskers in the history of the program. Then you tried saying you implied that he wasn't going to be considered one of the greats even though the statement I mentioned was literally all you said. Then you resorted to bringing defense into the picture by trying to compare Turner Gill's, Scott Frost and Eric Crouch's defense vs Taylor's and Armstrong's to justify your ever changing argument. Then you went switched whatever argument you're going for yet again by referencing W-L records when no one made mention of anybody's win/loss record except for yourself. I'm gonna let you have the floor there kimosabe. You're all over the place after simply making one statement but then continually re directing whatever argument you were probably wrong about to begin with when you tried defending said statement. Cocaine is a helluva drug kids.

It is going to take a lot more than 1 solid recruiting class which we don't even have yet. Even if we got a solid recruiting class I'm pretty sure these coaches wouldn't know what do to with it anyway.

So the game is 2 days away. Any word on Armstrong's injury? Are we still likely to see Fyfe as the starter on Saturday?

Not sure how this is even a question to be honest. Gill, Frazier, Crouch and Frost didn't directly contribute to their teams losing nearly as much as Armstrong and Martinez have regardless of which group had the better defense helping them. It's not even close. The former group made plays like no other group of qb's in Nebraska history. They were consistent besides just being light years better quarterbacks, better leaders and far more consistent playmakers. Surely you understand the difference of having a defense that gives up 27 points a game, versus a defense that gives up 8 points a game, and how that might affect an offense. It isn't the current defenses fault (or last years) every time Armstrong throws an interception or kills a drive by not even coming close to hitting his receiver. How many pick 6's does Armstrong have in his short career? 2 if I'm correct. Was it the defenses fault he threw those? If anything Armstrong has been a hindrance to the defense by putting them back on the field more with his turnovers and overall lack of execution at the QB position. The exact same thing can be said for Martinez. Was it his defenses fault that he led the NCAA in turnovers 2 years in a row???? Here's a hint: it wasn't. Surely you understand that it isn't the defenses fault for the way they played when they had the ball in their hands right????? I can't believe I'm in a conversation with someone trying to compare Tommy Armstrong and Taylor Martinez abilities with Turner Gill and Eric Crouch by using their respective teams defenses as an excuse for how they themselves actually played quarterback...

It would be a pretty cool story if Fyfe could somehow show up and show some flashes or even somehow have a really good game even if it's against Purdue. When I look at him though he just doesn't scream 'really good Nebraska Qb'. I don't want to dump on the guy based on just looks alone but honestly he looks like a twig even with the pads on. It would be really cool to see him have a great showing if he played though. Also it would be really cool imo because he is a Nebraska kid who was 2nd string and of course now would be showing the world that he can really play. I hope he plays. I'm pulling for him.