Hercules

Low blow, Pat. Low blow.

If the defense proves that they can shut down K-State's running game, than I think this will be a better defense in the long run. K-State is stronger this year than last, and I don't think there's much question right now that our secondary can play with anyone in the country. If we can shut down Daniel Thomas, things will be looking up for the Blackshirts.

I'm rooting for OU, but I want it to be very, very close. Hopefully Texas will still be ranked when they come into Lincoln.

Oklahoma State's schedule thus far: W vs. Washington State 65-17 W vs. Troy 41-38 W vs. Tulsa 65-28 3 bad teams, and one very close game. We will be significantly less worried about this game after watching them play against Texas Tech and Texas A&M over the next couple of weeks.

At this point we're not asking for him to be a scoring threat. We're asking him to hang on to the stupid football when he gets it. One step at a time.

Yeah, I have no idea what the deal is with this guy, but he hasn't been the playmaker anyone expected, and he hasn't been the example of consistency that a senior should be.

This is why we get into so much disagreement. You think I hate your guys. That's not true. The question was about Crouch, Frazier, etc. Good quarterbacks are good quarterbacks. And those were two very good ones, who thrived especially in the system that they ran. Now I'm not pegging them as a system QB or anything, but it's important to bear in mind that the TO era was a very special one for many reasons. It's not likely to be duplicated in the current landscape, and having a passing offense, while still shocking in Nebraska, is not a bad way to win. Not that we have a passing offense anymore either. But one thing I do not believe we are going back to is the TO offense. It's just a different landscape these days. Different defenses, different offense styles (spread, zone read, etc) have evolved to combat each other. Throw a guy like Crouch or Frazier in there today? I think you are presented with a very interesting dilemma, because those are two very good players. You can ride your whole offense on them, build around them, and probably do very well. You could also make them running backs, or receivers, and they would also kill it and give you a very dangerous weapon at that position. They are that special and will succeed whatever they are asked to do. It would be a tough question by any means. And it is for schools around the country. You have Vince Young and Pryor, for instance, but there's also that top 'project' recruit LSU got that moved from QB to receiver, or what Texas did with Chiles and Sherrod Harris, for example. Some of these guys will be good QBs, some will help the team in other ways. The fact that they were great QBs, does not also mean they couldn't have been great WRs as well. As for which would help the team more...I think in some cases, the answer is clear, especially in retrospect. In other cases, not so much. Taylor, let's remember, is not Crouch or Frazier or Young or Pryor in the same way that Lee is no Bradford or McCoy or Manning. I'll also bring up one other point, and this is about the sacrifices made when you do build an offense around a guy like Taylor. Don't get me wrong, those ball fakes and long touchdown runs are things of pure beauty, and I LOVED watching our option days of old. Loved it! But right now we have two extremely versatile and talented weapons on offense that have 4 catches and 10 catches, respectively, through four games (!) That's McNeil, and Paul (who I know people bag on, but he's a guy that CAN be a weapon nonetheless). This is why I personally favor passing QBs and having athletes, except in rare circumstances, at the other positions, because I believe that actually gives us more dimensions of attack. A dual threat QB is fantastic. But right now, we have a single-threat QB. The only difference is this side of the single-threat coin chips away from the roles of some other playmakers. Kinnie could be one of 4 guys with around 15 catches instead of being the only one. That's great if it's worth it. Taylor's 53 carries for 496 (9.4 avg) yards and 8 scores speak for themselves right now. But I'm scared as heck if Taylor starts averaging a very good 5.5 ypc instead. Because then - I don't think I can say it's worth it, not unless the passing finds a way to pick up significantly. And if we are counting on Taylor to average a superhuman, video game ypc from this point on in conference play...well, I'm just scared as heck. That is just asking for a tough, unerasable loss when he goes up against a gifted, tough defense, IMO. Which will be masked by crazy good stats in all the other games. Oklahoma fans also threw their Offensive Coordinator (one of the best in the nation!) under the bus after last year's game. Doesn't make that particularly smart Well then, this is basically a philosophical disagreement that we'll never agree on. I'll always prefer dual-threat QB's to pocket passers. Martinez is still more of a runner than a passer, but I think he is a dual-threat QB, whereas any pure runner or any pure passing QB is just a single-threat. As far as our receivers go, part of what we use them for is blocking, which for the most part they've done a very good job. As far as their job in terms of catching balls, Niles Paul could be a great weapon, if gets his head in the game. But he hasn't proven he can do that. We shouldn't have to throw the ball to him 20 times a game in hopes that a couple of those will turn into big plays. He has to execute when his number gets called, and he hasn't done that. He, a senior, has been less consistent than Martinez, a freshman.

Nebraska 42 Kansas State 10 Rushing yards 200 Passing yards 250

In the words of Turner Gill, it was just one game.

I guess I feel that, in the college game, you're better off if you have a QB who is a threat to run and pass. If you don't have a guy who can do both expertly, than it's not just a matter of choosing "the runner" or "the passer." You have to weigh their entire skill set and figure out which player gives you the best chance at winning games. Anyways, I think more than the term "project," I disagree with you about the term, "QB." I mean, in Nebraska's newer offense, a pretty important part of the position is to be able to run the zone read well. That is part of the "QB" position, not just knowing how to do 3 step drops or having good throwing technique. And when it comes to Vince Young, he didn't pan out until they redesigned the offense around him. His senior year, they finally started letting him just do what he was good at, and that's how Texas became a national champion. They didn't turn Young into some prototypical NFL quarterback. They adjusted the "position" to him, and found success. So, when you say, "an offense that doesn't depend on the QB understanding the QB position," I just disagree about what it means to be a QB in the college game. It's not the same as in the NFL. By your standards, would the likes of Tommie Frazier or Scott Frost or Eric Crouch be good QB's?

3-0 in bowl games if you count the 2003 Alamo Bowl.

I don't know what you mean by the term, "projects." Do you just mean that those guys have room for improvement? Because I'm pretty sure that Zac Lee and every other QB in the country, whether it's a prototypical NFL QB, or Dennard Robinson, has room for improvement. When you say that the "project" players will take longer to coach up, I don't know what that means either. If they're a worse passer, than it'll take longer to coach up their passing than if they were a good passer, sure. But if they're a worse runner, I imagine it'll take longer to coach up their running game. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your terminology, but the way I look at it, every player on the team is a "project." They've all got to get better at some or all aspects of their game. In terms of the "style" of QB that you get, which does depend on the offense you run, go take a look at Landry Jones, or Garrett Gilbert. Based on what you're saying, those guys aren't "projects," like Martinez is. But, as far as I can tell, they're still struggling quite a bit, and their offenses are both struggling more than Nebraska's has so far. So I don't get the argument that certain guys who have more of a passing background would be lesser projects than a guy like Martinez. Maybe they would be lesser projects when it comes to passing, but not when it comes to having a complete football player, and they aren't so much easier to coach up that it would solve all the problems an offense might have. As far as I'm concerned in the QB style department, having a QB that can run gives you an extra weapon. It's one more guy the defense has to account for, and when defenses have trouble accounting for the other 10 guys, that 11th can kill them. Martinez can do that, while guys like Lee, Gilbert, or Jones can't. That gives him an edge, and it gives this offense an edge. Now, does Martinez and the offense still have to improve? Of course they do. Maybe Martinez is closer to taking that next step as a passer than we think, since we haven't really seen it in a game. We don't really know. But the argument that "athletic" QB's are bigger "projects" and can't help out an offense as much as a prototypical passer should've been wiped out back in the days of Turner Gill.

. Oregon's defense has looked awfully sloppy tonight. ASU has ad about 4 different chances to put this game away, and keeps making unforced errors. PAC 10 defenses just look weak altogether. really sloppy tackling, and lots of blown coverages. ASU looked explosive against Wisconsin. I have a feeling ASU has an offense. They have something like 550 all purpose yards per game averaged over their 4 games. I watched the game. Both defenses were very sloppy. There were busted assignments and penalties all over. Still hard to look down on Oregon compared with the rest of the top 10. Their offense has looked like it can adapt and put up numbers against anyone and every other team has looked a bit shaky. I think their offense is good, but not as good as people think. ASU tonight showed it could be stopped. They just also gave UO about 8 turnovers as well.

. Oregon's defense has looked awfully sloppy tonight. ASU has ad about 4 different chances to put this game away, and keeps making unforced errors. PAC 10 defenses just look weak altogether. really sloppy tackling, and lots of blown coverages. ASU looked explosive against Wisconsin. I have a feeling ASU has an offense. They have something like 550 all purpose yards per game averaged over their 4 games. I watched the game. Both defenses were very sloppy. There were busted assignments and penalties all over.

Uh, yeah. That's sorta why we're freaking out.

This thread =

Not the best guy to answer this since I didn't get to see the game... But I don't think our passing offense was exposed as badly as Texas' run defense/entire offense was.

Oregon's defense has looked awfully sloppy tonight. ASU has ad about 4 different chances to put this game away, and keeps making unforced errors. PAC 10 defenses just look weak altogether. really sloppy tackling, and lots of blown coverages.

Don't necessarily disagree with you... That was just my guess at what the poll will be tomorrow. Except I messed up with South Carolina and since I posted when ASU was running away, Oregon has now come back and taken the lead, so we may not move up at all. So basically my prediction already looks terrible. Speaking of Oregon-ASU, I don't think ANYONE plays defense in the PAC 10

Looks good, and I agree except for South Carolina who lost today. for myself... Must've missed that.

Or feel free to post your own Top 10. Here's my guess at the AP Top 25 1. Alabama 2. Ohio State 3. Boise State 4. TCU 5. Nebraska 6. Oklahoma 7. Florida 8. Wisconsin 9. South Carolina 10. Utah *This is assuming that Arizona State finishes Oregon off.

Herbie has been calling the game in Boise all evening -- so I wouldn't value his opinion a whole lot at this time (or ever). I'm sure he hasn't even seen the husker score, or had time to review the game in detail. The husker game this evneing was a complete wreck. The Husker game was terrible to those of us who listened to every second or watched every second. But guys like Kirk didn't pay any attention to it other than what was coming across on the bottom line. Our game, from a national perspective, was completely overshadowed by Bama-Arkansas, the Texas loss, the OU close win, BSU-OSU, and South Carolina-Auburn. At the end of the day, with all those storylines, all that most voters will see is, "Well Nebraska won again." They will probably stay right in that 5-7 area in the polls.

Wrong thread. This thread is more like: :ahhhhhhhh :ahhhhhhhh

This is exactly what the 'debbie downers' have been saying. He may be our best QB, but if we have no passing threat, then that is going to potentially become a problem. Was that the problem tonight? I was only able to listen on the radio, and obviously it was a problem, but it sounded like we couldn't run the ball at all. What was up with our O-line?

Yep, the biggest positive is that there just aren't that many dominant teams that we can see right now. There may be a couple and I'm mostly wondering what will happen, should we go up against them. Anybody else, I'm not that worried about. At this point, because of their running games, I think the two scariest teams for us to play would be Oregon and Alabama... Looking forward to seeing what Oregon does against ASU tonight...