Hercules

Apparently. Q dropped those catches last week.

jesus, enunwa.

2 guys went after the QB.

Michael Rose. Thank god.

48 seconds to go in the first, Michigan has -21 rushing yards.

4:45 in the first quarter, and we're tired? Need new strength and conditioning coach.

And that's just sheer toughness. Pathetic.

Need more blitzing.

Colter won't make a play like that again today. Keep swarming.

I'd only argue that if Taylor does see the field again, they better be willing to use the QB run game like they just did. That's the thing Taylor has run scared every time he has the ball since the middle of last year Tommy runs into contact better than Taylor, if that's what you're saying. But Taylor popped off for 35 yards on his first carry last week, which was in the 3rd Quarter. Today, we come out on the first drive and call 2 read options and a speed option. BIG difference in game-planning and play-calling. Dunno why. Maybe it's about Taylor, maybe it's about Beck. But I want to see the offense run the way they ran it on that first drive today.

I'd only argue that if Taylor does see the field again, they better be willing to use the QB run game like they just did.

GREAT first drive by Tommy Armstrong. That is the best he's looked running the ball, in my opinion. Fantastic decisions in the option game, and more explosive he looks. Gotta make sure takes care of the ball going into contact, but other than that, excellent drive.

Tommy Armstrong doesn't have to break long runs, that's not his game. Taylor Martinez has to because that's his game. All of it. No one is afraid of Martinez throwing the ball down field. Not Wyoming, not Minnesota, nobody. No one is really afraid our our dink and dunk game either, because we're not all that good at it, and they'd rather be playing closer to the line of scrimmage to stop Abdullah anyway. What defenses used to be afraid of is him taking it to the house from anywhere on the field. Now that's out of the picture, well. . . I don't really disagree with any of that. What frustrated me on Saturday was that Martinez looked like he could still break long runs (and he did). But it didn't appear that our coaches wanted him to, based on their play-calling. I don't get it. I agree however, that if Martinez isn't a threat to break long runs, no matter the reason - he shouldn't be playing.

The uber-stress on the D hasn't shown up this year. It has in other seasons and other games. Not every game, we all know Taylor's been inconsistent. But we also know he's good enough to terrify even the best defenses in the country (like Michigan State). I don't know if it's the injuries or what, but obviously he can't be that guy if the coaches aren't going to demand that he run the ball. There hasn't been any epiphany about what Taylor can and can't do as a QB this season, we all knew that going in - but he's not running the ball anymore, not even trying to, and that makes him as useful as Eric Crouch or Tommie Frazier would have been as pocket passers. As far as Tommy goes, I just don't see where you're getting that his throwing game is more of a threat than Taylor's. It's possible, but he played well against a bad SDSU team, a bad Illinois defense, and then he got crushed by a below average Purdue defense. This idea that Tommy was keeping Purdue honest with his arm? He was 6/18 for 43 yards, 0 TD, 3 int, averaged 2.4 yards per attempt. That's atrocious. His QB rating was 9.9. If anybody kept Purdue's defense honest, it was Ron Kellogg, who was 10/13 fof 141, a TD, an average of 10.8 yards per attempt, and a 98.3 QBR. Still, despite the fact that according to your claims, both of these QBs kept the defense more honest in the passing game, which should have opened up more of a running game, Ameer averaged only 6.3 yards per rush, going for 126 yards on 20 carries. Against Minnesota, he averaged 8.7 yards per rush, going for 165 on 19 carries. Like I've said before, I don't really care who starts at QB as long as the gameplan makes sense. But I find fault with your conclusion about Tommy's passing versus Taylor's, given the information we have at this time. You might be right, but I haven't seen anything to prove it.

Not if the opponent barely has to worry about any of the receivers. Minnesota played with 1-deep safety and dared us to pass, but we couldn't. It hasn't been the first time this has happened. I don't know how healthy or not Taylor is. He claims he's not, but we saw him bust the run. He didn't look on his game and there were one or two occasions where it looked like he had trouble planting and taking off. Whether it's Taylor's fault, his injury's fault, Beck's fault or the aquarium guy's fault, we tend to not succeed at making the opponent defend all 11 guys with Taylor at QB, and at this point in the TM era it's probably unlikely to futile to expect that to change. I don't think Taylor had his best day throwing the ball, but I don't think the WR's had their best day either. Not just in terms of drops, but the fact that they almost never had any separation. I thought it was a bad day for every position group on the offense, and that it was a particularly bad day for Tim Beck. That has nothing to do with the philosophy of using a QB run game. Ohio State uses a QB run game. Oregon uses a QB run game. Indiana. Northwestern. Michigan. Baylor. Florida State. Clemson. Wyoming. UCLA. Stanford. Washington. Need I keep going? Besides, your entire post is based on the idea that Nebraska tried to use the QB run game on Saturday and failed. I disagree. They played a running QB and still did not use the QB run game. That's my whole point. If you play a running QB, you need to RUN him. You can't simply hope that the defense is scared enough of the QB running that they'll defend it no matter what. You have to actually show them that you're willing to run the the ball with your QB, and Nebraska didn't attempt to do that on Saturday until it was too late.

I actually prefer using a QB-run game. It forces the opponent to defend all 11 offensive players. I don't think the staff has any idea what they want to do, though. They start Taylor, then don't use a QB run game and throw the ball over 30 times when the RB is averaging nearly 9 ypc. It makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to play Taylor, he better run the ball (especially the read option, where he's most dangerous). If you're not going to run the QB, RKIII is the best passer on the team and he knows the whole offense. If you're not willing to run Taylor because of some made-up excuse, but you want the QB run game, go with Tommy. It should be as simple as that. I understand you want to give the D as many looks as possible to try and stay a step ahead of them, but we've got the "triplets" and that isn't necessary to do. If we only had one real option at the RB position, then I would be totally be on board with what you're saying. I don't care about giving them as many looks as possible. Having a QB who can run the ball is more difficult to defend than having a QB who can't. That's why I like the QB run game. It's not to spell the RB's, it's because the defense has to assign an extra player to defending the QB if they can run. The problem I have with the way Nebraska played the other day is that they used a running QB and didn't ask him to run until they were already down by two touchdowns late in the game. Anyways, I'd be fine if Nebraska chose to abandon the QB run game for the remainder of this year, like you're saying they should. I think the offensive line, RB's and WR's are strong enough that they could do that. However, if that's what they decide to do and then start someone other than Ron Kellogg, I'll be furious, because he's inarguably the best passer out of the QB position group.

Good points, but what I don't get is, we have 3 perfectly capable RB's, so we don't need to run our QB, unless we want to throw a wrinkle into the offensive playcalling. I actually prefer using a QB-run game. It forces the opponent to defend all 11 offensive players. I don't think the staff has any idea what they want to do, though. They start Taylor, then don't use a QB run game and throw the ball over 30 times when the RB is averaging nearly 9 ypc. It makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to play Taylor, he better run the ball (especially the read option, where he's most dangerous). If you're not going to run the QB, RKIII is the best passer on the team and he knows the whole offense. If you're not willing to run Taylor because of some made-up excuse, but you want the QB run game, go with Tommy. It should be as simple as that.

I haven't read the whole thread, but have seen a lot of people saying that Taylor's not capable of running the ball right now. On his first designed rush attempt last Saturday, he went for 35 yards. So, was that just a fluke? I'm not sure Tommy Armstrong has gone for more than 20 yards in his entire collegiate career. A lot of people are also conveniently forgetting that even with Taylor's interception at the end of the MN game, Tommy has still thrown more interceptions this year than Martinez. Like I've said in other threads, I care about who's starting at QB way less than I do about the gameplan and the playcalling. I think any of the 3 QBs can win games and run the offense if they are put in a position to succeed by their coaches. However, fans are forming opinions about QBs with absolutely no objectivity whatsoever.

Fair enough.

I don't disagree with the notion that if coaching changes are made, the expectation should be for the program to improve immediately. I'm not interested in watching someone come in and overhaul the offense like Callahan did, putting players in a position to fail and leading us to a 5-7 season while they try to get "their players" in place. However, I disagree with the idea that the only way to measure progress is through wins/championships. I want to see a team that plays hard week in and week out, that doesn't take games off, that plays smart and aggressive and fundamentally sound, that doesn't get out-toughed by inferior programs or blown out on a regular basis. That's not too much to ask for at Nebraska, and you can have all of that without winning a conference championship. I would be pretty happy with that compared to what we have right now, because I think that program would be a lot closer to winning a conference championship than this one is.

Oregon DC Nick Aliotti disagrees. After the Washington game, he said, "Scott is driving that car real fast and it looks real pretty. Scott Frost, I'm tickled for him, a young rising star."

I understand the concept of what you're saying, but if Bo is fired, it's not for what he did in 2008-2010. It's for 2011-2013. Similarly, if a new coach is hired, his progress wouldn't be measured in comparison to where Bo had the program in 2009. It would be measured with where he had the program in 2013. Then that's completely ass-backwards. You looked at it this way yourself. When you talk about Bo, you said, "Bo took a team that lost 7 games the year before and then won 9 and then 10 and played for a CC." You don't compare Bo to Callahan's best year, you compare him to the season he was fired for. You also didn't say, "Bo's a failure because he didn't win a conference championship by year 3." Which, using your logic, is what you should be saying. Callahan made it to the Big 12 championship game in his 3rd year as coach. So, according to your logic, the fact that Bo didn't win a conference championship by his 3rd year means that his hire wasn't worth it.

I understand that it's Chip Kelly's system, and that it's Kelly's players. It's still Frost's responsibility to get them to play at a high level, to make key in-game decisions and calls in order for those players to be successful. It's possible to recognize that his current position inherited a ton of advantages without completely disregarding his success.

I understand the concept of what you're saying, but if Bo is fired, it's not for what he did in 2008-2010. It's for 2011-2013. Similarly, if a new coach is hired, his progress wouldn't be measured in comparison to where Bo had the program in 2009. It would be measured with where he had the program in 2013.

This idea that Frost is only "OC-in-name" is just flat-out incorrect. He's the offensive coordinator. He's calling the plays, not Helfrich. It's a fact. Notwithstanding rumors that he isn't anymore, not only did Frost not design this offense he is in year 1 of having the OC title under, neither did Helfrich. Look at it this way. Bo was a superstar coordinator when he arrived here, and look where that got us. Bo could have let Carl or JP call the plays if he wanted, and that decision wouldn't have changed the reality of what Carl and JP are. Even Beck is his own OC, as his career in the Texas HS and lower college ranks demonstrates. Frost has shown a lot of promise as a coach, period, and so has climbed the ranks within the Oregon organization, but that doesn't confer upon him the title of star coordinator. He has, if anything, more potential as a future head coach somewhere, but in my opinion it'd be a considerable risk to let him learn on the job here in that capacity. It's totally fine if you don't think he should be the head coach or offensive coordinator at Nebraska. If you read my posts, you should know that even I think that would be an extremely risky move. Just don't make stuff up to try to back up your point. Frost is calling plays. There is no evidence - none - stating otherwise. I live in Eugene, and the first I've heard of these "rumors" that he wasn't calling plays anymore was in this thread, with nothing to back it up, and it was from a guy who (all due respect to EZ-E), has not been particularly subtle about showing his personal feelings about Frost. I'm cool with people saying Frost shouldn't be a coach at Nebraska. But there are plenty of reasons you can use to support that claim without making up "rumors."