Concerns

[Hercules]

 

We don't have to use the freshman, we want to, because that's the kind of offense that we want to run and Bo made the call that the killer running ability of Martinez is worth it.

 

This is why in the offseason I said: we should start Lee, because we should be starting a talented quarterback. And many, many other responded: Lee isn't a good runner. Taylor is a good runner. Having that is more important. Bo agreed with them. It was his call, and that's what he went with. I still don't agree with the call, but I don't think it will be disastrous either - as stated, if we show up to play, I think we'll steamroll many teams this year, Texas included, whether or not the QB has his footwork down. I'm not stoked that this is the story Bo has chosen for this season, but we're down that road now and I'm hoping for the best.

 

On another note, with the 3-headed QB race this year, we forget how dangerously thin we really are at the quarterback position. We have Taylor and Cody who from the start were projects, that were completely raw about being a QB (footwork, mechanics, etc), from the moment they stepped on the field. Cody was a dedicated QB from the beginning, and he has made strides in all those departments. Taylor wasn't, so it's understandable that he is less far along. Then we have Lee, who, footwork or not, is clearly out of favor; Witt, who left; Spano, who no longer has healthy knees; Carnes, who is redshirting...

 

So some guys we get are projects and some aren't. The direction that Bo wants to turn this offense to involves getting a larger number of quarterbacks who are projects, which is how we end up with two project, athletic QBs at the top of the depth chart, and Jamal Turner as our next QB commit. They will take longer to coach up, doesn't matter how good the QB coach is, but in the meantime will rely on their athleticism. That's not my cup of tea, personally, but it's Bo's.

 

 

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.

[zoogs]

Oh, I hope nobody thinks I am saying other guys are finished products (by no means)...every kid transitioning from HS to college, has a lot of development to do. Analogously, every player going from college to the NFL has a lot of development. But some are still regarded as 'projects'. Like an offensive tackle that is a athletic freak with no technique, or the physically skilled defensive end being asked to move to 3-4 OLB.

 

Basically, this: if Taylor Martinez had the speed of Landry Jones, he would not have a single FBS offer. Moot point because he does have that speed, but you see what I mean? Some guys are athletes that rely on their superior athletic ability or running instincts to attack defenses from the quarterback position. Taylor is a project because he has a much longer way to go than most in terms of understanding the position and in his throwing. But he compensates that with a little "lightning in the bottle." It doesn't mean guys that understand the position better will have less struggles. But in terms of being a QB, if Jones or Gilbert were anywhere close to down to the level of Taylor, they wouldn't be struggling. They'd be on FCS teams, too.

 

If you would rather have that, that's fine. There's no reason that it won't work, particularly if the players pan out and do get everything together, in their head. That's when you get something extremely deadly - like Vince Young, or Terrelle Pryor. But, I personally very strongly believe that you build offenses around projects when they pan out, instead of going after projects exclusively and trying to design an offense that doesn't depend on the QB understanding the QB position. I don't think that is what we are trying to do either.

[Hercules]

Oh, I hope nobody thinks I am saying other guys are finished products (by no means)...every kid transitioning from HS to college, has a lot of development to do. Analogously, every player going from college to the NFL has a lot of development. But some are still regarded as 'projects'. Like an offensive tackle that is a athletic freak with no technique, or the physically skilled defensive end being asked to move to 3-4 OLB.

 

Basically, this: if Taylor Martinez had the speed of Landry Jones, he would not have a single FBS offer. Moot point because he does have that speed, but you see what I mean? Some guys are athletes that rely on their superior athletic ability or running instincts to attack defenses from the quarterback position. Taylor is a project because he has a much longer way to go than most in terms of understanding the position and in his throwing. But he compensates that with a little "lightning in the bottle." It doesn't mean guys that understand the position better will have less struggles. But in terms of being a QB, if Jones or Gilbert were anywhere close to down to the level of Taylor, they wouldn't be struggling. They'd be on FCS teams, too.

 

If you would rather have that, that's fine. There's no reason that it won't work, particularly if the players pan out and do get everything together, in their head. That's when you get something extremely deadly - like Vince Young, or Terrelle Pryor. But, I personally very strongly believe that you build offenses around projects when they pan out, instead of going after projects exclusively and trying to design an offense that doesn't depend on the QB understanding the QB position. I don't think that is what we are trying to do either.

 

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?

[bshirt]

Oh, I hope nobody thinks I am saying other guys are finished products (by no means)...every kid transitioning from HS to college, has a lot of development to do. Analogously, every player going from college to the NFL has a lot of development. But some are still regarded as 'projects'. Like an offensive tackle that is a athletic freak with no technique, or the physically skilled defensive end being asked to move to 3-4 OLB.

 

Basically, this: if Taylor Martinez had the speed of Landry Jones, he would not have a single FBS offer. Moot point because he does have that speed, but you see what I mean? Some guys are athletes that rely on their superior athletic ability or running instincts to attack defenses from the quarterback position. Taylor is a project because he has a much longer way to go than most in terms of understanding the position and in his throwing. But he compensates that with a little "lightning in the bottle." It doesn't mean guys that understand the position better will have less struggles. But in terms of being a QB, if Jones or Gilbert were anywhere close to down to the level of Taylor, they wouldn't be struggling. They'd be on FCS teams, too.

 

If you would rather have that, that's fine. There's no reason that it won't work, particularly if the players pan out and do get everything together, in their head. That's when you get something extremely deadly - like Vince Young, or Terrelle Pryor. But, I personally very strongly believe that you build offenses around projects when they pan out, instead of going after projects exclusively and trying to design an offense that doesn't depend on the QB understanding the QB position. I don't think that is what we are trying to do either.

 

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?

 

My 10 cents....yell at me if wrong zoogies, ok?

 

By his standards he would say they all blow chunks. zoogies is a hardcore pocket passer advocate. There's nothing wrong with that and the way this offense is run a LOT, he's right. Anything more than 3rd & one is almost always a pass play under SW which is not what Frazier/Frost/Crouch/Gill were developed/schemed for and they would struggle in this offense too.

 

TO's dual threat qbs were primarily running threats and relied on mostly wide open wrs/TEs on PA for passing success. They were unstoppable under his offense as it was played to their strengths together with big, mean road grading OLinemen all through the 80's & 90s.

 

With our recent/current marginal/average Olines and offensive scheme it looks like we need at minimum a J. Ganz/Z. Taylor passer that is also a Crouch/Frazier/Tmart/Frost option running qb. That's a tough combination to dial up and when we don't have it...well....we can make a winless Div II defense look like the mid 70's Pittsburg Steelers in a big hurry. Even in Lincoln.

 

It's not impossible to have, just look at Michigan but it's not an easy thing to find at all and even harder to keep getting. I still think at some point we have to develop an indentity. I know 99% of my fellow NU fans will never accept that as "balance" is the word written in stone these days but in the 80's & 90's the last thing on the planet we were was "balanced" and we had reasonably consistently good to great offenses for a couple of decades.

 

But enough....we'll see how it goes.

 

Just take a peek over on the Texas forums and see what they say about thier current WCO/horizontal passing offense. It's not just the few NU fans like me that have a problem with it.

[zoogs]

 

My 10 cents....yell at me if wrong zoogies, ok?

 

By his standards he would say they all blow chunks. zoogies is a hardcore pocket passer advocate. There's nothing wrong with that and the way this offense is run a LOT, he's right. Anything more than 3rd & one is almost always a pass play under SW which is not what Frazier/Frost/Crouch/Gill were developed/schemed for and they would struggle in this offense too.

 

 

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.

 

Just take a peek over on the Texas forums and see what they say about thier current WCO/horizontal passing offense. It's not just the few NU fans like me that have a problem with it.

 

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

[NUance]

 

My 10 cents....yell at me if wrong zoogies, ok?

 

By his standards he would say they all blow chunks. zoogies is a hardcore pocket passer advocate. There's nothing wrong with that and the way this offense is run a LOT, he's right. Anything more than 3rd & one is almost always a pass play under SW which is not what Frazier/Frost/Crouch/Gill were developed/schemed for and they would struggle in this offense too.

 

 

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.

 

Just take a peek over on the Texas forums and see what they say about thier current WCO/horizontal passing offense. It's not just the few NU fans like me that have a problem with it.

 

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

It’s WAY too soon the pass judgment on T-Mart’s passing ability. The guy passed for 3,000 yds and 28 TDs on the #2 high school team in the nation. He’s got some ability. Even though he's a RS frosh and will make some mistakes. Trust me, we’ll know more about T-Mart by the end of October.

 

And I wouldn't label this offense as being too dependent on the run based on what we've seen so far. The offense we’ve shown for the past 4 games is not necessarily all we have to rely on for our Big 12 schedule. I’m guessing we’ll see more of a balanced attack from here on out. A lot of short routes, moving the pocket to one side or the other. With an occasional strike down the field. I think Wats has been holding back in these warm up games, not showing all his cards just yet.

[Hunter94]

 

My 10 cents....yell at me if wrong zoogies, ok?

 

By his standards he would say they all blow chunks. zoogies is a hardcore pocket passer advocate. There's nothing wrong with that and the way this offense is run a LOT, he's right. Anything more than 3rd & one is almost always a pass play under SW which is not what Frazier/Frost/Crouch/Gill were developed/schemed for and they would struggle in this offense too.

 

 

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.

 

Just take a peek over on the Texas forums and see what they say about thier current WCO/horizontal passing offense. It's not just the few NU fans like me that have a problem with it.

 

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

It’s WAY too soon the pass judgment on T-Mart’s passing ability. The guy passed for 3,000 yds and 28 TDs on the #2 high school team in the nation. He’s got some ability. Even though he's a RS frosh and will make some mistakes. Trust me, we’ll know more about T-Mart by the end of October.

 

And I wouldn't label this offense as being too dependent on the run based on what we've seen so far. The offense we’ve shown for the past 4 games is not necessarily all we have to rely on for our Big 12 schedule. I’m guessing we’ll see more of a balanced attack from here on out. A lot of short routes, moving the pocket to one side or the other. With an occasional strike down the field. I think Wats has been holding back in these warm up games, not showing all his cards just yet.

 

 

i am not sure what cards Wats is holding back or even if he is playing with a full deck! i would like to see him stretch the field and throw deep to the WR's, eventually if we have trouble running, the DB's will crowd the short passing game too, TM needs to show (hopefully) he can throw the ball down field and get some respect by the DB's....we'll see if that is "in the cards".......

[Hercules]

 

My 10 cents....yell at me if wrong zoogies, ok?

 

By his standards he would say they all blow chunks. zoogies is a hardcore pocket passer advocate. There's nothing wrong with that and the way this offense is run a LOT, he's right. Anything more than 3rd & one is almost always a pass play under SW which is not what Frazier/Frost/Crouch/Gill were developed/schemed for and they would struggle in this offense too.

 

 

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.

 

Just take a peek over on the Texas forums and see what they say about thier current WCO/horizontal passing offense. It's not just the few NU fans like me that have a problem with it.

 

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.

[Hunter94]

 

My 10 cents....yell at me if wrong zoogies, ok?

 

By his standards he would say they all blow chunks. zoogies is a hardcore pocket passer advocate. There's nothing wrong with that and the way this offense is run a LOT, he's right. Anything more than 3rd & one is almost always a pass play under SW which is not what Frazier/Frost/Crouch/Gill were developed/schemed for and they would struggle in this offense too.

 

 

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.

 

Just take a peek over on the Texas forums and see what they say about thier current WCO/horizontal passing offense. It's not just the few NU fans like me that have a problem with it.

 

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.

 

 

 

Niles is a lost cause, he will make some big plays, but he will disappoint when it counts. there is still hope for Martinez, he will be a much better qb by the end of the season, he is smart and will improve, even under Wats!

[Enhance]

I don't think it's time for anybody to be making serious assumptions off of this game. On a panic level of 1 to 10, with 10 being bat-crap panicked, I'm about at a 1 right now.

 

Seriously, this is ridiculous. These guys have been getting patted on the back for being awesome the last three weeks, and here they were pitted against a team with literally nobody giving them a shot to even score one point. This SDSU squad was basically playing the biggest game of their life on the biggest stage of their life. They gave Nebraska their best shot, and Nebraska was expecting to walk into the stadium and win like they were playing a bunch of pop warner kids.

 

I also heard from a few sources over the last few days that the game plan was made difficult this week to help the team focus, which helps explain some of the issues.

 

I don't think we'll see Nebraska look this pathetic on offense again this season unless it's against a squad like Texas or OU in the title game. Don't forget that just a little over one week ago, this team traveled to one of the loudest stadiums in the nation and embarrassed a team on national television. Washington isn't a BCS team, but their coaching and athletes are better than SDSU - and that's a fact.