Starling is a cheeky dude

[Hujan]

He should have been a situational/Wildcat QB a la Tim Tebow, as well as taking Marlowe's place on those jet sweeps. A guy you get on the field 20 snaps a game and find a way to put the ball in his hands for 12-15 of them.

 

Right, because all those records he nearly set were worthless.

 

The ONLY thing preventing Taylor from rewriting the record books was a high ankle sprain. This revisionist history needs to stop.

 

His shoddy performances against SDSU and Texas beg to differ. Most telling of all is that the way he floundered in those games was identical to the way he floundered after the high-ankle sprain. Revisionist history is conveniently forgetting those performances and blaming everything on a high-ankle sprain that, in a lot of ways, did nothing to change the slide that had already been set in motion.

 

Taylor's last run of any consequence was in the K State game, nine and a half quarters before he sprained his ankle. No TD runs---or big runs at all---in those 9 quarters.

 

Let's face facts: Taylor is, by and large, a one-trick pony. As soon as teams schemed to take that trick away and dared us to beat them in some other way, he was worse than useless. And that's the problem with being one-diminsional. If Taylor was able to throw (and our receivers could catch), then loading the box would expose our opponents to plays downfield. When they pull back to cover the pass, Taylor could rip them with runs. And so on.

 

Having said all of that, I will blame this 50/50 on our offense not putting Taylor in position to succeed in light of his horrible passing fundamentals. But to suggest that everything would magically have been okay if Taylor's ankle was 100% is, IMO, conveniently ignoring what had already begun to emerge before the Mizzou game.

 

 

Oh gimme a break, Hujan. Did you even watch that game?

 

Tmart's "shoddy" Texas game was 99.9% our wrs dropping balls all over the place. Ted's guys were so impressively consistent they continued dropping Lee's passes too. Dissing Tmart for that is grossly unfair to say the very least. Our hands of stone wrs catch half those passes they dropped we score a couple more TDs and the run game opens up. But....oh well....

 

I didn't see the SDSU game but even "if" Tmart sucked in that game our running game should have steam-rolled them anyway. Freakin SDSU.....just another SW gem.

 

I guess Tmart forgot to be a "one trick pony" when he threw five TD passes vs Okie St, right? Geesh....what do you want from the guy?

 

I not only watched, I was present at both games. (Great seats, too.) You have a decent point regarding Texas: Our WRs dropped balls.* But you are dodging the question we are discussing: Taylor's ankle was fine that day. Why didn't he run all over Texas?

 

My point with my post is that the Taylor apologists try to blame everything on his ankle, but the fact is that he didn't really do jack in the SDSU, Texas, or the part of the Mizzou game that he played.

 

Perhaps the single greatest indictment of Taylor is the Holiday Bowl. Here's a team that he ran on like crazy in September. But once they scheme to take away the zone read and dare him to make the throws, he can't get it done. Meanwhile, on the flip side, we make Jake Locker look silly throwing the ball in September, so he shows up with a single-minded intent to run the ball and he ran it well.

 

I can hear you now: "But he's a freshman . . . "

 

*While our receivers should have made those grabs against Texas, let's be honest that those were not the best thrown balls in the world either. With the exception of the ball thrown to Burkhead, our boys had to do some work to come down with those catches. Should they have caught them? Yes. Could Taylor have made it easier for them to make the catch? Absolutely.

[Hunter94]

He should have been a situational/Wildcat QB a la Tim Tebow, as well as taking Marlowe's place on those jet sweeps. A guy you get on the field 20 snaps a game and find a way to put the ball in his hands for 12-15 of them.

 

Right, because all those records he nearly set were worthless.

 

The ONLY thing preventing Taylor from rewriting the record books was a high ankle sprain. This revisionist history needs to stop.

 

His shoddy performances against SDSU and Texas beg to differ. Most telling of all is that the way he floundered in those games was identical to the way he floundered after the high-ankle sprain. Revisionist history is conveniently forgetting those performances and blaming everything on a high-ankle sprain that, in a lot of ways, did nothing to change the slide that had already been set in motion.

 

Taylor's last run of any consequence was in the K State game, nine and a half quarters before he sprained his ankle. No TD runs---or big runs at all---in those 9 quarters.

 

Let's face facts: Taylor is, by and large, a one-trick pony. As soon as teams schemed to take that trick away and dared us to beat them in some other way, he was worse than useless. And that's the problem with being one-dimensional. If Taylor was able to throw (and our receivers could catch), then loading the box would expose our opponents to plays down field. When they pull back to cover the pass, Taylor could rip them with runs. And so on.

 

Having said all of that, I will blame this 50/50 on our offense not putting Taylor in position to succeed in light of his horrible passing fundamentals. But to suggest that everything would magically have been okay if Taylor's ankle was 100% is, IMO, conveniently ignoring what had already begun to emerge before the Mizzou game.

 

 

Oh gimme a break, Hujan. Did you even watch that game?

 

Tmart's "shoddy" Texas game was 99.9% our wrs dropping balls all over the place. Ted's guys were so impressively consistent they continued dropping Lee's passes too. Dissing Tmart for that is grossly unfair to say the very least. Our hands of stone wrs catch half those passes they dropped we score a couple more TDs and the run game opens up. But....oh well....

 

I didn't see the SDSU game but even "if" Tmart sucked in that game our running game should have steam-rolled them anyway. Freakin SDSU.....just another SW gem.

 

I guess Tmart forgot to be a "one trick pony" when he threw five TD passes vs Okie St, right? Geesh....what do you want from the guy?

 

I not only watched, I was present at both games. (Great seats, too.) You have a decent point regarding Texas: Our WRs dropped balls.* But you are dodging the question we are discussing: Taylor's ankle was fine that day. Why didn't he run all over Texas?

 

My point with my post is that the Taylor apologists try to blame everything on his ankle, but the fact is that he didn't really do jack in the SDSU, Texas, or the part of the Mizzou game that he played.

 

Perhaps the single greatest indictment of Taylor is the Holiday Bowl. Here's a team that he ran on like crazy in September. But once they scheme to take away the zone read and dare him to make the throws, he can't get it done. Meanwhile, on the flip side, we make Jake Locker look silly throwing the ball in September, so he shows up with a single-minded intent to run the ball and he ran it well.

 

I can hear you now: "But he's a freshman . . . "

 

*While our receivers should have made those grabs against Texas, let's be honest that those were not the best thrown balls in the world either. With the exception of the ball thrown to Burkhead, our boys had to do some work to come down with those catches. Should they have caught them? Yes. Could Taylor have made it easier for them to make the catch? Absolutely.

 

 

i agree, for all those who say Green would have to show massive improvement to start, hope you all are ready for picking up right where we left off, if you think the Big 10 teams are afraid of TM running the zone, forget about it, they will smother the kid and our hapless O line.

[Hercules]

He should have been a situational/Wildcat QB a la Tim Tebow, as well as taking Marlowe's place on those jet sweeps. A guy you get on the field 20 snaps a game and find a way to put the ball in his hands for 12-15 of them.

 

Right, because all those records he nearly set were worthless.

 

The ONLY thing preventing Taylor from rewriting the record books was a high ankle sprain. This revisionist history needs to stop.

 

His shoddy performances against SDSU and Texas beg to differ. Most telling of all is that the way he floundered in those games was identical to the way he floundered after the high-ankle sprain. Revisionist history is conveniently forgetting those performances and blaming everything on a high-ankle sprain that, in a lot of ways, did nothing to change the slide that had already been set in motion.

 

Taylor's last run of any consequence was in the K State game, nine and a half quarters before he sprained his ankle. No TD runs---or big runs at all---in those 9 quarters.

 

Let's face facts: Taylor is, by and large, a one-trick pony. As soon as teams schemed to take that trick away and dared us to beat them in some other way, he was worse than useless. And that's the problem with being one-diminsional. If Taylor was able to throw (and our receivers could catch), then loading the box would expose our opponents to plays downfield. When they pull back to cover the pass, Taylor could rip them with runs. And so on.

 

Having said all of that, I will blame this 50/50 on our offense not putting Taylor in position to succeed in light of his horrible passing fundamentals. But to suggest that everything would magically have been okay if Taylor's ankle was 100% is, IMO, conveniently ignoring what had already begun to emerge before the Mizzou game.

 

 

Oh gimme a break, Hujan. Did you even watch that game?

 

Tmart's "shoddy" Texas game was 99.9% our wrs dropping balls all over the place. Ted's guys were so impressively consistent they continued dropping Lee's passes too. Dissing Tmart for that is grossly unfair to say the very least. Our hands of stone wrs catch half those passes they dropped we score a couple more TDs and the run game opens up. But....oh well....

 

I didn't see the SDSU game but even "if" Tmart sucked in that game our running game should have steam-rolled them anyway. Freakin SDSU.....just another SW gem.

 

I guess Tmart forgot to be a "one trick pony" when he threw five TD passes vs Okie St, right? Geesh....what do you want from the guy?

 

I not only watched, I was present at both games. (Great seats, too.) You have a decent point regarding Texas: Our WRs dropped balls.* But you are dodging the question we are discussing: Taylor's ankle was fine that day. Why didn't he run all over Texas?

 

My point with my post is that the Taylor apologists try to blame everything on his ankle, but the fact is that he didn't really do jack in the SDSU, Texas, or the part of the Mizzou game that he played.

 

Perhaps the single greatest indictment of Taylor is the Holiday Bowl. Here's a team that he ran on like crazy in September. But once they scheme to take away the zone read and dare him to make the throws, he can't get it done. Meanwhile, on the flip side, we make Jake Locker look silly throwing the ball in September, so he shows up with a single-minded intent to run the ball and he ran it well.

 

I can hear you now: "But he's a freshman . . . "

 

Taylor didn't run all over Texas because Texas sold out to stop him. You expect Martinez to run for 200 yards per game no matter what the defense does to contain him? When they ran the read option against Texas, the read usually crashed down on the running back, the linebackers immediately filled gaps on the line of scrimmage, and both safeties crashed down to stop the run. There was nowhere for Taylor or the running back to go. The only thing we could do was playaction pass, which we did, and the receivers dropped the ball, therefore doing nothing to keep Texas' defense honest. You're not going to be able to run the ball when 9/11 defenders are completely intent on stopping the run and not even worrying about defending the pass.

 

I can't comment on SDSU, because I didn't see that game. Against Missouri, the Tiger defense was so intent on stopping Martinez that Roy Helu was able to rush for about 200 yards in the first quarter alone, and Martinez was able to connect on a deep pass to wide-open Kyler Reed. When teams sell out to stop Martinez, it's like double teaming Lebron James. You're just letting Dwayne Wade or Chris Bosh get open. That's how our offense was at the beginning of the year (except against Texas, when Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh couldn't catch any pass that Lebron would toss to them).

 

Later in the year, without the running game happening, Taylor wasn't going to be a threat to pass the ball. He can't do that yet, he needs the defense off balance trying to stop him from running in order to have guys that are open enough that he can make the pass. That's not ideal, but that's the way it is, that's how our offense is designed, how any running/option offense is designed.

 

Darron Thomas and Cam Newton are the same way - if they're hurt and can't run, the defense can sit back and wait for them to pass, and they won't look nearly as good. Tommie Frazier, Turner Gill, Scott Frost, Eric Crouch - the reason any of them were good quarterbacks is that they could run and pass. They all would have been terrible QBs (except maybe Gill) if you had taken their legs away.

 

To indict Martinez on his passing game alone is to completely miss the point of what kind of player he is, and what kind of offense we're trying to run. The alarming thing about this season isn't Martinez - it's the fact that when he got hurt, our running game disappeared, without which we had no passing game, and apparently our coaches had more confidence in a gimpy redshirt freshman than they did in any of our backup QBs.

[Hunter94]

"and apparently our coaches had more confidence in a gimpy redshirt freshman than they did in any of our backup QBs."

 

yep and we saw how well that worked out......

 

and my biggest fear is watching the same pathetic play next season.........

[Hujan]

He should have been a situational/Wildcat QB a la Tim Tebow, as well as taking Marlowe's place on those jet sweeps. A guy you get on the field 20 snaps a game and find a way to put the ball in his hands for 12-15 of them.

 

Right, because all those records he nearly set were worthless.

 

The ONLY thing preventing Taylor from rewriting the record books was a high ankle sprain. This revisionist history needs to stop.

 

His shoddy performances against SDSU and Texas beg to differ. Most telling of all is that the way he floundered in those games was identical to the way he floundered after the high-ankle sprain. Revisionist history is conveniently forgetting those performances and blaming everything on a high-ankle sprain that, in a lot of ways, did nothing to change the slide that had already been set in motion.

 

Taylor's last run of any consequence was in the K State game, nine and a half quarters before he sprained his ankle. No TD runs---or big runs at all---in those 9 quarters.

 

Let's face facts: Taylor is, by and large, a one-trick pony. As soon as teams schemed to take that trick away and dared us to beat them in some other way, he was worse than useless. And that's the problem with being one-diminsional. If Taylor was able to throw (and our receivers could catch), then loading the box would expose our opponents to plays downfield. When they pull back to cover the pass, Taylor could rip them with runs. And so on.

 

Having said all of that, I will blame this 50/50 on our offense not putting Taylor in position to succeed in light of his horrible passing fundamentals. But to suggest that everything would magically have been okay if Taylor's ankle was 100% is, IMO, conveniently ignoring what had already begun to emerge before the Mizzou game.

 

The fact that he was a Freshman making his fourth and sixth career starts beg to differ as well. There are some bizarre standards being set for Martinez. If he's not as perfect and polished as a fifth-year senior, some people want to kick him to the curb. Me, I'm pretty thrilled with the fact that he performed as well as he did as a Freshman. Nine wins and a Big XII North title under his leadership - with a conference title three points away - isn't bad. It's better than Blaine Gabbert, the rumored top QB prospect in this year's draft, can boast.

 

As for his lack of production after K-State, that's hogwash. As has been mentioned, the passes he put in the hands of receivers during Texas would have, if caught, won us the game. He LIT UP Oklahoma State to the tune of 300+ yards and 5 TDs, so the allegation that he's a "one-trick pony" is also hogwash. And before we go all crazy with "OSU is a terrible defense" let's look at the stats - 46th in the country in Pass Efficiency. Certainly not great, but not chopped liver, either, especially in the pass-happy Big 12.

 

The kid was a FRESHMAN. Seriously - what did you expect? Perfection?

 

EDIT - forgot to mention that Taylor did all that against the 28th-rated schedule in the country.

 

Now you're making excuses about him being a freshman. In other words, you're conceding not only that he wasn't the greatest QB, but that it was due to something other than his ankle injury.

 

Whatever the explanation is---an inherent flaw in his game or his inexperience---is irrelevant to the point I was making: Martinez ran up some gaudy numbers when teams did not anticipate him, then grew less and less effective as teams began to take away the zone read. I personally think that his running stats would not have changed significantly even if he hadn't injured his ankle. You apparently disagree, but you have the problem of the Texas and SDSU games to overcome. Why didn't Taylor run all over those teams?

 

As for the Okie State game, there is no dismissing that he had a great game that day. But one great game does not a good QB make. The hallmark of a good QB is consistency. And even you must agree that Taylor was anything but consistent, injury or otherwise.

 

Hujan, you didn't answer his question. What did you expect?

 

Seriously, at the beginning of the season, when Martinez was named the starter, what did you expect from Taylor Martinez?

 

Before we get to far afield here, let me make a full disclosure that might surprise you: I actually like Taylor Martinez. I think he shows a lot of promise and has a lot of raw talent that can be put to good use. I wouldn't be shocked in the least if he turned into a very productive QB for Nebraska and would be thrilled to death to see it. (He also happens to be my starting QB in NCAA '11, though he was sidelined for awhile with a broken collarbone.)

 

Having said all of that, I am also realistic about what the kid can and cannot do. What he can do is run very, very fast in more or less straight lines. If Taylor has a seam, he will leave everyone in the dust. That is a great asset that makes him more dangerous than the average, pocket-passing QB.

 

What Taylor doesn't do well is manage the pocket. He gets flustered easily and panics when there is pressure. Instead of throwing the ball away, he either (1) runs into the line while holding the ball in a careless fashion, or (2) allows the linemen to throw him around like a rag doll. He does not set his feet when he throws, making his passes less accurate. He tries too hard to turn every play into a 70 yard gain instead of being happy with 6 or 7 yards. Others have said that he doesn't do a good enough job at sliding the protection at the line, but it is not clear to me whether the line is at fault or not. And lastly, I think he does not strike me as a natural leader.

 

You are right to say that some of this can be attributed to his status as a freshman. But Taylor is not going to magically blossom into a first rate passer just because he becomes a sophomore. You see modest, incremental changes; not leaps and bounds. Andrew Luck is a great QB in his sophomore season, but he was already the Pac-10's best QB last year as a RS freshman. Same deal with Matt Barkley at USC. In other words, you can expect modest improvements over time, but nothing dramatic.

 

So, in my view, a great passer Martinez will never be. So what does this mean for Taylor? I think with the right offensive staff, we can put Taylor in the best position to succeed. We can have him throw screens to keep the pass rush at bay. We can have him throw off the bootleg more so that he can operate in space where his speed comes into play as opposed to the pocket where he is standing still. We can have him throw off a traditional, I-form play action instead of the zone read, which takes too long to develop. And we can have him run off something other than the zone read. I seem to remember we ran some draw plays against K State that were remarkably effective (which explains why we never saw them again after that).

 

But to blame everything on Taylor's ankle is far too simplistic and dishonest, IMO. Taylor would have been relatively ineffective regardless of his ankle because of his inherent limitations as a QB, and most importantly, our offensive staffs' inability to accommodate and game plan around them when opposing defenses take away what Taylor does best (run in straight lines). I really can't say it any better than this.

[knapplc]

The "blame everything on Taylor's ankle" issue is a straw man. Nobody is blaming EVERYTHING on his ankle. It's his ankle, crappy play-calling, a shoddy O Line, his Freshman-ness, and poor receivers.

 

Despite that, he guided us, as a Freshman, to nine wins, against the 28th-ranked schedule in the country. All any of us are saying is lighten up a little, Francis.

 

 

 

Like I've said many a time - if this is his basement, imagine what his ceiling is. Give the kid a chance.

[knapplc]

Hujan, your argument seems to boil down to the fact that Taylor will never be Andrew Luck in the passing game. Wouldn't you also concede that Andrew Luck will never be Taylor in the running game? Wouldn't you also concede that there's a place for both a great running QB and a great passing QB in college football, and that a player does not have to be both to win?

[Hercules]

I know people see "Taylor's ankle" as a lame excuse, but a Tommie Frazier who couldn't run wouldn't have been that successful of a QB. He had a lot of other things going, sure, but his ability to run was what made him Tommie Frazier. If Eric Crouch wasn't able to run, he wouldn't have won a Heisman trophy. That's just the reality of that type of QB.

 

With Taylor, he got hurt, was no longer able to run, and everybody's like, "Well!!?? Why aren't you awesome anymore!!???" It's like if Peyton Manning's arm got hurt, and everybody then got ticked off when he couldn't run like Michael Vick to make up for it.

[Hunter94]

Hujan, your argument seems to boil down to the fact that Taylor will never be Andrew Luck in the passing game. Wouldn't you also concede that Andrew Luck will never be Taylor in the running game? Wouldn't you also concede that there's a place for both a great running QB and a great passing QB in college football, and that a player does not have to be both to win?

 

 

case in point, Michael Vick learned a qb is a passer first and a runner when he has to be...if TM can't make all the throws the defenses will crowd his running and short passes, he will never successfuly stretch the field, the defenses will never respect the long ball, hence the whole playbook is not available to us...but nothing new there.

[Hercules]

Hujan, your argument seems to boil down to the fact that Taylor will never be Andrew Luck in the passing game. Wouldn't you also concede that Andrew Luck will never be Taylor in the running game? Wouldn't you also concede that there's a place for both a great running QB and a great passing QB in college football, and that a player does not have to be both to win?

 

 

case in point, Michael Vick learned a qb is a passer first and a runner when he has to be...if TM can't make all the throws the defenses will crowd his running and short passes, he will never successfuly stretch the field, the defenses will never respect the long ball, hence the whole playbook is not available to us...but nothing new there.

 

Now we expect Taylor Martinez to be Michael Vick?

 

With Taylor, the long ball is available to us because of his legs. Which is what we saw at the beginning of the year, and we saw him make that throw multiple times to Kyler Reed. But take away his legs, and that is no longer available to us because he's no longer a threat to run. And that's the second half of the season for our offense.

[knapplc]

Hujan, your argument seems to boil down to the fact that Taylor will never be Andrew Luck in the passing game. Wouldn't you also concede that Andrew Luck will never be Taylor in the running game? Wouldn't you also concede that there's a place for both a great running QB and a great passing QB in college football, and that a player does not have to be both to win?

 

 

case in point, Michael Vick learned a qb is a passer first and a runner when he has to be...if TM can't make all the throws the defenses will crowd his running and short passes, he will never successfuly stretch the field, the defenses will never respect the long ball, hence the whole playbook is not available to us...but nothing new there.

 

IN THE NFL. That's a HUGE difference there, Hunter. HUGE.

 

It's amazing to me how the people on this board seem to have completely lost touch with players like Turner Gill, Steve Taylor, Tommie Frazier, Scott Frost, Eric Crouch and Jammal Lord. In college you don't HAVE TO BE a passing quarterback to win championships.

 

Just ask Cam Newton.

[skersfan]

I remember a QB by the name of Scott Frost that went to Stanford to be coached by a legend, was in that program for two or three years trying to be a QB. Transferred to Nebraska because Walsh told him he was not a QB. His first year he played pretty good, but was on poo list, the next he won a NC. Here is a kid that had the best training available from high school on, and never really made it till his senior year.

 

Martinez won 9 games this year, a couple of losses that were far from his fault. He is a Freshman All American. Just how much do you expect from him.

 

He gave it his all every single game, played when he shouldn't have because no one on the bench was as good as he was injured.

 

Give the kid some credit, let him grow and develop.

 

If we would have depended on Green my guess is the losses would have been greater.

 

Holiday Bowl our great defense got ran all over, Taylor had nothing to do with it.

 

I did not want him to start, I was and still am a Lee supporter, but Taylor did a very good job and will only get better if and a big if, the fan base gets off his ass.

[JTrain]

You have to be able to execute the pass plays given to you, and an OC that can draw up the right pass plays at the right time, and an offensive line coached to be able to block adequately on those plays. Zero outta three aint bad. Oh, wait... yes it is.

[JTrain]

Hujan, your argument seems to boil down to the fact that Taylor will never be Andrew Luck in the passing game. Wouldn't you also concede that Andrew Luck will never be Taylor in the running game? Wouldn't you also concede that there's a place for both a great running QB and a great passing QB in college football, and that a player does not have to be both to win?

 

 

case in point, Michael Vick learned a qb is a passer first and a runner when he has to be...if TM can't make all the throws the defenses will crowd his running and short passes, he will never successfuly stretch the field, the defenses will never respect the long ball, hence the whole playbook is not available to us...but nothing new there.

 

IN THE NFL. That's a HUGE difference there, Hunter. HUGE.

 

It's amazing to me how the people on this board seem to have completely lost touch with players like Turner Gill, Steve Taylor, Tommie Frazier, Scott Frost, Eric Crouch and Jammal Lord. In college you don't HAVE TO BE a passing quarterback to win championships.

 

Just ask Cam Newton.

 

Newton's passer rating this season was 182, which I believe ranks among the top ten ALL-TIME in the FBS (Colt Brennan holds the all time record at 186). 66% completion, 30 TDs to 7 INTs, and over 10 yards per attempt. Of course he's no Peyton Manning, but as a college passer he is excellent.

 

As for the Huskers: Turner Gill was more a true dual-threat than those others. Frazier and Frost benefited from a brilliant OC who had just hit his stride as a play-caller, not to mention phenomenal I-backs and world-class offensive lines. Crouch and Lord had pretty much just as much talent but none of those other three (crucial) helpers.

 

I think Martinez can be serviceable enough in the passing game to win us Big 10 titles, but probably not unless Cotton and/or Wats are replaced.

[Hercules]

Hujan, your argument seems to boil down to the fact that Taylor will never be Andrew Luck in the passing game. Wouldn't you also concede that Andrew Luck will never be Taylor in the running game? Wouldn't you also concede that there's a place for both a great running QB and a great passing QB in college football, and that a player does not have to be both to win?

 

 

case in point, Michael Vick learned a qb is a passer first and a runner when he has to be...if TM can't make all the throws the defenses will crowd his running and short passes, he will never successfuly stretch the field, the defenses will never respect the long ball, hence the whole playbook is not available to us...but nothing new there.

 

IN THE NFL. That's a HUGE difference there, Hunter. HUGE.

 

It's amazing to me how the people on this board seem to have completely lost touch with players like Turner Gill, Steve Taylor, Tommie Frazier, Scott Frost, Eric Crouch and Jammal Lord. In college you don't HAVE TO BE a passing quarterback to win championships.

 

Just ask Cam Newton.

 

Newton's passer rating this season was 182, which I believe ranks among the top ten ALL-TIME in the FBS (Colt Brennan holds the all time record at 186). 66% completion, 30 TDs to 7 INTs, and over 10 yards per attempt. Of course he's no Peyton Manning, but as a college passer he is excellent.

 

As for the Huskers: Turner Gill was more a true dual-threat than those others. Frazier and Frost benefited from a brilliant OC who had just hit his stride as a play-caller, not to mention phenomenal I-backs and world-class offensive lines. Crouch and Lord had pretty much just as much talent but none of those other three (crucial) helpers.

 

I think Martinez can be serviceable enough in the passing game to win us Big 10 titles, but probably not unless Cotton and/or Wats are replaced.

 

If you take away Cam Newton's legs, that passer rating goes down. That's the point we're trying to make.

 

Frazier and Frost also benefitted from their own legs, from being a running threat themselves. Without that, they wouldn't have been as effective as they were in the passing game.

 

Martinez needs to improve in the passing game for sure, but he definitely has the potential to be a great college QB. We just need to make sure we have the right system in place for him, and that we execute better around him.