1620: Niles Paul on 1620 and his future/Offense's Change

[fearandloathing]

"The bold is BS. We were up 17-0 with a banged-up run-first QB at the helm. You can NOT lay that loss on Martinez. That was a TEAM LOSS. If the TEAM doesn't fold on OFF and DEF we win the conference and go to a BCS bowl. I can't imagine anyone would call that an unsuccessful year, and it all happened despite this revisionist history hysteria we have cropping up. Again."

 

You apparently weren't in Cowboys stadium to watch that game live. Taylor Martinez and Shawn Watson lost that game for us. It was very, very clear. Sacks, fumbles, hesitation, etc. Granted, ol' buddy was a Frosh QB, so there's that excuse...

[zoogs]

If Cody or Zac was "the guy," then he'd have been, "the guy." Zac Lee had every opportunity to become that guy against Texas, and he suffered the exact same fate as Martinez, victim of their wide receivers. Lee also could've taken the reins against Missouri, but in 2.5 quarters with Lee at the helm, Nebraska managed exactly 7 points, compared to the 24 they managed with Martinez at the helm in the first quarter and a half.

 

This is incorrect. Taylor was kept in until the end of the first half. Lee made his entrance at the start of the second half. Lee had two drives to make something happen. He made two bad throws in his first drive, and Helu ripped off his run to put us up by a lot in his second drive. After that, we went into turtle down mode. Literally just tried to run the clock out without really trying to do anything more, because the lead was big enough that they wanted to do that. You can argue whether that was the right thing to do, but I agree with it.

[Hercules]

If Cody or Zac was "the guy," then he'd have been, "the guy." Zac Lee had every opportunity to become that guy against Texas, and he suffered the exact same fate as Martinez, victim of their wide receivers. Lee also could've taken the reins against Missouri, but in 2.5 quarters with Lee at the helm, Nebraska managed exactly 7 points, compared to the 24 they managed with Martinez at the helm in the first quarter and a half.

 

This is incorrect. Taylor was kept in until the end of the first half. Lee made his entrance at the start of the second half. Lee had two drives to make something happen. He made two bad throws in his first drive, and Helu ripped off his run to put us up by a lot in his second drive. After that, we went into turtle down mode. Literally just tried to run the clock out without really trying to do anything more, because the lead was big enough that they wanted to do that. You can argue whether that was the right thing to do, but I agree with it.

 

You're right, Taylor played the rest of that half, my bad. However, Zac Lee showed nothing in his appearance in that game or in the Texas game that demonstrated we would have been better off with him rather than with Taylor.

[Hercules]

I'll put my trust in the people who were in practices, going through the reps on a daily basis. Cody Green was going to be the starter, and we were going to run more in the mold of the 2008 offense. But Taylor threw his fit, then came back and impressed in a couple of practices and the rest, like our hopes of a conference title and BCS game in 2010 are history.

 

Also, Nebraska offered around 10 QB's this year, 4 of them were pass first QB's, we just happened to get Jamal and Bubba.

 

For 2012, you will continue to see NU recruit a wide range of QB's in talent. Pelini knows you can't just be one-dimensional and expect to be a contender for a Big Ten or national title.

 

The bold is BS. We were up 17-0 with a banged-up run-first QB at the helm. You can NOT lay that loss on Martinez. That was a TEAM LOSS. If the TEAM doesn't fold on OFF and DEF we win the conference and go to a BCS bowl. I can't imagine anyone would call that an unsuccessful year, and it all happened despite this revisionist history hysteria we have cropping up. Again.

 

Sure you can, the pick in the end zone when he should have thrown it away, the sacks he took when he should have thrown the ball away. Or his 3 fumbles in the game? That loss was a result of poor QB play, yes, there were other factors, but QB play as the biggest.

 

I'm sure Cody Green or Zac Lee would have been the difference that won the game. Other than the fact that neither of them demonstrated anything all season long to make that case, it makes perfect sense.

 

It really doesn't matter, we can't go back and replay those games.

 

Taylor's CCG was horrible, you can't deny that, and since Cody or Zac weren't given a chance, it's just opinion on them making a difference.

 

I would take a healthy Cody over an injured Taylor any day, I would also take a healthy Cody over a healthy Taylor as our starting QB. But that's more about leadership and running an offense than pure talent and athleticism.

 

Out of curiosity, which games of Cody's can you cite which makes you feel this way? I don't recall Cody beating a good team through HIS play on the field. Help?

 

Actually, here's the stats that support the theory

 

Taylor after the injury

 

56 Carries, 79 Yards ,1.41 YPC, 0 TD, 6 Fumbles

 

44 Completions, 76 Attempts, 470 Yards, 1 TD, 4 INT, 57.9% Comp %

 

Martinez, 4 starts, 1-3 and offense averages 13.3 PPG against defenses that allowed an average of 26.6 PPG went -13.3 ppg down the stretch

 

Green, 2 starts, 2-0 and offense averages 38 PPG against defenses that allowed an average of 29.8 PPG, so Cody led offenses went +8 PPG down the stretch

 

Taylor's opponents included Texas A&M and Oklahoma, Cody's opponents included Iowa State and Colorado. I mean, are you really trying to make a legit comparison? Because it's not.

 

Also, let's look at those Cody-led offenses a little closer. As far as I can remember, Rex Burkhead played 1/2 of the Iowa State game at QB, and the offense was overwhelmingly better out of the wildcat than with Green in the shotgun.

 

Against Colorado, out of those 45 points, two touchdowns were thrown by Rex Burkhead, and two of our touchdown drives were set up by the Blackshirts who got turnovers inside the 10 yard line.

 

Against their only common opponent, Washington, a healthy Cody Green was just as ineffective as an injured Taylor Martinez, and you said before that you would take a healthy Cody Green over a healthy Taylor Martinez, and there is absolutely no evidence to back that up.

[Hercules]

I believe I mentioned Cody beating GOOD teams. Not scoring more than average against two mediocre teams, but beating GOOD teams.

 

Example, please. Just one example. In two years.

 

 

Crickets.....................................................................

 

Considering Cody has only been given starts against Baylor, a very down OU team last year, then Iowa State and Colorado, he hasn't had a chance.

 

 

Maybe you only mean that Cody hasn't had a chance to play a good team (I would disagree, because that OU team last year, while just an average team, was a very good defense). But over the past two years, Cody Green has had more opportunities to take the starting job than any backup QB since Eric Crouch, and the same can be said for Zac Lee.

 

Joe Ganz didn't get a chance until Sam Keller got injured. Harrison Beck never really got a chance with Zac Taylor in charge. There was nobody behind Joe Dailey or Jammal Lord worth mentioning, and nobody behind Eric Crouch ever had a chance either.

 

Cody's gotten to start 4 games over the past few years, Zac Lee had all of 2009 and several opportunities in 2010. If they were going to be the difference between a championship team and not a championship team, than they would have shown it. They would have come in, made some plays, and everyone would have gasped and said, "Oh, see the difference? Why isn't he starting?"

 

There is no alternate reality where Zac Lee or Cody Green is the starting QB and they lead Nebraska to national championships and restore its former glory. Here's the only alternate reality:

 

Green or Lee get the start at the beginning of the year against WKU. They would have done fine, too. But sometime during the Western Kentucky game, Taylor Martinez would have come in, and he would have made a play, and he would have flashed greatness, and the entire crowd at Memorial Stadium would have gasped with excitement, and the QB controversy would have continued into Idaho. And then against Washington, we would have seen all 3 QBs, but we'd have seen Taylor breaking 80 yard runs, and opening up the passing game and the other playmakers, and Martinez would have won the job anyways. He would have won it because he made plays on the field that the other guys couldn't make.

[HuskerNMO]

I'll put my trust in the people who were in practices, going through the reps on a daily basis. Cody Green was going to be the starter, and we were going to run more in the mold of the 2008 offense. But Taylor threw his fit, then came back and impressed in a couple of practices and the rest, like our hopes of a conference title and BCS game in 2010 are history.

 

Also, Nebraska offered around 10 QB's this year, 4 of them were pass first QB's, we just happened to get Jamal and Bubba.

 

For 2012, you will continue to see NU recruit a wide range of QB's in talent. Pelini knows you can't just be one-dimensional and expect to be a contender for a Big Ten or national title.

 

The bold is BS. We were up 17-0 with a banged-up run-first QB at the helm. You can NOT lay that loss on Martinez. That was a TEAM LOSS. If the TEAM doesn't fold on OFF and DEF we win the conference and go to a BCS bowl. I can't imagine anyone would call that an unsuccessful year, and it all happened despite this revisionist history hysteria we have cropping up. Again.

 

Sure you can, the pick in the end zone when he should have thrown it away, the sacks he took when he should have thrown the ball away. Or his 3 fumbles in the game? That loss was a result of poor QB play, yes, there were other factors, but QB play as the biggest.

 

I'm sure Cody Green or Zac Lee would have been the difference that won the game. Other than the fact that neither of them demonstrated anything all season long to make that case, it makes perfect sense.

 

It really doesn't matter, we can't go back and replay those games.

 

Taylor's CCG was horrible, you can't deny that, and since Cody or Zac weren't given a chance, it's just opinion on them making a difference.

 

I would take a healthy Cody over an injured Taylor any day, I would also take a healthy Cody over a healthy Taylor as our starting QB. But that's more about leadership and running an offense than pure talent and athleticism.

 

Out of curiosity, which games of Cody's can you cite which makes you feel this way? I don't recall Cody beating a good team through HIS play on the field. Help?

 

Actually, here's the stats that support the theory

 

Taylor after the injury

 

56 Carries, 79 Yards ,1.41 YPC, 0 TD, 6 Fumbles

 

44 Completions, 76 Attempts, 470 Yards, 1 TD, 4 INT, 57.9% Comp %

 

Martinez, 4 starts, 1-3 and offense averages 13.3 PPG against defenses that allowed an average of 26.6 PPG went -13.3 ppg down the stretch

 

Green, 2 starts, 2-0 and offense averages 38 PPG against defenses that allowed an average of 29.8 PPG, so Cody led offenses went +8 PPG down the stretch

 

Taylor's opponents included Texas A&M and Oklahoma, Cody's opponents included Iowa State and Colorado. I mean, are you really trying to make a legit comparison? Because it's not.

 

Also, let's look at those Cody-led offenses a little closer. As far as I can remember, Rex Burkhead played 1/2 of the Iowa State game at QB, and the offense was overwhelmingly better out of the wildcat than with Green in the shotgun.

 

Against Colorado, out of those 45 points, two touchdowns were thrown by Rex Burkhead, and two of our touchdown drives were set up by the Blackshirts who got turnovers inside the 10 yard line.

 

Against their only common opponent, Washington, a healthy Cody Green was just as ineffective as an injured Taylor Martinez, and you said before that you would take a healthy Cody Green over a healthy Taylor Martinez, and there is absolutely no evidence to back that up.

 

There's a big difference between coming into a game, on a wet, mid 40 degree night cold having gotten very few reps with the ones in over a months time and getting the start and having a gameplan that was supposed to take advantage of your skills.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges, the gameplans and philosophies we setup for Taylor, and what Taylor could do (which by the end of the year, was essentially nothing). The simple facts are, when Watson was allowed to gameplan with Cody as a starter after Taylor got hurt, we went 2-0 and averaged 38 PPG, which was 8 PPG more than those defenses normally allowed.

 

However, when given a gimpy and ineffective Taylor Martinez, we didn't even manage 14 PPG and went 1-3. We put up, on average against those teams, 13 PPG less than they gave up in their other games.

 

Heck, even LSU who was ranked lower that NU in scoring offense on the year managed 41 on A&M's defense.

 

While ISU and CU certainly aren't impressive teams, they were both on 2 game winning streaks when we beat them with Cody as the starting QB, and Cody went into the CU game with the pressure of a Big 12 North title hanging over his head, the team rallied around him and we got that title.

[knapplc]

While ISU and CU certainly aren't impressive teams, they were both on 2 game winning streaks when we beat them with Cody as the starting QB, and Cody went into the CU game with the pressure of a Big 12 North title hanging over his head, the team rallied around him and we got that title.

 

Herc really did a good job of laying these points to rest, but I wanted to comment on how much this is a stretch. I don't care if it was a National Championship game, CU was a terrible team that had already packed it in when we played. I have little doubt LaTravis Washington could have beaten Colorado. And Iowa State was hardly an example of Cody "beating" a team. More like, we won despite Cody.

[HuskerNMO]

While ISU and CU certainly aren't impressive teams, they were both on 2 game winning streaks when we beat them with Cody as the starting QB, and Cody went into the CU game with the pressure of a Big 12 North title hanging over his head, the team rallied around him and we got that title.

 

Herc really did a good job of laying these points to rest, but I wanted to comment on how much this is a stretch. I don't care if it was a National Championship game, CU was a terrible team that had already packed it in when we played. I have little doubt LaTravis Washington could have beaten Colorado. And Iowa State was hardly an example of Cody "beating" a team. More like, we won despite Cody.

 

They had won their previous two games, and scored 45, 34 and 44 points in their prior games and were playing to be bowl eligible, please explain how that qualifies as "packing it in". Cody wasn't the problem in the ISU game, he played with a minor concussion and still played fairly well given the game plan, he was 5-9 in the second half throwing the ball, all 5 completions went for 1st downs, 4 of those were on 3rd down. By comparison, that running attack that was the key to the game only managed 3 second half first downs.

 

But please, by all means, keep using generalizations and ignoring any actual statistics to back up your position.

[Hercules]

While ISU and CU certainly aren't impressive teams, they were both on 2 game winning streaks when we beat them with Cody as the starting QB, and Cody went into the CU game with the pressure of a Big 12 North title hanging over his head, the team rallied around him and we got that title.

 

Herc really did a good job of laying these points to rest, but I wanted to comment on how much this is a stretch. I don't care if it was a National Championship game, CU was a terrible team that had already packed it in when we played. I have little doubt LaTravis Washington could have beaten Colorado. And Iowa State was hardly an example of Cody "beating" a team. More like, we won despite Cody.

 

They had won their previous two games, and scored 45, 34 and 44 points in their prior games and were playing to be bowl eligible, please explain how that qualifies as "packing it in". Cody wasn't the problem in the ISU game, he played with a minor concussion and still played fairly well given the game plan, he was 5-9 in the second half throwing the ball, all 5 completions went for 1st downs, 4 of those were on 3rd down. By comparison, that running attack that was the key to the game only managed 3 second half first downs.

 

But please, by all means, keep using generalizations and ignoring any actual statistics to back up your position.

 

jliehr, you're trying to tell us that we should be impressed that a healthy Cody Green had success against Iowa State and Colorado, when Iowa State was a mediocre team at best, and when Colorado was flat out awful and in the midst of a coaching change. Not only are you saying we should be impressed with that, but you're telling us that it's fair to compare healthy Cody Green's performance in those games to an injured Taylor Martinez's performance against Texas A&M and Oklahoma, two of the best three teams we played all year.

 

It's not about statistics at this point, it's about common sense. Forgive me for not buying in.

[knapplc]

What we're really saying with this CU/ISU thing is that Cody Green is as capable of leading Nebraska to the promised land as Quinn Mecham and Carson Coffman.

 

That is impressive.

[HuskerNMO]

While ISU and CU certainly aren't impressive teams, they were both on 2 game winning streaks when we beat them with Cody as the starting QB, and Cody went into the CU game with the pressure of a Big 12 North title hanging over his head, the team rallied around him and we got that title.

 

Herc really did a good job of laying these points to rest, but I wanted to comment on how much this is a stretch. I don't care if it was a National Championship game, CU was a terrible team that had already packed it in when we played. I have little doubt LaTravis Washington could have beaten Colorado. And Iowa State was hardly an example of Cody "beating" a team. More like, we won despite Cody.

 

They had won their previous two games, and scored 45, 34 and 44 points in their prior games and were playing to be bowl eligible, please explain how that qualifies as "packing it in". Cody wasn't the problem in the ISU game, he played with a minor concussion and still played fairly well given the game plan, he was 5-9 in the second half throwing the ball, all 5 completions went for 1st downs, 4 of those were on 3rd down. By comparison, that running attack that was the key to the game only managed 3 second half first downs.

 

But please, by all means, keep using generalizations and ignoring any actual statistics to back up your position.

 

jliehr, you're trying to tell us that we should be impressed that a healthy Cody Green had success against Iowa State and Colorado, when Iowa State was a mediocre team at best, and when Colorado was flat out awful and in the midst of a coaching change. Not only are you saying we should be impressed with that, but you're telling us that it's fair to compare healthy Cody Green's performance in those games to an injured Taylor Martinez's performance against Texas A&M and Oklahoma, two of the best three teams we played all year.

 

It's not about statistics at this point, it's about common sense. Forgive me for not buying in.

 

It is about statistics, name one thing Taylor Martinez did in the last 4 games he played that showed any signs he really belonged on the field. We went 1-3, barely did anything against a putrid KU squad, did nothing against an A&M squad that got hammered by LSU who's OC was as popular as Watson, and our 2 TD's in the CCG were a long run by Helu and a TD setup by an interception. And I don't think we need to relive the Holiday Bowl do we?

 

Really everyone is so impressed by Taylor for just a few games against mediocre defenses.

 

Taylor rushed for 12 TD's this year, which seems pretty impressive. However, those came in 4 games, WKU (#86 Run D), Idaho (#95 Run D), Washington (#97 Run D), Kansas State (#119 Run D).

 

We played 5 games against defenses that were better than 86th against the run, in those games Taylor carried 69 times for 134 yards (1.94 per carry), and 112 of those came against Oklahoma State, 0 TD's and fumbled the ball 7 times

 

86% of Taylor's 965 rushing yards came against defenses ranked #86 or lower, yet while you guys bash Cody for the competition he played, and people criticize Zac Lee for only showing against Sun Belt teams last year, Taylor is seen as the next coming by many that can do no wrong.

 

And Knapp is talking about the promised land, what exactly, outside of the OSU game shows that Taylor is ready to lead this team anywhere? And how is that not balanced by the Texas, SD State, KU, A&M, CCG and Holiday Bowl games?

 

But keep using that common sense by all means.

[knapplc]

Taylor is seen as the next coming by many that can do no wrong.

Exaggerate much? All anyone is saying is that he's the best QB we had in 2011. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is making excuses for his poor play - and there was plenty of it.

 

And Knapp is talking about the promised land, what exactly, outside of the OSU game shows that Taylor is ready to lead this team anywhere? And how is that not balanced by the Texas, SD State, KU, A&M, CCG and Holiday Bowl games?

Why would you discount the Oklahoma State game? That's like saying, "Aside from all the games Tommie Frazier excelled in, he stunk."

 

But to humor you, outside of the OSU game, I'll give you the Missouri game. You remember that game, right? Top 20 team, we kicked their ass, and there was much rejoicing. Taylor was the QB for all but one of our TDs.

 

And you can't throw Taylor under the bus for Texas. It wasn't his fault we lost that game when he hit several receivers in the hands, only to have them drop the ball. Same goes for the CCG - Martinez didn't give up a 17-point lead (you may not know this, but he doesn't play defense). Nor can you lay the blame for the Bowl Game at Marty's feet - there are PLENTY of Seniors who had trouble looking in the mirror after that game, or at least they should have.

 

But keep using that common sense by all means.

 

Pop Quiz: Name the two Nebraska QBs who have beaten two top-20 teams in the last decade. I'll give you a hint - one was a Heisman Trophy winner, and the other was a first-team Freshman All-American. +1 to you if you can get both names. Nobody give him hints!

[HuskerNMO]

Taylor is seen as the next coming by many that can do no wrong.

Exaggerate much? All anyone is saying is that he's the best QB we had in 2011. Nothing more, nothing less. Nobody is making excuses for his poor play - and there was plenty of it.

 

And Knapp is talking about the promised land, what exactly, outside of the OSU game shows that Taylor is ready to lead this team anywhere? And how is that not balanced by the Texas, SD State, KU, A&M, CCG and Holiday Bowl games?

Why would you discount the Oklahoma State game? That's like saying, "Aside from all the games Tommie Frazier excelled in, he stunk."

 

But to humor you, outside of the OSU game, I'll give you the Missouri game. You remember that game, right? Top 20 team, we kicked their ass, and there was much rejoicing. Taylor was the QB for all but one of our TDs.

 

And you can't throw Taylor under the bus for Texas. It wasn't his fault we lost that game when he hit several receivers in the hands, only to have them drop the ball. Same goes for the CCG - Martinez didn't give up a 17-point lead (you may not know this, but he doesn't play defense). Nor can you lay the blame for the Bowl Game at Marty's feet - there are PLENTY of Seniors who had trouble looking in the mirror after that game, or at least they should have.

 

But keep using that common sense by all means.

 

Pop Quiz: Name the two Nebraska QBs who have beaten two top-20 teams in the last decade. I'll give you a hint - one was a Heisman Trophy winner, and the other was a first-team Freshman All-American. +1 to you if you can get both names. Nobody give him hints!

 

Show me where I discounted the OSU game, I just pointed out that the layed eggs of those 6 other games outweigh that one very good performance. Taylor had little impact on the MU game, Roy and the O-Line won that.

 

As far as the Texas game, I think Taylor got benched in that game didn't he?

 

In the CCG Taylor took 7 sacks, threw a crucial pick, and put the ball on the turf 3 times. We would have been better off if he would have taken the snaps and took a knee in that game in any passing situation.

 

What quarterback has been benched the most times in the last decade at NU? What quarterback has fumbled the most times in the last decade as a quarterback at NU?

 

I love how you continue to gloss over the facts and statistics posted that show exactly how mediocre Taylor was against teams with a pulse that weren't OSU. And are blind to the fact that once injured, Taylor was a detriment to the team while he was on the field.

[knapplc]

Show me where I discounted the OSU game

And Knapp is talking about the promised land, what exactly, outside of the OSU game shows that Taylor is ready to lead this team anywhere?

Underlined for your pleasure. Your analysis wants to discount a brilliant game against a top-20 opponent. One who finished ranked ahead of us, no less.

 

 

I just pointed out that the layed eggs of those 6 other games outweigh that one very good performance. Taylor had little impact on the MU game, Roy and the O-Line won that.

Right, MU didn't have to scheme for Martinez at all. They didn't sell out to stop Martinez, contributing to Helu's record day. You really believe that?

 

As far as the Texas game, I think Taylor got benched in that game didn't he?

Had his WRs caught the passes he put in their hands, he would not have been benched. You keep wanting to put that game in a "bad" column for Martinez, yet nothing he did in that game was bad. The team sucked, not Martinez.

 

 

In the CCG Taylor took 7 sacks, threw a crucial pick, and put the ball on the turf 3 times. We would have been better off if he would have taken the snaps and took a knee in that game in any passing situation.

And Green would have done better? As I asked you before, what evidence do you have to support that? This is the same Green that got benched against OU in 2009, was barely noticeable against Baylor in 09, and nearly lost the ISU game for us this year. The same Cody who came in to the Holiday Bowl and stunk it up again. Who should we have played instead of Martinez? If you say LaTravis Washington, I'm with you, but that was apparently not an option. Nor was burning Carnes' redshirt, nor was playing Lee (for God knows what reason).

 

 

What quarterback has been benched the most times in the last decade at NU? What quarterback has fumbled the most times in the last decade as a quarterback at NU?

Joe Ganz had WAY more turnovers than Taylor.

 

I love how you continue to gloss over the facts and statistics posted that show exactly how mediocre Taylor was against teams with a pulse that weren't OSU. And are blind to the fact that once injured, Taylor was a detriment to the team while he was on the field.

You're intentionally casting what I'm saying in a false light. Let's be clear about this: Taylor Martinez was the best QB available in 2010. Green was mediocre against mediocre teams, and Lee was allegedly injured and couldn't play. Martinez was not infallible, he was not perfect, he was not the second coming of Dave Humm. He was just the best we had. Don't misconstrue what I'm saying.

[zoogs]

Had his WRs caught the passes he put in their hands, he would not have been benched. You keep wanting to put that game in a "bad" column for Martinez, yet nothing he did in that game was bad. The team sucked, not Martinez.

 

Woah now. Taylor made one or two good throws that were dropped, but the bolded part is really not true. Coaches pulled him thinking Lee gave us a better chance to win at that point. And kept in the same receivers. They weren't wrong about Lee, who should have had two touchdown drives in short order.