With All these Qb's who'll switch positions?

[junior4949]

 

Goes back to the recruiting. We've lost so many high profile QBs over the recent years, it isn't even funny. Including a couple guys that were/are going to be first rounders in the draft, despite up-and-down college careers. I still believe we could've done better for Freeman and Gabbert (in terms of college production) than their unfortunate choices of schools did for them. Oh well, they'll both be millionaires out of it so I doubt they are complaining.

 

What our staff managed to mold out of Joe Ganz is pretty dang impressive. Lee's been alright. Very technically good practice warrior to the point where people have look at him and said, high round NFL pick. But not a gamer, and his only year starting, he had to deal with a really hampering throwing elbow injury nearly the entire year. Spano - destroyed by injuries. Witt - left. Green - project, still young. Taylor - project. Keller was good of course, but kind of had that 'poison to the entire team' thing going against him.

 

 

First, let's put something to bed right here right now. Gabbert would not have been better off coming to Nebraska, and our offense wouldn't have been magically better having him as our QB. Mizzou's receivers caught the ball while ours did not. I'd argue that Gabbert would have cost himself millions had he came to Nebraska.

[NUance]

Zoogies, I’m curious. What Nebraska QB from the past would best fit your definition of a true QB? (I’m guessing Vince Ferragamo, or maybe even Brook Berringer.) I’m not disagreeing—just curious.

[zoogs]

nuance, my thinking is we had a very different system in the past, and we can't keep living in it. We can't point to that and say, well, this worked before, and it's our best shot to win now. It isn't just the game that is changing over the years, we no longer have the same edge on everyone in mean & nasty, badass strength and conditioning that we did then. And the magic culture of excellence that Devaney and Osborne built over time, left with them. It was about the program they built, and not so much the scheme.

 

Today we want to be Oregon or Michigan. I'm just skeptical of anyone talking about QB depth when a lot of those guys can probably help the team more if they played a different position. And when we do find a 'hit', like Michigan did in Denard Robinson...I don't know. Seems like he created some sick highlights, and then frustrated fans a lot. Not unlike Taylor.

 

As far as true QBs, I don't really mean someone that fits in the pro-style mold, but someone who is a field general and knows how to direct the offense pre-snap. He doesn't have to be the guy with the big arm that makes all the throws perfectly. But he has to be able to recognize blitzes, check to better plays, beat defenses with his head. I think we had guys like that even in the Osborne years (but I wasn't quite around to watch in the 80s). Brook's probably the best example I could think of. Keeping in mind it's a very different system, and one with an insanely outstanding supporting cast. Nowadays, for every Cam Newton or Tyrod Taylor that comes through the program, there are probably going to be a lot of one-trick ponies that will be severe liabilities in the field general regard, and sans the top-notch team around them to make it work.

 

I would rather have QBs that are one-trick ponies the other way: guys that can at least semi-manage a game and key playmakers to success, even if they can't run a lick. My worry here all along is we'll fill the QB depth chart with guys that can be explosive, but on the flip side, would be disasters in comparison at managing a game. But, I haven't really followed the RichRod or Chip Kelly offenses too much. Maybe I'm not giving the system enough credit. Still, these are top notch offensive coaches doing their specialty. I get the feeling Bo is looking at that and saying, "Well, that's the best scheme." And then telling his coaches - whoever they are or whatever they are good at - to run it.

 

I suppose it all comes down to trusting coaches to know what they are doing. If we went out and got RichRod to run this scheme, I would be COMPLETELY enthusiastic. But as it looks like we are going with Beck, I think Bo should just let Beck run what he wants - which I think, would be something that asks a lot more out of his QBs from a passing standpoint.

 

junior, you're right: there's always the TG/BC factor to consider...although I think Gabbert, as a player, would potentially have developed more and maybe even compensated for some of it.

[VA Husker Fan]

Lee's been alright. Very technically good practice warrior to the point where people have look at him and said, high round NFL pick. But not a gamer, and his only year starting, he had to deal with a really hampering throwing elbow injury nearly the entire year.

Which people have said high round NFL pick about Lee?

[NUance]

nuance, my thinking is we had a very different system in the past, and we can't keep living in it. We can't point to that and say, well, this worked before, and it's our best shot to win now. It isn't just the game that is changing over the years, we no longer have the same edge on everyone in mean & nasty, badass strength and conditioning that we did then. And the magic culture of excellence that Devaney and Osborne built over time, left with them. It was about the program they built, and not so much the scheme.

 

Today we want to be Oregon or Michigan. I'm just skeptical of anyone talking about QB depth when a lot of those guys can probably help the team more if they played a different position. And when we do find a 'hit', like Michigan did in Denard Robinson...I don't know. Seems like he created some sick highlights, and then frustrated fans a lot. Not unlike Taylor.

 

As far as true QBs, I don't really mean someone that fits in the pro-style mold, but someone who is a field general and knows how to direct the offense pre-snap. He doesn't have to be the guy with the big arm that makes all the throws perfectly. But he has to be able to recognize blitzes, check to better plays, beat defenses with his head. I think we had guys like that even in the Osborne years (but I wasn't quite around to watch in the 80s). Brook's probably the best example I could think of. Keeping in mind it's a very different system, and one with an insanely outstanding supporting cast. Nowadays, for every Cam Newton or Tyrod Taylor that comes through the program, there are probably going to be a lot of one-trick ponies that will be severe liabilities in the field general regard, and sans the top-notch team around them to make it work.

 

I would rather have QBs that are one-trick ponies the other way: guys that can at least semi-manage a game and key playmakers to success, even if they can't run a lick. My worry here all along is we'll fill the QB depth chart with guys that can be explosive, but on the flip side, would be disasters in comparison at managing a game. But, I haven't really followed the RichRod or Chip Kelly offenses too much. Maybe I'm not giving the system enough credit. Still, these are top notch offensive coaches doing their specialty. I get the feeling Bo is looking at that and saying, "Well, that's the best scheme." And then telling his coaches - whoever they are or whatever they are good at - to run it.

 

I suppose it all comes down to trusting coaches to know what they are doing. If we went out and got RichRod to run this scheme, I would be COMPLETELY enthusiastic. But as it looks like we are going with Beck, I think Bo should just let Beck run what he wants - which I think, would be something that asks a lot more out of his QBs from a passing standpoint.

 

junior, you're right: there's always the TG/BC factor to consider...although I think Gabbert, as a player, would potentially have developed more and maybe even compensated for some of it.

Fair enough. For me, it's hard to say what QB from our past would be best in our current system (or what we think our current system will be). Couldn’t really go bad with either Tommie, Crouch or Frost. Well, unless you wanted to actually have a passing attack, that is. But if I could bring back a multi-dimensional QB and design some schemes around him, I think Berringer would be high on my list. Another guy, a QB who is underrated, would be Gerry Gdowski. The guy had a pretty good arm, and could run. And he was a field general if ever there was one.

[Hercules]

It's hard to argue about the future of Nebraska football with a guy who, given the opportunity to select any QB from the entire history of Nebraska football, would go with Zac Taylor.

 

At this point, all I can do is tilt my head a little and walk away confused.

[zoogs]

It's hard to argue about the future of Nebraska football with a guy who, given the opportunity to select any QB from the entire history of Nebraska football, would go with Zac Taylor.

 

At this point, all I can do is tilt my head a little and walk away confused.

 

You're welcome to point out where I made that claim, if you're talking about me.

[Hercules]

It's hard to argue about the future of Nebraska football with a guy who, given the opportunity to select any QB from the entire history of Nebraska football, would go with Zac Taylor.

 

At this point, all I can do is tilt my head a little and walk away confused.

 

You're welcome to point out where I made that claim, if you're talking about me.

 

I was thinking of this thread really: My link

 

As far as this thread, this argument, where I can't agree with you, and will never be able to agree with you, is on what defines a "true QB." As far as I'm concerned, a "true QB" is the guy taking the snap. That's it. After that, whether he runs the ball or throws the ball or wins or loses, he's still the QB.

 

Whether he's a good QB or not is another issue, but as far as I'm concerned, again, that's not decided by whether he throws the ball or runs the ball, or manages the game or makes plays. That is measured in yards gained, points put on the board, and championships won, not by mechanics or technique.

 

As far as the QBs we're recruiting right now, they are different than the QBs being recruited by USC or Wisconsin or Stanford or whoever, because we are running a different offense. That's it though, that doesn't make our QBs less of a QB, it just makes them different. Tommie Frazier was a true QB, as was Turner Gill. The fact that they played in a unique system doesn't change that.

 

For what we're trying to do with our offense, we need QBs that can make plays with their legs, can be good decision-makers, and can be adequate with throwing the ball. I don't buy into the premise that the QBs we recruit are bigger "projects" in terms of decision-making, because our system is becoming closer to the ones those QBs have run in high school, and when you run the option, you have decisions to make just like you do in the west coast passing game. They're just different decisions.

 

Anyways, you may be a fan of the traditional pocket passer QB, and I think any football fan has great respect for those guys, but it's simply not what we're trying to do on offense. I think Pelini wants to create the type of three-headed monster on offense that Nebraska terrorized teams with in the 80's and 90's, and the best modern model for that right now is Oregon.