The growth of Taylor Martinez

[zoogs]

It's not all about cohesion Hercules, it's just another dimension that can't be ignored. You can't choose a freshman to lead, but then be immune from the resulting mistakes and bumps that are a result of that. A lot of the mishaps last year are explained away by "he's just a freshman". Sure, it's true...but if there were going to be all these liabilities, then the original decision has to be questioned. It is all a part of the evaluation of who the "best" player is. In 2007, the choice clearly ignored the locker room factor, or got that wrong. Didn't pay off too well.

[huskerscott]

I gather that we'll be having a few stories/blogs like this over the next few weeks as the team tries to dispel the stigma that Taylor is not a "team guy" or whatever his rep is.

This article brings further legitamacy to the "not a team guy" rep he had last year though. The fact that everyone is coming out and saying he's working on that, or he's getting better, etc...puts a lot of truth to the fact that it was an issue last year. Crick said as much...

 

"...hes talking to his guys, hes getting after them. Thats something that you wouldnt see before at all, defensive tackle Jared Crick said

 

It's certainly been blown into a bigger deal than it probably was, and I think that a lot of it had to do w/ a select few seniors on that offensive squad (and him being a freshman) - but it's getting old seeing people post every single one of these articles in a new thread crying from a top of a mountain "SEE, TAYLOR IS A LEADER/TEAM PLAYER". Can we have a single "TAYLOR'S LEADERSHIP" thread for this stuff? I annoint this one.

 

 

 

Well, after reading 10,000 posts from you, Hujan, Huskerscott, ect dissing the kid every damn day in every way imaginable for the last seven months or so it's VERY refreshing hearing positive things about him from the coaches. I guess you'll just have to hack it.

 

Yep everyday for 7 months i came on here and dissed Taylor until my fingers bled. The only things I said about Taylor were.... 1. It didnt look like he had last year as a leader, thank you Crick confirming my point... although it was something everybody else saw. 2. He was a great athlete that needed to be on the field just not at QB. 3. If doesnt get or stay healthy he very well could lose his job to Carnes sometime this season.

 

Those statements were taking in context as me dissing Taylor by all the #3 jersey wearers out there.

[Hunter94]

i am patiently awaiting his play this fall....obviously, proof is in the performance.

[papersun87]

Starting him as a redshirt freshman was a gamble but I can understand why they did it. If it pays off you have a four-year starter at QB, which almost never happens.

[Hercules]

It's not all about cohesion Hercules, it's just another dimension that can't be ignored. You can't choose a freshman to lead, but then be immune from the resulting mistakes and bumps that are a result of that. A lot of the mishaps last year are explained away by "he's just a freshman". Sure, it's true...but if there were going to be all these liabilities, then the original decision has to be questioned. It is all a part of the evaluation of who the "best" player is. In 2007, the choice clearly ignored the locker room factor, or got that wrong. Didn't pay off too well.

 

2007 had nothing to do with the "locker room factor." The coaches started the guy with less ability. It wasn't that Ganz was more popular than Keller - he was better than Keller. He had better timing with the receivers and better understanding of the offense. If Keller was actually the better QB, and his teammates underperformed because they didn't like him - then again, I put that on those teammates. It doesn't matter who's under center - you have to execute. Block your man, or run your route, and catch the ball when it's thrown to you. End of story.

 

The "freshman mistakes" you refer to are separate from "inability to lead." The "freshman mistakes" that Martinez made last year were mistakes in execution - taking a sack when it wasn't necessary, making a bad decision that leads to an interception, missing a read etc. Those are the mistakes people refer to when they say "freshman mistakes." Pelini knew those were going to happen, just like he knew the consequences of starting any of our other QBs with their respective weaknesses.

 

Pelini started Martinez because he thought he was the best player. If you don't think Martinez was the best player, then that's another discussion (that has been had a thousand times over). I think it's fair to question the original decision, even if I think Pelini made the right decision. But I don't think the "locker room factor" should be part of the decision. It's not a popularity contest. You're the head coach - you can't let the players dictate to you who starts and who doesn't.

[knapplc]

2007 had nothing to do with the "locker room factor." The coaches started the guy with less ability. It wasn't that Ganz was more popular than Keller - he was better than Keller. He had better timing with the receivers and better understanding of the offense. If Keller was actually the better QB, and his teammates underperformed because they didn't like him - then again, I put that on those teammates. It doesn't matter who's under center - you have to execute. Block your man, or run your route, and catch the ball when it's thrown to you. End of story.

 

This horse is long dead, but Ganz was not better than Keller for the offense we intended to run in 2007. Keller was better at throwing the timed passes, and it showed glaringly in the Spring Game. Ganz was by far a better runner, and when Keller went down we used Ganz the way he should have been used, which overall was more effective.

 

There was locker-room dissension, but there I agree with you - if you don't like the guy suiting up next to you, tough. Go out and play. That didn't happen for Keller, and it didn't happen for Martinez last year with all the guys. I have zero sympathy for guys like that, though.

[Hercules]

2007 had nothing to do with the "locker room factor." The coaches started the guy with less ability. It wasn't that Ganz was more popular than Keller - he was better than Keller. He had better timing with the receivers and better understanding of the offense. If Keller was actually the better QB, and his teammates underperformed because they didn't like him - then again, I put that on those teammates. It doesn't matter who's under center - you have to execute. Block your man, or run your route, and catch the ball when it's thrown to you. End of story.

 

This horse is long dead, but Ganz was not better than Keller for the offense we intended to run in 2007. Keller was better at throwing the timed passes, and it showed glaringly in the Spring Game. Ganz was by far a better runner, and when Keller went down we used Ganz the way he should have been used, which overall was more effective.

 

There was locker-room dissension, but there I agree with you - if you don't like the guy suiting up next to you, tough. Go out and play. That didn't happen for Keller, and it didn't happen for Martinez last year with all the guys. I have zero sympathy for guys like that, though.

 

Fair enough... I've blocked out most of the 2007 season. I don't remember the spring game at all, I just remember that Ganz seemed overall more productive than Keller when he got his chance. He threw a lot of interceptions, and his play didn't exactly lead us to any more wins, but we weren't getting shut down to the same extent as early on in the season, if I remember correctly. Maybe it had more to do with the level of defenses we were facing.

[knapplc]

2007 had nothing to do with the "locker room factor." The coaches started the guy with less ability. It wasn't that Ganz was more popular than Keller - he was better than Keller. He had better timing with the receivers and better understanding of the offense. If Keller was actually the better QB, and his teammates underperformed because they didn't like him - then again, I put that on those teammates. It doesn't matter who's under center - you have to execute. Block your man, or run your route, and catch the ball when it's thrown to you. End of story.

 

This horse is long dead, but Ganz was not better than Keller for the offense we intended to run in 2007. Keller was better at throwing the timed passes, and it showed glaringly in the Spring Game. Ganz was by far a better runner, and when Keller went down we used Ganz the way he should have been used, which overall was more effective.

 

There was locker-room dissension, but there I agree with you - if you don't like the guy suiting up next to you, tough. Go out and play. That didn't happen for Keller, and it didn't happen for Martinez last year with all the guys. I have zero sympathy for guys like that, though.

 

Fair enough... I've blocked out most of the 2007 season. I don't remember the spring game at all, I just remember that Ganz seemed overall more productive than Keller when he got his chance. He threw a lot of interceptions, and his play didn't exactly lead us to any more wins, but we weren't getting shut down to the same extent as early on in the season, if I remember correctly. Maybe it had more to do with the level of defenses we were facing.

 

What is most likely to be true is that Keller should never have come, we should have tailored the offense to Ganz's skills, and most everyone would have been at least on the same page, if not happy. Sadly, none of that would have fixed the disaster that was the Cosgrove defense, which, as it turns out, was probably a blessing, however painful it may have been.

 

For all the grief people give Keller, he may have, indirectly at least, been the catalyst that eventually ousted Callahan.

[IvabigN]

2007 had nothing to do with the "locker room factor." The coaches started the guy with less ability. It wasn't that Ganz was more popular than Keller - he was better than Keller. He had better timing with the receivers and better understanding of the offense. If Keller was actually the better QB, and his teammates underperformed because they didn't like him - then again, I put that on those teammates. It doesn't matter who's under center - you have to execute. Block your man, or run your route, and catch the ball when it's thrown to you. End of story.

 

This horse is long dead, but Ganz was not better than Keller for the offense we intended to run in 2007. Keller was better at throwing the timed passes, and it showed glaringly in the Spring Game. Ganz was by far a better runner, and when Keller went down we used Ganz the way he should have been used, which overall was more effective.

 

There was locker-room dissension, but there I agree with you - if you don't like the guy suiting up next to you, tough. Go out and play. That didn't happen for Keller, and it didn't happen for Martinez last year with all the guys. I have zero sympathy for guys like that, though.

 

Fair enough... I've blocked out most of the 2007 season. I don't remember the spring game at all, I just remember that Ganz seemed overall more productive than Keller when he got his chance. He threw a lot of interceptions, and his play didn't exactly lead us to any more wins, but we weren't getting shut down to the same extent as early on in the season, if I remember correctly. Maybe it had more to do with the level of defenses we were facing.

 

What is most likely to be true is that Keller should never have come, we should have tailored the offense to Ganz's skills, and most everyone would have been at least on the same page, if not happy. Sadly, none of that would have fixed the disaster that was the Cosgrove defense, which, as it turns out, was probably a blessing, however painful it may have been.

 

For all the grief people give Keller, he may have, indirectly at least, been the catalyst that eventually ousted Callahan.

then we need a Keller throphy to honor this great feat- long live Keller

[irafreak]

Here here!

[kchusker_chris]

But I don't think the "locker room factor" should be part of the decision. It's not a popularity contest.

You don't buy into team chemistry having an impact on team performance then I'd assume?

[Hercules]

But I don't think the "locker room factor" should be part of the decision. It's not a popularity contest.

You don't buy into team chemistry having an impact on team performance then I'd assume?

 

I do, but you can't factor that into a position battle decision. If you're the head coach, how do you sit one of your most explosive players, and the guy you think is the best at his position, because of "team chemistry?" Seriously, would you have started Brook Berringer over Tommie Frazier? The players generally liked Berringer more.

 

Would you have started Lee over Martinez? And if so, would you have started Lee because you thought he was the better player, or because some of the guys on the team liked him more?

 

I believe that you start the best guy at every position. Then it's your job as a coach, and it's the responsibility of the players - especially the "leaders" - to build team chemistry no matter who's on the field. "The other players like him more" isn't a valid reason to start a guy.

[RedDenver]

I believe that you start the best guy at every position. Then it's your job as a coach, and it's the responsibility of the players - especially the "leaders" - to build team chemistry no matter who's on the field. "The other players like him more" isn't a valid reason to start a guy.

I agree with the bolded part.

 

But I disagree with the rest. Chemistry is all about who's on the field and how the players interact with each other. A team can have great chemistry even if they don't like each other. And how do you quantify who the "best" player at each position is? I'd say it's whoever gets the team more wins, regardless of how explosive or athletic a guy is. And chemistry definitely has to do with winning games.

[Hercules]

I believe that you start the best guy at every position. Then it's your job as a coach, and it's the responsibility of the players - especially the "leaders" - to build team chemistry no matter who's on the field. "The other players like him more" isn't a valid reason to start a guy.

I agree with the bolded part.

 

But I disagree with the rest. Chemistry is all about who's on the field and how the players interact with each other. A team can have great chemistry even if they don't like each other. And how do you quantify who the "best" player at each position is? I'd say it's whoever gets the team more wins, regardless of how explosive or athletic a guy is. And chemistry definitely has to do with winning games.

 

There are plenty of ways to quantify who the "best" player at every position is. Coaches are constantly assessing their players during drills, scrimmages, meetings, in the film room, and eventually on gamedays.

 

The real question is, how do you quantify "chemistry?" Especially with known and unknown quantities like Lee and Martinez were. If Martinez getting the start is what disrupted team chemistry, then how do you know it'll disrupt team chemistry before the decision to start him? And once you decide to start him, do you go back to Lee when you see that some of the guys don't like him as much? What about the chemistry problems that creates - you're then benching a guy not because of his play on the field, but because of whether other guys on the team like him or not. How do you run a Division 1A program like that?

 

Why don't we look at it this way - everybody has said that Martinez has really grown into his role this summer, and become a leader on the football team. He, at this point, appears to be a central key to the team's success this season. But say that we get to the end of fall camp and Brion Carnes emerges as the better QB. To bench Martinez at that point would disrupt team chemistry, but Carnes has shown that he's the better player on the field. What do you do?

[RedDenver]

I believe that you start the best guy at every position. Then it's your job as a coach, and it's the responsibility of the players - especially the "leaders" - to build team chemistry no matter who's on the field. "The other players like him more" isn't a valid reason to start a guy.

I agree with the bolded part.

 

But I disagree with the rest. Chemistry is all about who's on the field and how the players interact with each other. A team can have great chemistry even if they don't like each other. And how do you quantify who the "best" player at each position is? I'd say it's whoever gets the team more wins, regardless of how explosive or athletic a guy is. And chemistry definitely has to do with winning games.

 

There are plenty of ways to quantify who the "best" player at every position is. Coaches are constantly assessing their players during drills, scrimmages, meetings, in the film room, and eventually on gamedays.

 

The real question is, how do you quantify "chemistry?" Especially with known and unknown quantities like Lee and Martinez were. If Martinez getting the start is what disrupted team chemistry, then how do you know it'll disrupt team chemistry before the decision to start him? And once you decide to start him, do you go back to Lee when you see that some of the guys don't like him as much? What about the chemistry problems that creates - you're then benching a guy not because of his play on the field, but because of whether other guys on the team like him or not. How do you run a Division 1A program like that?

 

Why don't we look at it this way - everybody has said that Martinez has really grown into his role this summer, and become a leader on the football team. He, at this point, appears to be a central key to the team's success this season. But say that we get to the end of fall camp and Brion Carnes emerges as the better QB. To bench Martinez at that point would disrupt team chemistry, but Carnes has shown that he's the better player on the field. What do you do?

No question we're talking about things that are subjective and difficult to measure or assess. I'm not arguing about who should or should not be the starter. My point is more that deciding who should be the starter should be a complex decision involving other factors within the team not simply boiled down easily to who is "best" at each position.