The Latest Quarterback Thread

[gbr93]

Let's break this down and see if we can't have a rational conversation.

 

Taylor

--Flawed throwing mechanics - It's a no brainer that the kid is an athlete playing quarterback. Why wasn't he recruited by anyone else as a QB? He doesn't step into his throws which causes him to only use his upper body and that's why he shorts most of the deeper passes. His throwing motion is awful. Anyone who watches him throw can see it. The thing that scares me is that he continues to play this way after starting for an entire year (banged up or not) + the first 5 this year. Like Herbstreit said, he has a 3 second timer in his head when he is in the pocket. Whether the pocket is collapsing or not, after 3 seconds or so, he panics, scrambling outside and just flings up an meatball (See INT # 1).

 

--Poor decision-making in the passing department - It's not like the Badger defenders made spectacular plays to pick Taylor off, they didn't even make great plays. They simply caught the ball when Taylor threw at them. It's not like the receivers ran bad routes or couldn't catch the ball when it came their way. The WRs have stepped up so far this year and are no longer an excuse for Taylor's awful throws. Each of Taylor's 3 INTs last Saturday came from poor decision-making and for him not to learn from the INT #1 OR INT #2 really sends a message to me that the kid just isn't getting it. For those of you saying he's only a sophomore, find a different excuse. He's been in Lincoln for 3 years. He's a glorified junior starting his 2nd season at Nebraska. The biggest strides QBs make in their college careers TYPICALLY come between their 1st and 2nd season as the starter. The final season(s) are when they have the mechanics down and are just fine tuning themselves at that point. Taylor is not even close to this point.

 

--Lacks ball security when running the football/scrambling in the pocket - This is a big one. It takes almost zero skill to hold onto the football. Everyone wants to point out that Taylor is a running quarterback and shouldn't be compared to the many Pro-style QBs around the country. This is true, Taylor isn't a Pro-style QB, he's a runner, and as a running QB, you NEED, not should, NEED to be able to hold onto the football. Again, he hasn't progressed in this category at all since he stepped onto the turf against Western Kentucky over a year ago. This is a MAJOR concern with how many times he carries the ball each game. The fact that he carries the ball as much as Rex is beyond ridiculous, but that's beside the point, and not entirely his fault, but if he claims to be a running QB, you'd figure that ball security shouldn't be a concern, but it definitely is.

 

--One-dimensional runner- I know many posters have touched on this already so I won't go into much detail, but again, he is a straightforward runner and not too much more. He can't juke anyone and he doesn't break many tackles. He obviously can accelerate as well as anyone in the country (minus the SEC), but he just doesn't have enough of the necessary running qualities when you have to get past ALL 3 LAYERS of the defense. If he was at a different position, then maybe his acceleration and 'beat-you-to-the-corner' speed would come in handy, but lining up under center, limited to only those two attributes, doesn't produce (at least against teams with quality defenses). He has yet to put a successful game together on the ground against a quality opponent, weak ankle or not weak ankle (See 2010 Texas).

 

--Zero leadership qualities -- Obviously this one is more of an opinion that a fact, but it needs to be addressed. Everyone has seen the pressers. He is awkward, to put it lightly, in front of the media and never says what he needs to say as the leader of a top-notch football team. The emotional aspect of being a QB is almost as important as the physical aspect. You need to know how to address your players when times are tough and battle through adversity. This is my biggest problem with Taylor. HE HAS NO RESILIENCE AS A PLAYER. When he does something wrong, he has not once, NOT ONCE, came back from it in the same game and proved everyone wrong. When he throws an INT in a game, he never improves after he does so. His best games, that really mattered, in his career overall as a QB are 10 WASH, 10 KSU, and 10 OKST. All three were not only less-than-stellar defenses, but Taylor did not throw an INT in any of those games. His best games unfold when he never screws up in the passing game. When he does, he has yet to show any sort of resilience. When he falls, he falls hard and can't seem to pick himself up: a MAJOR issue when you're the leader of the offense. As the leader of the team, you need to take responsibilities for your teams offensive performance and put the blame on your shoulders, even if it's not completely your fault. It shows that you're unselfish and thinking of your teammates before yourself. He has yet to show that in his pressers, or at least the one's I've seen.

 

The bottom line is that Taylor should not be the future of Nebraska football. He has made little, if any progress in the very reasonable amount of time he's seen over the last few years. I realize that Brion hasn't proven himself in practice to challenge Martinez for the starting role, but with what I've just explained, he needs to become a more prevalent part of the offense every week. He needs to see time nearly every week in order to improve and develop chemistry with his teammates. Whether he has challenged Taylor for the starting role or not, Bo needs to at least implement him into the offense in order to develop him as a player and perhaps light a fire under Taylor's rear end. The fact that he did not see any snaps during the second half last weekend was mind boggling. I think we have to stick with Taylor for now given the extreme shortage of able QBs behind him, but anyone who truly believes that Martinez is the right man for the job is delusional.

+1 to you my friend. Describes how I feel about Martinez completely!

[3rd and long]

Well I guess that is where we agree to disagree, I think that the caliber of talent has changed, or rather improved on every other squad that running only will only get you so far with success. I think its important to note that our QB's which had success for years running the ball had a distinct running style. I am not really sure how to explain it. Crouch, Frost, Fraiser, etc, they were running backs. They had a running style. Taylor has speed, but when the option to the short side of the field is closed, he slows up and braces for a hit. He doesn't really have the ability to juke or power his way for the extra yard or two. I guess it comes down to the opportunity cost of Taylor hitting the big one occasionally to being stopped for a loss or no gain more often.

 

For the record, this was exactly what they said about Nebraska in the early 90s when Osborne was in the midst of his seven-game losing streak in bowl games.

 

40 times have not increased so drastically that players are so much faster now that we cannot be successful running the ball. This is a fallacy.

 

But it's not the 90's anymore, the game has evolved. And if all that mattered to the running game was 40 times, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we probably have the fastest QB in the nation in the 40.

 

The game hasn't evolved at all. Do you talk to any coaches? None of these offenses we're seeing are new.

 

Did you really just say the game hasn't evolved at all...seriously, c'mon man, wether I agree with you or not on something, you usually present a sound, logical argument, but this just leaves me shaking my head. I don't have to talk to coaches, I've watched the game for 40 years and seen that the game has changed.

 

Sorry, you're talking about since the 90's so 40 years of watching is really quite irrelevant.

[WhatDoIKnow]

This topic is being beaten to death, but I will post anyway. I do pin this one more on the coaches then Martinez. Play to your strenghts, work on your weaknesses in practice.

 

Did anyone catch Matt Davidson's comments before the start of the 2nd half? He pointed out the play selection and success of our first 2 drives, and the play selection and lack of success (disaster) of our last 4 series in the 1st half. We were down 9 and it was still a ball game.

 

So of course, we come out throwing after a nice kick return. Doh! I swear we outsmart ourselves most of the time. That is the same issue I had with Watson. The problem is, we are not that smart to begin with.

 

I know this has also been brought up, but Carnes needs a planned series or two to get some work. Teams do this all the time. I have saw OU, UT, and other teams do it in the past. We did it with Cody Green last year. You plan ahead and say QB X gets the second possesion in the 2nd quarter. That way the "starter" knows he is not being benched, and has some time to regroup, talk to coaches, and look at things from the "outside".

 

I am not saying bench Martinez, but if his psyche is too fragile to handle the above "planned" situation, then it is too fragile for him to be our QB of the future.

 

Does the idea of the coaches telling Martinez to avoid contact because we have "no one" behind him contradict him playing in the entire game of a blowout loss?

[rickjames]

bo is gonna get run outta town on the tmart wagon if he sticks with him for three more years...it's obvious that t-mart will never improve...

[GBRsal]

Bo: well it's 14-7, they can't defend the option for shi*t, and we're well on the way to giving them a nice round beating

 

Beck: I think we should scrap the game plan and have Taylor sling it around callahan-style

 

Bo: ok sounds good

[knapplc]

Well I guess that is where we agree to disagree, I think that the caliber of talent has changed, or rather improved on every other squad that running only will only get you so far with success. I think its important to note that our QB's which had success for years running the ball had a distinct running style. I am not really sure how to explain it. Crouch, Frost, Fraiser, etc, they were running backs. They had a running style. Taylor has speed, but when the option to the short side of the field is closed, he slows up and braces for a hit. He doesn't really have the ability to juke or power his way for the extra yard or two. I guess it comes down to the opportunity cost of Taylor hitting the big one occasionally to being stopped for a loss or no gain more often.

 

For the record, this was exactly what they said about Nebraska in the early 90s when Osborne was in the midst of his seven-game losing streak in bowl games.

 

40 times have not increased so drastically that players are so much faster now that we cannot be successful running the ball. This is a fallacy.

 

But it's not the 90's anymore, the game has evolved. And if all that mattered to the running game was 40 times, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we probably have the fastest QB in the nation in the 40.

 

The game hasn't evolved at all. Do you talk to any coaches? None of these offenses we're seeing are new.

 

Did you really just say the game hasn't evolved at all...seriously, c'mon man, wether I agree with you or not on something, you usually present a sound, logical argument, but this just leaves me shaking my head. I don't have to talk to coaches, I've watched the game for 40 years and seen that the game has changed.

 

Sorry, you're talking about since the 90's so 40 years of watching is really quite irrelevant.

Actually, that's a paraphrase from (I believe) Tom Osborne, who knows quite a bit more about this stuff than you or I. I can't find the link, but if you want it I'll keep looking. Basically he was saying that today's "flavor of the month" (paraphrasing) offenses aren't anything new. The Spread in particular was around decades before he went to the Option, and there's nothing magic about it that makes it better for today's game than the Option.

 

 

These are the same offenses, with slightly different tweaks. I suppose we could go on a tangent about micro- and macroevolution, but that's not really productive to this conversation.

 

But I've been watching football about the same amount of time as you. What have you seen that's changed? Where are the glaring differences between "then" and now?

[DaveH]

I'd love to see Carnes play. Apparently he's the answer to all of our problems. Can't wait for him to completely turn our season around.

nice

 

Apparently the "other guy" is always the answer, right?

[VA Husker Fan]

Mills, you made a lot of very good points, and to add to the 2nd one, he still locks onto the first receiver and rarely checks down to another. On that early bomb he throw into double coverage, the TE was wide open underneath. I couldn't or didn't see it from watching TV but others have said that Rex was open enough as a safety valve at least a few times.

 

I would disagree somewhat about the one-dimensional running. At times last year we saw some shake and bake. Haven't really seen it this year yet.

 

What's fixable?

 

- flawed throwing mechanics. Fixable, but since we've seen no change I wonder if he's not really coachable in this area. I get the impression that he's going to stick with the way that's comfortable to him, which means we won't see anything better.

 

- poor decision making. Seems like the field should be getting clearer but since we really haven't seen any improvement here, I'm not counting on much.

 

- ball security. Seems like he's gone backwards on this. I think he'll get better at this since he was better at this last year, especially earlier in the season, IIRC.

 

- One dimensional running. As I said, I don't entirely agree with this. I don't tend to watch games analytically, but everytime I've looked I've seen a spy on Martinez and it seems they are getting better at getting to him before he's open enough to make a move. I don't think he or the coaches have figured out how to counter this. He's still an effective runner and will get better on the option.

 

- Leadership. I see more interactions with the other players during the game, so I think he's getting more comfortable in that role, but probably will never get very close to where we'd like him to be. The resilience issue is a good one. On the other hand, I think he's pretty tough, staying in games last year despite injury, and that counts for something.

 

I'm not seeing a big potential for improvement overall. It's true that he's got more time to go than he does behind him, but those of you in the "gave him more time" crowd, where do you really see true potential for improvement? Give us some reason for hope.

[bshirt]

That all depends on your definition of successful. If you are content to win eight or nine games and go to mid-level bowl then yes. If you want to compete for the MNC I believe you have to be able to throw the ball, and throw it with a measure of compentcy. We did prove for decades that you can win running the ball....decades ago (decade and a half actually). Look back at the last 20 or so national champions and see how many of them could not throw the efficently.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to anwser me honestly. If, and it's a big if, we have a compent defense, do you really think TM can or will develope into a QB who can lead a team to wins in big games over top quality opponents?

Tommie Frazier and his career 50% completion rate say "Hello!"

 

This is NOT 1994 anymore! There were about 12 good teams in the 90s. With the money, scholarship reductions, etc today, the game is way different. Parity is real. We're not the 1994 Huskers! Please stop living in the past. We have great WRs this year, or Martinez would be completing about 25% of his passes. How many great catches have those guys made this year on terrible thrown balls?

 

 

 

This is NOT 2004-2007 anymore! We tried that route of playing the same offense as everybody else and we were slaughtered like pigs. You can pine for those days until the cows come home but I'm damn glad Bo & Beck don't.

[huskerscott]

These are same arguments we have been hearing the 1.5 seasons.

 

You cannot win a conference championship with QB that cannot manage the game and constantly makes elementary football mistakes. We are seeing the same thing over and over. Martinez still throws across his body to try and make a play (ala 2011 Big12 CCG). He has not improved one iota since last year.

 

Im glad I got chastised in the off season for being crictical of Martinez and the QB play. That is all. Carry on.

[knapplc]

These are same arguments we have been hearing the 1.5 seasons.

 

You cannot win a conference championship with QB that cannot manage the game and constantly makes elementary football mistakes. We are seeing the same thing over and over. Martinez still throws across his body to try and make a play (ala 2011 Big12 CCG). He has not improved one iota since last year.

 

Im glad I got chastised in the off season for being crictical of Martinez and the QB play. That is all. Carry on.

 

You didn't get chastised, your premises were questioned and you got bored with arguing. Don't get upset. If you don't like this conversation or you're tired of hearing the same points being made, read another thread. There are tons of threads around here I don't read.

 

Having said that, post more, you. Don't be a stranger.

[GMoose]

That all depends on your definition of successful. If you are content to win eight or nine games and go to mid-level bowl then yes. If you want to compete for the MNC I believe you have to be able to throw the ball, and throw it with a measure of compentcy. We did prove for decades that you can win running the ball....decades ago (decade and a half actually). Look back at the last 20 or so national champions and see how many of them could not throw the efficently.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to anwser me honestly. If, and it's a big if, we have a compent defense, do you really think TM can or will develope into a QB who can lead a team to wins in big games over top quality opponents?

Tommie Frazier and his career 50% completion rate say "Hello!"

 

This is NOT 1994 anymore! There were about 12 good teams in the 90s. With the money, scholarship reductions, etc today, the game is way different. Parity is real. We're not the 1994 Huskers! Please stop living in the past. We have great WRs this year, or Martinez would be completing about 25% of his passes. How many great catches have those guys made this year on terrible thrown balls?

 

 

 

This is NOT 2004-2007 anymore! We tried that route of playing the same offense as everybody else and we were slaughtered like pigs. You can pine for those days until the cows come home but I'm damn glad Bo & Beck don't.

What offense? The BC era WCO? We were slaughtered like pigs?

[huskerscott]

These are same arguments we have been hearing the 1.5 seasons.

 

You cannot win a conference championship with QB that cannot manage the game and constantly makes elementary football mistakes. We are seeing the same thing over and over. Martinez still throws across his body to try and make a play (ala 2011 Big12 CCG). He has not improved one iota since last year.

 

Im glad I got chastised in the off season for being crictical of Martinez and the QB play. That is all. Carry on.

 

You didn't get chastised, your premises were questioned and you got bored with arguing. Don't get upset. If you don't like this conversation or you're tired of hearing the same points being made, read another thread. There are tons of threads around here I don't read.

 

Having said that, post more, you. Don't be a stranger.

 

Im not upset. I actually find it comical. That same points are being argued over and over again, its like we havent seen this before.

 

Sorry I havent been posting more, I've been busy.

[3rd and long]

Well I guess that is where we agree to disagree, I think that the caliber of talent has changed, or rather improved on every other squad that running only will only get you so far with success. I think its important to note that our QB's which had success for years running the ball had a distinct running style. I am not really sure how to explain it. Crouch, Frost, Fraiser, etc, they were running backs. They had a running style. Taylor has speed, but when the option to the short side of the field is closed, he slows up and braces for a hit. He doesn't really have the ability to juke or power his way for the extra yard or two. I guess it comes down to the opportunity cost of Taylor hitting the big one occasionally to being stopped for a loss or no gain more often.

 

For the record, this was exactly what they said about Nebraska in the early 90s when Osborne was in the midst of his seven-game losing streak in bowl games.

 

40 times have not increased so drastically that players are so much faster now that we cannot be successful running the ball. This is a fallacy.

 

But it's not the 90's anymore, the game has evolved. And if all that mattered to the running game was 40 times, we wouldn't be having this discussion because we probably have the fastest QB in the nation in the 40.

 

The game hasn't evolved at all. Do you talk to any coaches? None of these offenses we're seeing are new.

 

Did you really just say the game hasn't evolved at all...seriously, c'mon man, wether I agree with you or not on something, you usually present a sound, logical argument, but this just leaves me shaking my head. I don't have to talk to coaches, I've watched the game for 40 years and seen that the game has changed.

 

Sorry, you're talking about since the 90's so 40 years of watching is really quite irrelevant.

Actually, that's a paraphrase from (I believe) Tom Osborne, who knows quite a bit more about this stuff than you or I. I can't find the link, but if you want it I'll keep looking. Basically he was saying that today's "flavor of the month" (paraphrasing) offenses aren't anything new. The Spread in particular was around decades before he went to the Option, and there's nothing magic about it that makes it better for today's game than the Option.

 

 

These are the same offenses, with slightly different tweaks. I suppose we could go on a tangent about micro- and macroevolution, but that's not really productive to this conversation.

 

But I've been watching football about the same amount of time as you. What have you seen that's changed? Where are the glaring differences between "then" and now?

 

I would really like to see what he said, and if that is the case I wouldn't ever argue with it.

 

But, would you agree the college game follows the trends of the pro game? And if so, the talk there is about the ever changing offenses and how the defenses have to change to keep up. Which says to me that the offenses do change and evolve. If you don't believe the college game reflects pro game , then it's not worth going any further.

[Hercules]

Offenses do evolve, and defenses do too, but it's still just football. Nobody is arguing that Tom Osborne would just run the exact same offense he did in the 90's - even through the 90's that offense evolved. But some form of his multiple I - option offense would without question work, even in this day and age. During the 90's people argued that defenses had too much speed for the option offense, and that Nebraska was too one-dimensional. That argument was wrong then, and it's still wrong now.

 

Also, I'm no expert, but I think right now you're often seeing the college game reflect trends in the high school game and I think you're seeing the NFL reflect more trends in the college game, not the other way around. There's more spread offense in the NFL right now than there ever has been, and there are more mobile QBs in the NFL than there ever has been. If you watch the Patriots offense from the past few years, they're far more creative and interesting and much more like a college offense than your traditional pro-style offense.