Quarterback competition?

[zoogs]

All that means is RK3 is more a passer than a runner (and I think he also has a gimpy knee or leg or something to that effect?), and therefore not a fit for our mobile QB centric offense, if that's indeed where we are still at.

[druski_2k5]

Kudos for Kellogg if he is closing in on the #2 spot. I would think Carnes would be a bonafide #2 because he has better running ability than Kellogg. At least from what I've heard/read. However, if he can pass that much better than Carnes, then it might be a case we adjust the offense a little to more quarterback passing, as opposed to quarterback running/reads/options.

 

I thought I read somewhere Kellogg tore his ACL a few times and that has really hindered his ability to run, or has he always been more of a pocket passer?

[Minnesota_husker]

I heard Ron is great when he can stand there in throw.. as soon as a defender comes towards him.. he craps himself and makes bad choices.

[Enhance]

 

we don't develop legtimate depth!.......we are horrible at doing this, period!

Really? Because the participation charts and the actual game tape says otherwise. Other than LB and QB, we play a good amount of guys. Do you have any evidence that disputes this?

 

well, let's see........ Rex is the only proven RB, and TM is the only proven QB........and they both play hurt and beat up, because even in that condition, they are better than their backups.......so much for player develoment at key positions.

In 2011, Martinez had no injury that would have sidelined any other quarterback in college football. Burkhead, similarly, did not have an injury that would have sidelined him for an extended period of time. Would he have played less if we had a better back-up? Sure. But, he still would have played.

 

Your argument is surface level only. You cascade a lack-of-depth cloud over the entire program, but then only look at the skill positions players like Martinez and Burkhead. Above, I specifically stated this is exactly what people do - they look at the easy to spot positions and stomp around saying we don't have any depth. The participation charts clearly show we had tons of guys see snaps at a variety of positions. Starting quarterbacks and running backs get the overwhelming majority of the snaps, especially when we have two good players like Martinez and Burkhead. You think they play too much? I watched a lot of college football last year - what we did, I saw little different across the college football landscape. I agree that Burkhead should have seen less snaps, but we had three freshman running backs who were better than the two backs we had who were part of Pelini's very first recruiting class. You can't expect them to contribute a lot. Outside of the running back position, your argument doesn't apply.

 

When Pelini got here, his focus was defense, which was exactly what we needed. He had also never been in charge of a football team until he got to Nebraska. He's growing and developing, and he deserves the chance to do so.

[Moiraine]

You think they play too much? I watched a lot of college football last year - what we did, I saw little different across the college football landscape

I think the problem is that people remember the Osborne era too well. I remember back up quarterbacks going into the game in the 2nd quarter. I remember 3rd and 4th string RBs (Benning, Childs, Sims) playing in the third quarter. We aren't blowing people out by that much anymore but the memory is there so people think we should see more backups playing.

[zoogs]

Starting quarterbacks and running backs get the overwhelming majority of the snaps, especially when we have two good players like Martinez and Burkhead. You think they play too much? I watched a lot of college football last year - what we did, I saw little different across the college football landscape.

 

He has a point here, though. There were games where we literally rode Rex into the ground, even when it was all but a foregone conclusion. There were plenty of opportunities to work a quality series in for Brion, but this was almost never done. His most significant playing time of the year was running about seven straight option plays.

 

Rex is a warrior, credit to him, but there were some times where we took unnecessary risks with the health of key starters at RB and QB, with the game decided. There's room for disagreement here but it isn't an empty criticism.

 

Some examples? Taylor and Rex in the final 7:30 of the Michigan game, with the score 45-17. The final couple of drives in the final quarter plus of the Wisconsin game, when we had already been blown out of the water. Heavy dose of Taylor and Rex, and it's 48-17. Even that last drive in the Bowl Game, 30-13 with three minutes to go, we send Taylor out there to take three consecutive sacks, milking the clock each time, and then punt it away for some kneel-downs. That was a golden opportunity for Brion to go in and run a series of quick plays to get him some more live fire experience. Instead, we packed it in and risked our starting QB while doing it.

[knapplc]

The only caveat I'll give to those examples, zoogies, is that it was the first year of a new offense. That's the only reason I can think that they kept the starters in all game, every game.

 

There were a few games where I was shouting to Bo to put Carnes in. I'm thinking the Minny game was one of them. There were others. Bo never seemed to listen to me, though.

[rawhide]

There was not one example in my lifetime where The Bobfather, Dr. Tom, Frankie or Bo have ever listened to me while I shouted at the TV screen; not once EVAH we don't mention the other exception.

 

I'm hoping this year is where backups see significant time in the games. Hoping.

 

 

GBR

[Hunter94]

Starting quarterbacks and running backs get the overwhelming majority of the snaps, especially when we have two good players like Martinez and Burkhead. You think they play too much? I watched a lot of college football last year - what we did, I saw little different across the college football landscape.

 

He has a point here, though. There were games where we literally rode Rex into the ground, even when it was all but a foregone conclusion. There were plenty of opportunities to work a quality series in for Brion, but this was almost never done. His most significant playing time of the year was running about seven straight option plays.

 

Rex is a warrior, credit to him, but there were some times where we took unnecessary risks with the health of key starters at RB and QB, with the game decided. There's room for disagreement here but it isn't an empty criticism.

 

Some examples? Taylor and Rex in the final 7:30 of the Michigan game, with the score 45-17. The final couple of drives in the final quarter plus of the Wisconsin game, when we had already been blown out of the water. Heavy dose of Taylor and Rex, and it's 48-17. Even that last drive in the Bowl Game, 30-13 with three minutes to go, we send Taylor out there to take three consecutive sacks, milking the clock each time, and then punt it away for some kneel-downs. That was a golden opportunity for Brion to go in and run a series of quick plays to get him some more live fire experience. Instead, we packed it in and risked our starting QB while doing it.

 

 

and that is my real point, when the game is out of reach, some coaches will put in their back ups, just to get the experience......instead of bringing in Carnes for the final series in a close game during the 2012 season, with the game on the line and TM hurt......damn tough spot for a guy with little or no game experience .

same deal with Rex, beat up, but leave him in when 30 points down and 5 minutes left........new offense?......obviously not much to learn when you are getting your ass handed to you.........whatever

[zoogs]

The only caveat I'll give to those examples, zoogies, is that it was the first year of a new offense. That's the only reason I can think that they kept the starters in all game, every game.

 

There were a few games where I was shouting to Bo to put Carnes in. I'm thinking the Minny game was one of them. There were others. Bo never seemed to listen to me, though.

 

That is a good caveat, but I don't think it applies here. Maybe it would if we were working on things but by the playcalls we saw and by the coach's own admission, we were just trying to get out of games -- milking the clock, grinding it out, that sort of thing. Taken individually it might not be a big deal, but it seemed like the pattern over the course of the year.

 

Minnesota, Brion got in pretty early that game, I think. The only problem was we had all that time to work him into the flow of the running an offense, but he had one pass called for him. It was a ton of handoffs and milking the clock. Seems like fairly poor mileage out of one of the rare chances he got to be in the game for extended series.

 

The SC game was probably the one where I was most tearing my hair out. There are so many other ways to run the clock out and punt than having Taylor take sacks. I mean, if you're not going to get Brion a series to try and put some feel-good points, then turn around and hand it to a backup RB three times.

 

[Saunders]

The only caveat I'll give to those examples, zoogies, is that it was the first year of a new offense. That's the only reason I can think that they kept the starters in all game, every game.

 

There were a few games where I was shouting to Bo to put Carnes in. I'm thinking the Minny game was one of them. There were others. Bo never seemed to listen to me, though.

Martinez was done with before the third quarter was over. The defense allowed Minnesota to have the ball for 13 of the final 16 minutes.

[bball_backer]

OP, what is your source?

 

I hate all random speculation

Roommate that is not on the team but attends every practice. That's as specific as he wants me to be.

[Enhance]

I concede that the quarterback and running back position had some iffy times this last year, but I will not concede to blanketing the entire team with a "we didn't give out quality snaps" cloud. We rotated tons of bodies at tons of positions trying to find the best combo of guys.

 

I thought there were several opportunities for us to get Carnes or one of the younger backs into the game, but the coaches saw fit not to do it. Why? I don't know, but I'm sure they had their reasons, whether we agree with them or not.

 

Here's my guess - one thing that has become abundantly clear the last few years is that when we have a lead, especially against a quality opponent, we take our foot off the gas. We never really go for the jugular, on any opponent, unless they're far inferior to us and we simply can't stop scoring (hasn't really happened yet). The same principle applies in our losses. When we're down by a couple of scores, we don't really keep fighting. So they sit on the reliable Martinez and Burkhead to just get us out of the game, a concept I'm vehemently against. If you're trying to run out the game, and you are in a comfortable position score wise (either losing big or winning big), you throw your back-ups in.

 

I just want to reiterate, however, that this problem has only really plagued the QB and RB position, and for good reason. We have, quite literally, nobody with experience behind those guys. Coaches didn't wanna risk mistakes. But, the best way to get experience is to play. I don't agree with their lackadaisical approach to the younger inexperienced guys, but it is what it is. I would love to see them put Carnes in during the second quarter for a series in one of our non-con games.

[Foppa]

Unless Martinez gets hurt no one is going to get snaps. Discussion over

 

that's for damn sure.

 

Umm...no...like it's been posted...there isn't a backup QB...there's a backup RB that plays Wildcat...only if both Martinez and Burkhead go out does Pelini start giving Ameer Abdullah snaps while Carnes and Kellogg send in plays.

[zoogs]

Haha!

 

There is a backup quarterback, and it is the best situation we have had here in a while (2010 should have been better, I guess, but there seem to be doubts about Lee's health). I'd say it's better than a great number of teams in the NCAA have got. Brion walked onto campus as the 2nd best passer on the team, in the days when we still had the technically proficient Lee, and the negativity about him has been rare. He has skills and athleticism and he's shone at times, struggled at others. What more can you ask for from a redshirt sophomore with almost no true experience under his belt?

 

Unless everyone is taking the stuff in the OP of this post at face value, which is ludicrous considering how much skepticism the similarly grapevine, but positive buzz about Brion especially in scrimmages last offseason has been met with. And if Brion doesn't end up putting it all together, walking onto campus now is Tommy Armstrong, who by all accounts is Brion 2.0, possibly with more upside as a passer.

 

For what it's worth I agree with Big Ern. This is Taylor's team and unless he falls apart and loses the job he isn't going to be challenged.

 

I don't know how good this roommate friend is at talent evaluation although I read someone who does attend practices regularly say that Carnes isn't getting a serious look. Maybe that is what your roommate is seeing, but his comment had more to do with Taylor's stranglehold on QB1 than it does with Brion. We're at the time of year that every other spot on the team should be up for grabs. Or maybe both of them are off base.