Could this be Bo's TO moment?

[Saunders]

I didn't realize Martinez was the reason we allowed 63 points and 8+ yards per play.

 

he didn't allow 63 points but then again neither did the defense.

 

EDIT: Ah, I see you changed that.. good idea.

 

but even to your point about 6 straight TD drive.. yes, he was part of that problem. Since he threw int's and or fumbles that caused the D to be under the gun more than it should have been.

Here, let me point something out for you since you're trying to ignore it.

 

8+ yards per play.

 

Keep your stupid witch hunt going though.

[junior4949]

I seem to remember Taylor running around in the pocket trying to make a play countless times against Ohio State. I also seem to remember Taylor taking a shot and while the team was backed up close to our end zone and completing a deep ball to either Bell or Turner.

 

Yes, he turned the ball over, a lot. But come on; there are issues far more pressing than Taylor.

 

Well stated! Offensive line and defense needs worked on. We need consistency. This comes down to coaching and executing. Am I saying fire coaches? No, because that is not what we need. Everyone wanted to fire Beck after last year, but look what he has done. Coach K deserves that same chance in my opinion.

 

I think jumping on the entire OL is a bit unfair. There were two OL that really stood out as the problem for me. They were the left tackle and ARod. The left tackle barely even touched the DE allowing him to go in and totally blow up Martinez. ARod shouldn't even be in the rotation. I saw him stand there and literally watch his guy go through the line unscathed and blow up the play. I was hoping on defense we'd stack 8 in the box and force Ohio State to pass. I think out CB's are good enough to put on an island if we're pressuring the heck out of the QB. I was disappointed we never stacked the box aggressively pursuing the QB.

[huskerXman]

I didn't realize Martinez was the reason we allowed 63 points and 8+ yards per play.

 

he didn't allow 63 points but then again neither did the defense.

 

EDIT: Ah, I see you changed that.. good idea.

 

but even to your point about 6 straight TD drive.. yes, he was part of that problem. Since he threw int's and or fumbles that caused the D to be under the gun more than it should have been.

Here, let me point something out for you since you're trying to ignore it.

 

8+ yards per play.

 

Keep your stupid witch hunt going though.

 

 

lol, I can do that too..

 

T-Mart is one of those "other" issues though..

 

but keep your stupid head in the sand.

 

Now, see how silly that is? How about acting like an adult.

[Count 'Bility]

OP, Osborne made most of his drastic changes following the 1990 and '91 seasons. The end of '90 resulted in 45-10 and 45-24 losses to Oklahoma and Georgia Tech respectively. OU was mediocre, GT was National Champion. Osborne and Stark got together and came up with the unity council. Osborne wanted something done the give the team a psychological edge. Watch some tapes of '91 games and notice the little red oval "unity" sticker on everyone's helmet.

 

After a 22-0 thrashing to Miami to end '91 (let's not kid, UM coulda laid half a hundred on us if they wanted to), it was obvious we needed more speed. So for immediate impact we moved safeties to OLB, and OLB's to DE. Ed Stewart was safety moved to LB. Trev Ablerts was a LB moved to DE for the new 4-3, which was mostly unveiled in the halloween massacre of Colorado. Watch that. Of course the Frazier change was a big part, but most the changes made were made in the offseason. I wouldnt expect major changes of program operation to take place during the season. That could do more harm than good. We read a lot about some minor tweeks as far as leadership and accountability goes during this past offseason, but it doesnt appear to be panning out on the field yet. That may take time. Whether we're willing to give it time is a question.

[tmfr15]

The defense hasn't been tackling well, but I think there is a point to be made about the QB position.

 

Sometimes the best gift a coach can give a quarterback is a competitive back up. When we had a QB defection a couple of years ago, I was upset, not because I thought that Patrick Witt was the next Tom Brady or something, but because it took competition out of the QB room.

 

Let's talk about Tommie Frazier.... and Brook. And yes, I understand that may have been 1a and 1b, but also remember this, Brook didn't play at all, or next to nothing, as in mop up duty, when we went after that second title in a row. So Tommie was beating Brook out in practice and considering what we had in Brook, that was prob not an easy task.

 

Even more to the point, however, remember Frankie London? He saw some snaps while Scott Frost was at Nebraska. Frost took off, won a title, and we forgot about Frankie. But I am sure that Frost saw him as a legit threat, because he was benched for Frankie. And so it likely made Frost better.

 

I am not in favor of a QB change now. It would be counter productive, but I would say this. If I am the coaches, I am putting more on Tommy Armstrong's plate right now. And I am challenging him at every turn. And I am trying to figure out what I have in that guy. There is no reason to wait a couple of years for that process.

 

After these three games, if Nebraska is trending toward an 8-4 or 7-5 season and thus away from a conference title game, Armstrong gets playing time. He doesn't necessarily start, but he gets playing time.

 

I want Taylor to know that, going into the offseason prior to his senior campaign, that there is going to be competition at the QB spot. Taylor has to know that he MUST make better reads and he MUST make better decisions with the football.

 

Taylor did not lose the game for Nebraska at Columbus, but he didn't help with those picks. Those are KILLERS. And the QB must be held to account.

 

A little nudge from the perception, real or not, that Armstrong has a shot to become the starter pre-2014, could be the thing that gets Martinez to go forward.

 

Plus, it makes sense at the QB spot because burning Armstrong's red shirt gives us a reason to recruit another one in the next cycle. More talented QBs, more competition in the room. It's a net gain.

[zoogs]

+1 tmfr. Every single offseason, this should be the case. I am not sure about burning the redshirt though, unless Tommy is going to get serious, multiple starts playing time. Which I only see happening if the trains really fall off on Taylor, which would mean a few more losses. So I hope it doesn't come to that.

[huskerXman]

The defense hasn't been tackling well, but I think there is a point to be made about the QB position.

 

Sometimes the best gift a coach can give a quarterback is a competitive back up. When we had a QB defection a couple of years ago, I was upset, not because I thought that Patrick Witt was the next Tom Brady or something, but because it took competition out of the QB room.

 

Let's talk about Tommie Frazier.... and Brook. And yes, I understand that may have been 1a and 1b, but also remember this, Brook didn't play at all, or next to nothing, as in mop up duty, when we went after that second title in a row. So Tommie was beating Brook out in practice and considering what we had in Brook, that was prob not an easy task.

 

Even more to the point, however, remember Frankie London? He saw some snaps while Scott Frost was at Nebraska. Frost took off, won a title, and we forgot about Frankie. But I am sure that Frost saw him as a legit threat, because he was benched for Frankie. And so it likely made Frost better.

 

I am not in favor of a QB change now. It would be counter productive, but I would say this. If I am the coaches, I am putting more on Tommy Armstrong's plate right now. And I am challenging him at every turn. And I am trying to figure out what I have in that guy. There is no reason to wait a couple of years for that process.

 

After these three games, if Nebraska is trending toward an 8-4 or 7-5 season and thus away from a conference title game, Armstrong gets playing time. He doesn't necessarily start, but he gets playing time.

 

I want Taylor to know that, going into the offseason prior to his senior campaign, that there is going to be competition at the QB spot. Taylor has to know that he MUST make better reads and he MUST make better decisions with the football.

 

Taylor did not lose the game for Nebraska at Columbus, but he didn't help with those picks. Those are KILLERS. And the QB must be held to account.

 

A little nudge from the perception, real or not, that Armstrong has a shot to become the starter pre-2014, could be the thing that gets Martinez to go forward.

 

Plus, it makes sense at the QB spot because burning Armstrong's red shirt gives us a reason to recruit another one in the next cycle. More talented QBs, more competition in the room. It's a net gain.

 

 

well, well, well... What a good post. I don't know for sure how good Armstrong is, but he should be in the mix. Like I said unhitch that wagon Bo, Tommie was brought here for a reason. Maybe Tommie isn't grasping things yet, could be, but he still needs to be in the mix pushing the other QB's to get better... and if they don't get better make the move.

[Hercules]

You can't blame the offense or Taylor for this loss. You can blame them for Ohio State getting 63 points, as opposed to, say, 49. But here's the thing: the offense had a bad game, against Ohio State, in Columbus. When that happens, and you still score 38 points, you have a very good offense. A bad game against Ohio State on the road should result in somewhere between 0-14 points. We had a bad night, and put up 38.

 

Remember three years ago, when the offense would go scoreless in the second half and we'd lose by a field goal? Or when the defense would hold the team to 9 points and we'd still lose? That's when the offense was the problem. When we score 38 points and lose by 25 - I'm sorry, but stop talking about the QB.

 

Why is it that we hear so many people wanting to bench Taylor after a game like that compared to Joe Ganz in 2007. He put up 36 and 51 points against Kansas and Colorado, lost by multiple touchdowns and threw 4 and 3 interceptions in those games respectively. I don't recall everyone calling for him to be benched after those performances.

[Huskerfan1985]

I'm losing my mind over the Martinez haters. For some reason, people feel compelled to blame this kid.

 

He threw 3 int's and lost a fumble. Why do these turnovers happen? More often than not it is a result of pressure from the defense. How well did the o line, especially the tackles, play in pass blocking?

 

He probably should have been pulled to save injury more than anything. Martinez is what makes this offense go. Burkhead is everyone's favorite, but honestly, this offense is fine without him.

 

Besides, go back and look at the actual turnovers. Pick 6, ok, on Taylor 100%. the next one looked kind of iffy. Looked like he thought bell was working inside when he went outside. The third pick was abolutely meaningless and it was just under thrown. He was forcing it, but it was as good as a punt. The fumble, again trying to make something happen. Any other qb fumbles in the same situation.

[Polarhusker]

While Martinez may or may not be the QB to lead us to the next level, he is considerably better than Mike Grant was. Anyone suggesting otherwise just doesn't remember how poor Mike Grant was as a QB. In fact, I think several people forget how poor some of those QB's in the late 80's to early 90's really were. I've heard how Bo can't stop running QB's, but again I think most have forgotten how the likes of Jamal Holloway, Charles Thompson, and Darian Hagan torched us back in the day. Darian Hagan led his team to three victories in a row against us. Even in 1997, we had a lot of problems stopping running QB's as Corby Jones nearly upset any chance we had at a NC that year. We had to score 45 points and have a miracle catch to just hang on in that game. Martinez had a poor day, but last time I checked he doesn't play defense. Didn't the defense give up over 500 yards Saturday?

 

 

Who cares if he is better than Mike Grant? Isn't the goal to get to the next level? Thought so.. Again, that was before TO made the change.

 

From the 1997 MU game..

 

Missouri-C Jones 21-60

looks like he was kept in check don't ya think?

 

 

I was at the Missouri game... and while he had "only" 60 years, he extended 3-4 key drives with his legs and gave the defense fits. We almost lost... and if we had, it would have been Corby who, among others, stood out as the guy who almost put us down.

 

Everyone struggles against a mobile QB if that guy can as well pass.

 

Really? everyone? How did MSU do against OSU?

 

EDIT: I am not saying, nor have I said, that Taylor was the main problem, he is "part" of the problem.

 

they lost.

[HuskerNationNick]

Burkhead is everyone's favorite, but honestly, this offense is fine without him.

 

Completely disagree with you here.

[zoogs]

Ganz was the bench in 2007.

 

We do have a ton of talent on offense. I think it's fair, given Taylor's pattern of mistakes in games big and small - we continue to be extremely mistake-heavy - to really question if Taylor is going to enable us to make it to the next level. Yeah, I think our tackles too, in particular, ought to be skating on thin ice.

 

Again, give Taylor rope to prove himself. But unless he does so in spectacular fashion, there should be an open competition in the offseason. If he's the best, he'll win it. If he continues to be mired in his mistake-prone, boom-and-bust tendencies, then we might have to think about some radical changes this season.

 

None of this has anything to do with the defense or other positions which all need to improve. But I don't think anything should be off the table.

[Danny Bateman]

Minnesota and robsker, you're thinking about this too black and white. I think you're both missing the bigger picture here.

 

Yes, we know, our defense blows against mobile QB's/in big games/ etc. etc. it's plain as day and everyone can see it. You're not going to win many big games when you give up 63 pts/set yardage allowed records/ etc.

 

But the best QBs can cover up team deficiencies and still find a way to win you games. Now I'm not saying Taylor is going to make up for or outplay a bad D that can't tackle or bad offensive play calling, but he has yet to win a big game. When the pressure is on and Taylor knows he's going to be in for a dogfight due to a full strength ( ie with Braxton-- not 2011 OSU with Bauserman) opposing offense mowing through our defense, he chokes. Panics, and starts forcing things, and then starts turning the ball over.

 

The point is, as bad as our defense is, if they don't believe they have a QB who can lead them to a comeback victory (after watching them fumble or throw multiple picks), they become that much more deflated and any hope of finding a spark and getting a stop or two is lost.

 

There's no question the atrocious D being played is killing this team. But an alternate question would be: Is Taylor a QB who can win the big one and get us over that hill, or are the intangibles just lacking and has he maxed out his potential? I believe that is the situation we may be looking at and Id rather see Kellogg get a shot or begin the Armstrong era now than see more of Taylor choking in big games. That seems to be Bo's MO as well, And it seems the QB to which coach locked in on has adopted his bosses trait.

[Fuzzy]

Your setting yourself up for a snowball effect.

 

First you complain Taylor Martinez has to go and to let Tommie Armstrong take the reins, then he has a couple of INTs or fumbles the ball and cost us games, then you want either Brion Carnes or Jamal Turner to get a look at QB, The same things happen again. Now you want Johnny Stanton to start for you, he has a rough start. Then you'll want coaching changes or bring up the already heated debate about how we can't recruit 5 star QBs or whatever.

 

No matter what the negative subject is, it always ends up as a big stinkin' pile of wasted posts in a rotting thread.

[Huskerfan1985]

Burkhead is everyone's favorite, but honestly, this offense is fine without him.

 

Completely disagree with you here.

I just feel that Abdullah is more elusive and seems make up for any production lost with Burkhead. Not really a knock on Burkhead either, more that we have good depth at rb.