Armstrong update

[The Dude]

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Martinez isn't the reason we've been losing,

The reason? No. One of the reasons? Without question.

[knapplc]

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Martinez isn't the reason we've been losing,

The reason? No. One of the reasons? Without question.

 

The main reason? Not even close. The single most-griped about reason? By a country mile.

[Ric Flair]

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Martinez isn't the reason we've been losing,

The reason? No. One of the reasons? Without question.

 

The main reason? Not even close. The single most-griped about reason? By a country mile.

 

More griped about than the defense? I don't think so. I'm fairly new here, but have seen a lot more people griping about the defense and wondering why they can't stop anyone than posting about Martinez's issues.

 

But regardless, it's not an either/or situation. Martinez's struggles put more pressure on the defense, which he too often puts back on the field too soon and with a short field to defend. And in fairness, the defense's struggles also put pressure on the offense, which probably has felt like it needs to score 70 in some games to have a chance. But what the offense does affects the defense...and what the defense does affects the offense. It's a team game and what one unit does isn't occurring in a vacuum....but has effects on how other units perform.

[The King]

The King, that's why a healthy TA is a better option than an injured TM, but TM ran for 1,000 yards last year, more than his first year starting IIRC. How do we know that IF he's capable of overcoming the turf toe, that he won't run the same? If TM isn't healthy enough to run then I agree, he shouldn't be our starter. But, the notion that he "looks lost" or has only made "a few great plays" is absolutely ludicrous.

 

This. Martinez had turf toe his freshman year as well, and he came back as a very effective runner both his sophomore and junior years. Don't know when he'll be fully healthy again after this injury, or when he'll be effective again, but if he gets back to 100%, you're crazy not to put a guy like that in the game. He knows the whole offense, he can progress through his reads, he's a threat to score on any given play, and he is among the most accurate passers in the conference (even after going up against defenses like Michigan and Michigan State, which TA has not done yet).

 

Also kinda tired of hearing how TA is a better runner than TM. They're styles are so different. TA is never going to be someone who takes it 40 yards for a score (or even 20 yards, maybe), and he's never going to be a 1000 yards rusher like TM. He is shiftier in small places and because of that, he is able to keep you more on schedule at times. But to say that one of those running styles completely outweighs the other is wrong - they're both effective in their own way.

 

Don't forget to mention Taylors penchant for fumbles.

 

He rarely progresses through all of his reads. Really rare. He has horrible pocket presence.

 

He hasn't proven to be a running threat AT ALL this year. The threat of him going the distance on every play, isn't there right now.

 

You assume he will get back to 100%. That's a big assumption.

 

Tommy definitely has his faults, but I prefer a RS FR make the mistakes than a RS SR.

 

Yes, this is assuming he's back to 100%. It's all hypothetical. If he's not 100%, by all means, play Armstrong. But if Taylor is back to 100%, he's absolutely a threat to run the ball, and anybody who says otherwise has completely lost their objectivity.

 

You're right, Taylor has had a penchant for fumbles. Armstrong has fumbled the ball as well, but he's mostly an unknown at this point. Taylor didn't have a fumbles problem two starts into his career either - it was revealed over time. Taylor does do a better job of going through his reads - that's an area that he has improved in a great deal, and I'm not so sure I've seen Armstrong throw to a checkdown receiver yet.

 

Oh, undoubtedly. i highly doubt Taylor will even glimpse 100% this season, I'd be shocked if he got to 90%, and the 10% difference is HUGE, especially for Taylor, as he relies purely on straight speed and doesn't have any moves to "juke" the defender. My whole position on TA, has been based off of things I've heard about Taylor. They'll say he is 100% (see paragraph 2), but he won't be. They'll probably play him (unfortunately) at 90% when he clearly can't do the things he wants to. His mechanics are thrown off, he can't run efficiently (especially between his shoulder & ankle) and he still has some interesting decisions. That said, Taylor @ 100% is lethal.

 

For instance, wasn't he supposed to be 100% going into this season? From game one, everyone could tell he wasn't 100%. Everyone assumed he wasn't supposed to run per coaches orders, but that is bullsh#t. I truly think if we start the season with TA at QB (to let Taylor really heal) and then bring Taylor back for UCLA, that game goes a lot differently. At the very least, once coaches notice how ineffective Taylor was, they could've thrown Tommy into the game to try and get anything going. We might not win, but at least we have true faith in our backup QB to get something going when our offense is clearly struggling. That was the MOST painful part of that game. Yeah the defense sucked, but the offense didn't help flip the field position, nor did it do a YOUNG defense (who was supposed to use the offense as a crutch) any favors by going 3 & out repeatedly. I can't help but think if we played UCLA next week and Taylor pulled the sh#t he did that game, his ass would be on the bench watching TA try to get something going.

 

Do I think we will be better without Taylor? I have NO clue, but I'd rather risk finding out if we can be better (in a big game) with a different QB, than continue the trend of getting obliterated in big games. I'd like to give a chance to a more traditional QB who can run our entire playbook (for the most part), who will make freshman mistakes (as a freshman, and not as a RS senior) and see how he reacts in a big game (now that he has experience in games. Next step, is a road game.) Taylor has proven to be ineffective at best against defenses that are as athletic, or more athletic, than he is. Coupled with a gameplan that doesn't allow him to run, pressures him into bad decisions, and forces him to throw, we have better options. Finally, lets not act like Taylor is some grand master at knowing the offense. Yeah, sure he knows it a bit, but its only his second year in the offense, and he isn't some wizard at reading defenses. I also find it laughable that people actually think Taylor is that hard to gameplan for. There is a reason teams only have to use 3 different defenses the WHOLE game. They aren't trying to confuse him. They don't care if he knows what they are doing. They line up in their defense, show us exactly what they are doing, and force Taylor to throw, because he can't beat them with his arm. Other teams players have repeatedly said this. Wisconsin players think he is a complete joke at QB, for instance.

 

As far as Knapplc, I completely disagree. He has won us games, he has lost us games, and he has led us to come from behind victories - BUT - those come from behind victories, some of them wouldn't be "comebacks" if he wasn't making idiotic decisions and fumbling left and right. For instance, Michigan State, I specifically remember at least 1 HORRIBLE interception and some pretty bad reads. Another QB, who knows if they have that kind of day turning the ball over. Obviously he has won us plenty of games, especially the last 3 years. I just think this is the first year that he could possibly not be the answer at QB.

 

I'll also add the disclaimer that Ameer has some pretty costly fumbles and the defense isn't doing any favors as well. It isn't Taylors fault if we lose, but he is a part of the issue.

[NoLongerN]

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Martinez isn't the reason we've been losing, but he's one of the biggest reasons we've been winning the past three years?

 

The guy fumbles and everyone wants to bench him. The guy puts the team on his back and defeats Ohio State, Michigan State (twice), Penn State (twice), Michigan, Wisconsin, and a host of weaker opponents and his detractors brush those wins aside. He has not cost us one game, not one time, in his career.

 

The old saying in politics was "It's the economy, stupid." Remember that? It has a cousin that applies here - "It's the defense, stupid."

 

People who claim to be fans of this team but harp on and on about our quarterback need to give up being a football fan. Clearly the game is too complicated for them.

 

Love what Knapp said here. I will add ... for me ... I like what Kellogg and Armstrong have accomplished with their opportunities ... cause if TM gets into the fumble/turnover/bad decision issues then for me he has a shorter leash ... which should only make him FOCUS more. This team as in years past have issues with FOCUS and doing ALL THE SMALL THINGS that win and/or lose games ... especially against better competition.

[The King]

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Martinez isn't the reason we've been losing,

The reason? No. One of the reasons? Without question.

 

The main reason? Not even close. The single most-griped about reason? By a country mile.

 

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

[knapplc]

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Martinez isn't the reason we've been losing,

The reason? No. One of the reasons? Without question.

 

The main reason? Not even close. The single most-griped about reason? By a country mile.

 

More griped about than the defense? I don't think so. I'm fairly new here, but have seen a lot more people griping about the defense and wondering why they can't stop anyone than posting about Martinez's issues.

 

But regardless, it's not an either/or situation. Martinez's struggles put more pressure on the defense, which he too often puts back on the field too soon and with a short field to defend. And in fairness, the defense's struggles also put pressure on the offense, which probably has felt like it needs to score 70 in some games to have a chance. But what the offense does affects the defense...and what the defense does affects the offense. It's a team game and what one unit does isn't occurring in a vacuum....but has effects on how other units perform.

 

Oh, see - I'm not new here. And I'm quite aware of the content of a lot of the posts in this forum. And I can tell you without question or hesitation that we have a huge disparity in threads griping about Martinez' faults (of which there are many) compared to the number of threads griping about the faults of the entire defense as a unit.

 

Were we to have a similar number of different discussions about each individual defensive players' multiple gaffes as we have about Martinez', we'd need to double our server space.

 

But we don't. In fact, nobody's even talking about the defense at all - except for praise.

 

Here's just how absurd this has gotten: The defense committed five of Nebraska's eight penalties this past week. Do you know how many threads there are griping about that? One.

 

Taylor Martinez didn't play this week. Do you know how many threads there are griping about him? Three, including this thread, created to praise a dedicated and much-maligned Husker.

[knapplc]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

 

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

[The King]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

 

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

 

I'm not so sure about that. Especially with our defense, you have to know a lot about the defense. For instance, it could look like a linebacker or safety is taking a poor angle, when they are actually in the position that they are designed to be in, but a DL could've hedged improperly or didn't catch the edge like he was supposed to. Typing that out, I guess it is "lazy" to pick on Martinez, but is also more obvious when Martinez is at fault. Martinez also plays a much larger and more critical role on the team.

 

Not to mention, if someone messes up on defense, they are replaced. If T-Magic messes up as a QB, he doesn't get pulled out of the game.

 

I've seen countless posts recently saying how bad Thad is, but I think it is harder to make a post complaining about Thad because there aren't really any statistics to back up that claim. I'd also add that I think the other cause is that everyone knows the defense needs work, and opinions are pretty split regarding Taylor. Love, hate, or indifferent. On defense, no one loves it.

[knapplc]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

 

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

 

I'm not so sure about that. Especially with our defense, you have to know a lot about the defense. For instance, it could look like a linebacker or safety is taking a poor angle, when they are actually in the position that they are designed to be in, but a DL could've hedged improperly or didn't catch the edge like he was supposed to. Typing that out, I guess it is "lazy" to pick on Martinez, but is also more obvious when Martinez is at fault. Martinez also plays a much larger and more critical role on the team.

 

Not to mention, if someone messes up on defense, they are replaced. If T-Magic messes up as a QB, he doesn't get pulled out of the game.

 

I've seen countless posts recently saying how bad Thad is, but I think it is harder to make a post complaining about Thad because there aren't really any statistics to back up that claim. I'd also add that I think the other cause is that everyone knows the defense needs work, and opinions are pretty split regarding Taylor. Love, hate, or indifferent. On defense, no one loves it.

That's what I meant by low-hanging fruit. Almost exactly.

 

As for why Martinez doesn't come out of games - you're right that we don't have anyone to replace him with. Or... didn't. Armstrong looks like a gamer. Here's hoping...

[Hunter94]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

 

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

 

I'm not so sure about that. Especially with our defense, you have to know a lot about the defense. For instance, it could look like a linebacker or safety is taking a poor angle, when they are actually in the position that they are designed to be in, but a DL could've hedged improperly or didn't catch the edge like he was supposed to. Typing that out, I guess it is "lazy" to pick on Martinez, but is also more obvious when Martinez is at fault. Martinez also plays a much larger and more critical role on the team.

 

Not to mention, if someone messes up on defense, they are replaced. If T-Magic messes up as a QB, he doesn't get pulled out of the game.

 

I've seen countless posts recently saying how bad Thad is, but I think it is harder to make a post complaining about Thad because there aren't really any statistics to back up that claim. I'd also add that I think the other cause is that everyone knows the defense needs work, and opinions are pretty split regarding Taylor. Love, hate, or indifferent. On defense, no one loves it.

 

with TM, the pics and fumbles are hard to overlook.....they belong to him, for the most part.

[knapplc]

with TM, the pics and fumbles are hard to overlook.....they belong to him, for the most part.

 

True. He runs awkwardly, he has terrible ball security when he runs, and when he takes contact it's anybody's guess where that ball is going to go. It's maddening.

[whateveritis1224]

The King, that's why a healthy TA is a better option than an injured TM, but TM ran for 1,000 yards last year, more than his first year starting IIRC. How do we know that IF he's capable of overcoming the turf toe, that he won't run the same? If TM isn't healthy enough to run then I agree, he shouldn't be our starter. But, the notion that he "looks lost" or has only made "a few great plays" is absolutely ludicrous.

 

This. Martinez had turf toe his freshman year as well, and he came back as a very effective runner both his sophomore and junior years. Don't know when he'll be fully healthy again after this injury, or when he'll be effective again, but if he gets back to 100%, you're crazy not to put a guy like that in the game. He knows the whole offense, he can progress through his reads, he's a threat to score on any given play, and he is among the most accurate passers in the conference (even after going up against defenses like Michigan and Michigan State, which TA has not done yet).

 

Also kinda tired of hearing how TA is a better runner than TM. They're styles are so different. TA is never going to be someone who takes it 40 yards for a score (or even 20 yards, maybe), and he's never going to be a 1000 yards rusher like TM. He is shiftier in small places and because of that, he is able to keep you more on schedule at times. But to say that one of those running styles completely outweighs the other is wrong - they're both effective in their own way.

 

Don't forget to mention Taylors penchant for fumbles.

 

He rarely progresses through all of his reads. Really rare. He has horrible pocket presence.

 

He hasn't proven to be a running threat AT ALL this year. The threat of him going the distance on every play, isn't there right now.

 

You assume he will get back to 100%. That's a big assumption.

 

Tommy definitely has his faults, but I prefer a RS FR make the mistakes than a RS SR.

 

Yes, this is assuming he's back to 100%. It's all hypothetical. If he's not 100%, by all means, play Armstrong. But if Taylor is back to 100%, he's absolutely a threat to run the ball, and anybody who says otherwise has completely lost their objectivity.

 

You're right, Taylor has had a penchant for fumbles. Armstrong has fumbled the ball as well, but he's mostly an unknown at this point. Taylor didn't have a fumbles problem two starts into his career either - it was revealed over time. Taylor does do a better job of going through his reads - that's an area that he has improved in a great deal, and I'm not so sure I've seen Armstrong throw to a checkdown receiver yet.

 

Oh, undoubtedly. i highly doubt Taylor will even glimpse 100% this season, I'd be shocked if he got to 90%, and the 10% difference is HUGE, especially for Taylor, as he relies purely on straight speed and doesn't have any moves to "juke" the defender. My whole position on TA, has been based off of things I've heard about Taylor. They'll say he is 100% (see paragraph 2), but he won't be. They'll probably play him (unfortunately) at 90% when he clearly can't do the things he wants to. His mechanics are thrown off, he can't run efficiently (especially between his shoulder & ankle) and he still has some interesting decisions. That said, Taylor @ 100% is lethal.

 

For instance, wasn't he supposed to be 100% going into this season? From game one, everyone could tell he wasn't 100%. Everyone assumed he wasn't supposed to run per coaches orders, but that is bullsh#t. I truly think if we start the season with TA at QB (to let Taylor really heal) and then bring Taylor back for UCLA, that game goes a lot differently. At the very least, once coaches notice how ineffective Taylor was, they could've thrown Tommy into the game to try and get anything going. We might not win, but at least we have true faith in our backup QB to get something going when our offense is clearly struggling. That was the MOST painful part of that game. Yeah the defense sucked, but the offense didn't help flip the field position, nor did it do a YOUNG defense (who was supposed to use the offense as a crutch) any favors by going 3 & out repeatedly. I can't help but think if we played UCLA next week and Taylor pulled the sh#t he did that game, his ass would be on the bench watching TA try to get something going.

 

Do I think we will be better without Taylor? I have NO clue, but I'd rather risk finding out if we can be better (in a big game) with a different QB, than continue the trend of getting obliterated in big games. I'd like to give a chance to a more traditional QB who can run our entire playbook (for the most part), who will make freshman mistakes (as a freshman, and not as a RS senior) and see how he reacts in a big game (now that he has experience in games. Next step, is a road game.) Taylor has proven to be ineffective at best against defenses that are as athletic, or more athletic, than he is. Coupled with a gameplan that doesn't allow him to run, pressures him into bad decisions, and forces him to throw, we have better options. Finally, lets not act like Taylor is some grand master at knowing the offense. Yeah, sure he knows it a bit, but its only his second year in the offense, and he isn't some wizard at reading defenses. I also find it laughable that people actually think Taylor is that hard to gameplan for. There is a reason teams only have to use 3 different defenses the WHOLE game. They aren't trying to confuse him. They don't care if he knows what they are doing. They line up in their defense, show us exactly what they are doing, and force Taylor to throw, because he can't beat them with his arm. Other teams players have repeatedly said this. Wisconsin players think he is a complete joke at QB, for instance.

 

As far as Knapplc, I completely disagree. He has won us games, he has lost us games, and he has led us to come from behind victories - BUT - those come from behind victories, some of them wouldn't be "comebacks" if he wasn't making idiotic decisions and fumbling left and right. For instance, Michigan State, I specifically remember at least 1 HORRIBLE interception and some pretty bad reads. Another QB, who knows if they have that kind of day turning the ball over. Obviously he has won us plenty of games, especially the last 3 years. I just think this is the first year that he could possibly not be the answer at QB.

 

I'll also add the disclaimer that Ameer has some pretty costly fumbles and the defense isn't doing any favors as well. It isn't Taylors fault if we lose, but he is a part of the issue.

 

The first INT in the MSU game looked absolutely horrible the first time I saw it, but when I rewatched the game as Taylor was releasing the ball he got hit almost exactly like the play that got called a personal foul later in the game.

 

It still might have been a bad throw, but it probably wouldn't have been thrown directly to the MSU guy.

[Ric Flair]

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Martinez isn't the reason we've been losing,

The reason? No. One of the reasons? Without question.

 

The main reason? Not even close. The single most-griped about reason? By a country mile.

 

More griped about than the defense? I don't think so. I'm fairly new here, but have seen a lot more people griping about the defense and wondering why they can't stop anyone than posting about Martinez's issues.

 

But regardless, it's not an either/or situation. Martinez's struggles put more pressure on the defense, which he too often puts back on the field too soon and with a short field to defend. And in fairness, the defense's struggles also put pressure on the offense, which probably has felt like it needs to score 70 in some games to have a chance. But what the offense does affects the defense...and what the defense does affects the offense. It's a team game and what one unit does isn't occurring in a vacuum....but has effects on how other units perform.

 

Oh, see - I'm not new here. And I'm quite aware of the content of a lot of the posts in this forum. And I can tell you without question or hesitation that we have a huge disparity in threads griping about Martinez' faults (of which there are many) compared to the number of threads griping about the faults of the entire defense as a unit.

 

Were we to have a similar number of different discussions about each individual defensive players' multiple gaffes as we have about Martinez', we'd need to double our server space.

 

But we don't. In fact, nobody's even talking about the defense at all - except for praise.

 

Here's just how absurd this has gotten: The defense committed five of Nebraska's eight penalties this past week. Do you know how many threads there are griping about that? One.

 

Taylor Martinez didn't play this week. Do you know how many threads there are griping about him? Three, including this thread, created to praise a dedicated and much-maligned Husker.

 

I think that's likely just because the defense has been bad for the past couple of years. It's old news. Now they're still struggling, but there seem to be some signs of hope. So the predominant sentiment is low expectations based on a couple of years of struggles combined with hope that things seem to be getting somewhat better and that there's hope that as the youngsters get more experience they could actually be pretty good.

 

With Martinez, I think people hoped he would develop into a better and more consistent player than he has. As a fourth year starter, I think people hoped that he would have outgrown the mental errors and figured out a way to reduce his turnovers. We have a ton of weapons on offense now and just need someone to get them the ball consistently. I think Armstrong is better at that than Martinez. I see Martinez as a sort of boom or bust sandlot player. He's wired like Brett Favre, to be a high risk/high reward kind of player. When your offense is struggling and lacks playmakers, there's a value to having a guy like that. As you have more weapons, the risks start to outweigh the rewards. Then you're better off with a consistent game manager who can find ways to get the ball in the hands of your playmakers. So I think the offense has outgrown Martinez and that we're better off with Armstrong running the show.

 

But regardless, the topic is far more current and interesting than dissecting for the 300th time why the defense is still struggling.

[The King]

with TM, the pics and fumbles are hard to overlook.....they belong to him, for the most part.

 

True. He runs awkwardly, he has terrible ball security when he runs, and when he takes contact it's anybody's guess where that ball is going to go. It's maddening.

 

Sounds like we agree then. Just have different views of how to deal with the Taylor issue - and possibly different levels of faith in Taylor/Tommy.