Per Press Conference with Bo: As of today, Tommy is starting

[Hercules]

Good points, but what I don't get is, we have 3 perfectly capable RB's, so we don't need to run our QB, unless we want to throw a wrinkle into the offensive playcalling.

 

I actually prefer using a QB-run game. It forces the opponent to defend all 11 offensive players.

 

I don't think the staff has any idea what they want to do, though. They start Taylor, then don't use a QB run game and throw the ball over 30 times when the RB is averaging nearly 9 ypc. It makes absolutely no sense.

 

If you're going to play Taylor, he better run the ball (especially the read option, where he's most dangerous). If you're not going to run the QB, RKIII is the best passer on the team and he knows the whole offense. If you're not willing to run Taylor because of some made-up excuse, but you want the QB run game, go with Tommy.

 

It should be as simple as that.

 

I understand you want to give the D as many looks as possible to try and stay a step ahead of them, but we've got the "triplets" and that isn't necessary to do. If we only had one real option at the RB position, then I would be totally be on board with what you're saying.

 

I don't care about giving them as many looks as possible. Having a QB who can run the ball is more difficult to defend than having a QB who can't. That's why I like the QB run game. It's not to spell the RB's, it's because the defense has to assign an extra player to defending the QB if they can run.

 

The problem I have with the way Nebraska played the other day is that they used a running QB and didn't ask him to run until they were already down by two touchdowns late in the game.

 

Anyways, I'd be fine if Nebraska chose to abandon the QB run game for the remainder of this year, like you're saying they should. I think the offensive line, RB's and WR's are strong enough that they could do that. However, if that's what they decide to do and then start someone other than Ron Kellogg, I'll be furious, because he's inarguably the best passer out of the QB position group.

[Hercules]

I actually prefer using a QB-run game. It forces the opponent to defend all 11 offensive players.

 

Not if the opponent barely has to worry about any of the receivers.

 

Minnesota played with 1-deep safety and dared us to pass, but we couldn't. It hasn't been the first time this has happened. I don't know how healthy or not Taylor is. He claims he's not, but we saw him bust the run. He didn't look on his game and there were one or two occasions where it looked like he had trouble planting and taking off. Whether it's Taylor's fault, his injury's fault, Beck's fault or the aquarium guy's fault, we tend to not succeed at making the opponent defend all 11 guys with Taylor at QB, and at this point in the TM era it's probably unlikely to futile to expect that to change.

 

I don't think Taylor had his best day throwing the ball, but I don't think the WR's had their best day either. Not just in terms of drops, but the fact that they almost never had any separation. I thought it was a bad day for every position group on the offense, and that it was a particularly bad day for Tim Beck.

 

That has nothing to do with the philosophy of using a QB run game. Ohio State uses a QB run game. Oregon uses a QB run game. Indiana. Northwestern. Michigan. Baylor. Florida State. Clemson. Wyoming. UCLA. Stanford. Washington. Need I keep going?

 

Besides, your entire post is based on the idea that Nebraska tried to use the QB run game on Saturday and failed. I disagree. They played a running QB and still did not use the QB run game. That's my whole point. If you play a running QB, you need to RUN him. You can't simply hope that the defense is scared enough of the QB running that they'll defend it no matter what. You have to actually show them that you're willing to run the the ball with your QB, and Nebraska didn't attempt to do that on Saturday until it was too late.

[zoogs]

On your last point, that's almost, but not exactly what I was saying. I was more along the lines of while you'd think that would be the best thing to do with Taylor at QB, for whatever reason, it hasn't been the result. Maybe the staff is trying to make Taylor something he isn't, or maybe they're letting him audible too much and he himself is trying to be something he's not...eh, who knows, but in any case the dangerous, T-Magic powered offensive show isn't there. How many opposing defensive players have talked about how simple their gameplan against us was afterwards?

 

This 'uber-stress-on-the-D' ideal, just hasn't shown up. Contrast this to even Tommy's worst game against (I believe) Purdue. They came out with a surprise 3-4 after their bye, were throwing more at him than he could handle, and he was missing throws left and right. But our offense wasn't erratic. We were leaning on the ground game and when Tommy went to the air, it was stressing the defense. He missed, but he was going after WRs in single coverage deep downfield and had several near connections -- the type of stuff that forces defenses to keep more guys back there, because the next time they may not be so lucky. With Taylor, it's exactly as you say. We throw all these short passes all the time and there's no real rhyme or reason to what we appear to be doing. I don't know what all goes into this discrepancy, but it appears to be there.

 

Now, running QBs in general? I'm not opposed to the idea. I don't think that 'defend 11 on 11' is a magic effect, though; I just see it as a nice thing to have. The far more dominant factor is how sharp the QB is. If you can get both, great. If not, then we're dealing with trade offs and not one superior concept versus another.

 

Lastly, I think we all know Taylor isn't a greatly proficient passer, though he does have his strengths (arm strength being one of them; experience another). We've had years and years now of every single miscue being blamed on someone else. WRs for drops even when the ball placement has been erratic, Beck or Watson for INTs because they shouldn't have called a pass play. I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around, but come on now. I know you're not exonerating him here, but I feel that over his career he's been given far too much benefit of the doubt relative to others for mistakes that are probably equally shared. It might be funny how suddenly sure-handed the WRs become when Kellogg is back there taking snaps.

[lo country]

Odd that I haven't seen (heard) anything from Beck after a typical horrendous game plan. The usual ie thought to much, I should have pulled back, my mistake etc.... he has been absent.

[zoogs]

^

http://sports.omaha.com/2013/10/28/mad-chatter-beck-falls-into-a-gopher-hole-megatron-or-moss-my-vow-to-an-iowa-sheriff/

 

Why did he opt for this strategy? Because Minnesota was daring him to. Beck looked down from the press box (just as I did) and saw the Gophers playing man-to-man on the outside.

“All day long,” Beck said.

Did you consider just running it three straight downs and seeing what happened?

“No,” Beck told me. “If we gotta do that (in the future), we’ll do it … I just figured man-to-man, Kenny and Quincy and Jamal and Ameer, you got some pretty good skill guys. You want to get them the ball in space and let them go 1-on-1 and make some plays. You’ll take those matchups most of the time. We just didn’t win ‘em today.”

I asked the question in another form. Did you feel like they could stop you if you just put your head down and pounded them?

“We tried to do some of that if you go back and look,” Beck said. “And then we’d get hit and it’d be second-and-10. So if it’s second-and-10 and you’ve got Kenny, Jamal, Quincy, Ameer, they’re gonna play cover-1, or do you want to run against nine guys and hope you get three (yards)?”

Dirk doesn't like this, but I have to (mainly) agree with Beck here. You can't look, as Dirk did, at the results of the times we did run the ball and suggest that we could've done that at any arbitrary time we chose to run the ball against any arbitrary look the defense gave us, including stacking the box.

[Hunter94]

^

http://sports.omaha....n-iowa-sheriff/

 

Why did he opt for this strategy? Because Minnesota was daring him to. Beck looked down from the press box (just as I did) and saw the Gophers playing man-to-man on the outside.

“All day long,” Beck said.

 

Did you consider just running it three straight downs and seeing what happened?

 

“No,” Beck told me. “If we gotta do that (in the future), we’ll do it … I just figured man-to-man, Kenny and Quincy and Jamal and Ameer, you got some pretty good skill guys. You want to get them the ball in space and let them go 1-on-1 and make some plays. You’ll take those matchups most of the time. We just didn’t win ‘em today.”

 

I asked the question in another form. Did you feel like they could stop you if you just put your head down and pounded them?

 

“We tried to do some of that if you go back and look,” Beck said. “And then we’d get hit and it’d be second-and-10. So if it’s second-and-10 and you’ve got Kenny, Jamal, Quincy, Ameer, they’re gonna play cover-1, or do you want to run against nine guys and hope you get three (yards)?”

 

Dirk doesn't like this, but I have to (mainly) agree with Beck here. You can't look, as Dirk did, at the results of the times we did run the ball and suggest that we could've done that at any arbitrary time we chose to run the ball against any arbitrary look the defense gave us, including stacking the box.

 

ok, let me get this straight...we couldn't line up and play smash mouth ball with the Minnesota D..

but they could and did.....all day long...and bitch slapped out D, gashing them on virtually every 1st down?

[Stumpy1]

^

http://sports.omaha....n-iowa-sheriff/

 

Why did he opt for this strategy? Because Minnesota was daring him to. Beck looked down from the press box (just as I did) and saw the Gophers playing man-to-man on the outside.

“All day long,” Beck said.

 

Did you consider just running it three straight downs and seeing what happened?

 

“No,” Beck told me. “If we gotta do that (in the future), we’ll do it … I just figured man-to-man, Kenny and Quincy and Jamal and Ameer, you got some pretty good skill guys. You want to get them the ball in space and let them go 1-on-1 and make some plays. You’ll take those matchups most of the time. We just didn’t win ‘em today.”

 

I asked the question in another form. Did you feel like they could stop you if you just put your head down and pounded them?

 

“We tried to do some of that if you go back and look,” Beck said. “And then we’d get hit and it’d be second-and-10. So if it’s second-and-10 and you’ve got Kenny, Jamal, Quincy, Ameer, they’re gonna play cover-1, or do you want to run against nine guys and hope you get three (yards)?”

 

Dirk doesn't like this, but I have to (mainly) agree with Beck here. You can't look, as Dirk did, at the results of the times we did run the ball and suggest that we could've done that at any arbitrary time we chose to run the ball against any arbitrary look the defense gave us, including stacking the box.

Beck is talking out his ass...We could have ran the ball all day long on them but instead, he thought he would be cute. I don't give a sh#t if they show man, cover 1 or cover 10, if your back is averaging 8 yrds/carry, you us him .

[Ulty]

^

http://sports.omaha....n-iowa-sheriff/

 

Why did he opt for this strategy? Because Minnesota was daring him to. Beck looked down from the press box (just as I did) and saw the Gophers playing man-to-man on the outside.

“All day long,” Beck said.

 

Did you consider just running it three straight downs and seeing what happened?

 

“No,” Beck told me. “If we gotta do that (in the future), we’ll do it … I just figured man-to-man, Kenny and Quincy and Jamal and Ameer, you got some pretty good skill guys. You want to get them the ball in space and let them go 1-on-1 and make some plays. You’ll take those matchups most of the time. We just didn’t win ‘em today.”

 

I asked the question in another form. Did you feel like they could stop you if you just put your head down and pounded them?

 

“We tried to do some of that if you go back and look,” Beck said. “And then we’d get hit and it’d be second-and-10. So if it’s second-and-10 and you’ve got Kenny, Jamal, Quincy, Ameer, they’re gonna play cover-1, or do you want to run against nine guys and hope you get three (yards)?”

 

Dirk doesn't like this, but I have to (mainly) agree with Beck here. You can't look, as Dirk did, at the results of the times we did run the ball and suggest that we could've done that at any arbitrary time we chose to run the ball against any arbitrary look the defense gave us, including stacking the box.

Beck is talking out his ass...We could have ran the ball all day long on them but instead, he thought he would be cute. I don't give a sh#t if they show man, cover 1 or cover 10, if your back is averaging 8 yrds/carry, you us him .

 

We've been looking at a wide variety of talented players at all skill positions since the off-season and have wondered how to get everyone the ball enough times. So when we see lowly Minnesota lining up man to man on Bell and Enunwa, it's tempting to want to feed it to them and get some big plays. But the reality of this particular game was that Martinez was averaging 4.6 yards per pass attempt and the ball was slipping through Kenny's and Quincy's hands. There was one guy who was consistently making plays and picking up yards, running at almost twice as many yards per attempt as the QB was throwing.

 

The benefit of having so much talent on the field is knowing that if some of your stars are not having a good day, someone else can pick you up and get the job done. Ameer looked able to do that, but Beck's eyes were bigger than his brains.

[Danimal]

Seemed to be me like Beck made the classic mistake of being impatient with the run. No matter what Minn was showing we were running more effectively than we were throwing. But because of what they were showing a stopped running-play is proof we need to pass, meanwhile a stopped pass play just meant we needed to pass again.

[knapplc]

Either I'm missing something, Beck is missing something, or our skill guys aren't as skilled as we/I think.

 

When is the last time we saw any of our WRs "in space" on a consistent basis? You'll see that once, maybe twice a game, but consistently? Nope. Then you look at Oregon's offense, or even Missouri's (yikes!) and you consistently see receivers in space.

 

Minny played straight-up man coverage most of that game. I'll go back and look at the game again when I can stomach it, but I don't remember any plays off the top of my head where our WRs got much separation. There were no obviously open guys unless they were off-camera or I flat missed them.

[Elf]

 

Lol that is freaking awesome! I want to save it so I have it forever, but it won't let me. Could you post it so it can be saved? Please?

[Danimal]

Either I'm missing something, Beck is missing something, or our skill guys aren't as skilled as we/I think.

 

When is the last time we saw any of our WRs "in space" on a consistent basis? You'll see that once, maybe twice a game, but consistently? Nope. Then you look at Oregon's offense, or even Missouri's (yikes!) and you consistently see receivers in space.

 

Minny played straight-up man coverage most of that game. I'll go back and look at the game again when I can stomach it, but I don't remember any plays off the top of my head where our WRs got much separation. There were no obviously open guys unless they were off-camera or I flat missed them.

 

It does seem like we don't get really open very often. Lack of space is the reason I get frustrated with short passing game. We usually have a defender right there to make the tackle.

[Hercules]

On your last point, that's almost, but not exactly what I was saying. I was more along the lines of while you'd think that would be the best thing to do with Taylor at QB, for whatever reason, it hasn't been the result. Maybe the staff is trying to make Taylor something he isn't, or maybe they're letting him audible too much and he himself is trying to be something he's not...eh, who knows, but in any case the dangerous, T-Magic powered offensive show isn't there. How many opposing defensive players have talked about how simple their gameplan against us was afterwards?

 

This 'uber-stress-on-the-D' ideal, just hasn't shown up. Contrast this to even Tommy's worst game against (I believe) Purdue. They came out with a surprise 3-4 after their bye, were throwing more at him than he could handle, and he was missing throws left and right. But our offense wasn't erratic. We were leaning on the ground game and when Tommy went to the air, it was stressing the defense. He missed, but he was going after WRs in single coverage deep downfield and had several near connections -- the type of stuff that forces defenses to keep more guys back there, because the next time they may not be so lucky. With Taylor, it's exactly as you say. We throw all these short passes all the time and there's no real rhyme or reason to what we appear to be doing. I don't know what all goes into this discrepancy, but it appears to be there.

 

Now, running QBs in general? I'm not opposed to the idea. I don't think that 'defend 11 on 11' is a magic effect, though; I just see it as a nice thing to have. The far more dominant factor is how sharp the QB is. If you can get both, great. If not, then we're dealing with trade offs and not one superior concept versus another.

 

Lastly, I think we all know Taylor isn't a greatly proficient passer, though he does have his strengths (arm strength being one of them; experience another). We've had years and years now of every single miscue being blamed on someone else. WRs for drops even when the ball placement has been erratic, Beck or Watson for INTs because they shouldn't have called a pass play. I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go around, but come on now. I know you're not exonerating him here, but I feel that over his career he's been given far too much benefit of the doubt relative to others for mistakes that are probably equally shared. It might be funny how suddenly sure-handed the WRs become when Kellogg is back there taking snaps.

 

The uber-stress on the D hasn't shown up this year. It has in other seasons and other games. Not every game, we all know Taylor's been inconsistent. But we also know he's good enough to terrify even the best defenses in the country (like Michigan State). I don't know if it's the injuries or what, but obviously he can't be that guy if the coaches aren't going to demand that he run the ball. There hasn't been any epiphany about what Taylor can and can't do as a QB this season, we all knew that going in - but he's not running the ball anymore, not even trying to, and that makes him as useful as Eric Crouch or Tommie Frazier would have been as pocket passers.

 

As far as Tommy goes, I just don't see where you're getting that his throwing game is more of a threat than Taylor's. It's possible, but he played well against a bad SDSU team, a bad Illinois defense, and then he got crushed by a below average Purdue defense. This idea that Tommy was keeping Purdue honest with his arm? He was 6/18 for 43 yards, 0 TD, 3 int, averaged 2.4 yards per attempt. That's atrocious. His QB rating was 9.9.

 

If anybody kept Purdue's defense honest, it was Ron Kellogg, who was 10/13 fof 141, a TD, an average of 10.8 yards per attempt, and a 98.3 QBR.

 

Still, despite the fact that according to your claims, both of these QBs kept the defense more honest in the passing game, which should have opened up more of a running game, Ameer averaged only 6.3 yards per rush, going for 126 yards on 20 carries. Against Minnesota, he averaged 8.7 yards per rush, going for 165 on 19 carries.

 

Like I've said before, I don't really care who starts at QB as long as the gameplan makes sense. But I find fault with your conclusion about Tommy's passing versus Taylor's, given the information we have at this time. You might be right, but I haven't seen anything to prove it.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Just for perspective, uninjured surefire NFL first round draft pick Brett Hundley was 13 of 19 for 64 yards and 2 interceptions on Saturday.

 

But how common is that for him? In all fairness.

 

Hundley has had much better days.

 

And in all fairness, so has Taylor Martinez.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Did no reporter ask "Bo, what do the team doctors say or have they not looked at it"? Because..............

 

Remember, until very recently any reporter who would openly second-guess Pelini was merely a Bo-hater , chumming for attention.