Nebraska received one point in the Coaches' Poll

[TheSker]

Not really. The team didn't look like it cared. Probably a reflection of their coach, who, and a fake punt on their own 30 can attest, was picking plays out of a hat with zero fu#*$ left to give.

The fake punt was one of the plays reviewed by Tale of the Tape. Their perspective differs from yours.

[GBRedneck]

Not really. The team didn't look like it cared. Probably a reflection of their coach, who, and a fake punt on their own 30 can attest, was picking plays out of a hat with zero fu#*$ left to give.

The fake punt was one of the plays reviewed by Tale of the Tape. Their perspective differs from yours.

 

Why can't they just call plays that work???

[TheSker]

Not really. The team didn't look like it cared. Probably a reflection of their coach, who, and a fake punt on their own 30 can attest, was picking plays out of a hat with zero fu#*$ left to give.

The fake punt was one of the plays reviewed by Tale of the Tape. Their perspective differs from yours.

 

Why can't they just call plays that work???

 

That would be great. As much criticism as we gave our defense this season, the offense was every bit our Achilles heel.

[GBRedneck]

Is anyone here capable of logical debate?

 

GIFs are generally as effective as, and much more enjoyable than, attempting to logically argue someone out of their position on the internet. Especially when you consider their position to be a bit out there, or at least a long, long ways from your own.

 

But I'll humor you for a moment.

 

You say that UCLA "figured out" Martinez was one-dimensional at some point, and adjusted accordingly. I see no evidence for this. My own observations, along with post-game comments from UCLA, show that UCLA's strategy remained basically consistent throughout the game. And over the course of 60 minutes, that was more than enough to handle us. Beck, to no surprise of mine, coiled up in a ball of fear after going up 21-3, desperate to cling to the lead as opposed to continuing with an attacking mentality. This may have been enough in 2009, but not this year. On top of that, the defense failed to make any significant adjustments, and UCLA rode momentum to the lead, then let the talent cruise from there. With a healthy Martinez, perhaps we keep it close. But win? I highly doubt it. And win by four scores? No.

 

Why would we believe a healthy Martinez would beat Minnesota, Michigan St. or Iowa? The defense was awful against Minnesota. The offensive line injuries were mounting throughout the season. Turnovers were a huge issue. On the first two items, Martinez would have had no effect. On the last one, he may have in fact made it worse. But of course, we don't know.

 

You could make an argument that we might have been 12-0 with a 100% healthy Martinez. I just don't see it as a very good one. And the fact that you assert it with such confidence makes it even sillier.

 

On the other hand, you could argue we might have lost to Northwestern or Penn State with Martinez at the helm—in the latter, particularly, since Kellogg had a very solid day passing and threw no interceptions.

 

There you go. Now comes the part where you read my points, are not swayed in the least from your position and type up counterpoints in attempt to show that all my points are incorrect or invalid. And then I read your counterpoints and am not swayed in the least from my position. And the stalemate brings us neither insight nor joy (unless of course we are able to get that sweet, sweet ).

 

Therefore, I present you with this:

 

 

Thank you. I sincerely mean that.

 

I'll just add two small things.

 

1st, Martinez was 10 for -13 yds rushing against UCLA. It's hard to argue that wouldn't have been a lot different if he was healthy.

 

2nd, a healthy Martinez WOULD have had an effect on the injuries. Everything would've changed (butterfly effect). We would not have ran the same plays with the same personnel in the same situations where all the injuries occurred. Granted, we might've ended up with more injuries and worse injuries. But with the sheer number we had, odds are we would've had less if things had been different.

 

OK, three things. You have to admit, if you can go back in time and we do win the UCLA game, all the other games look a LOT more winnable.

 

Thx again.

[sd'sker]

Thank you. I sincerely mean that.

 

I'll just add two small things.

 

1st, Martinez was 10 for -13 yds rushing against UCLA. It's hard to argue that wouldn't have been a lot different if he was healthy.

 

2nd, a healthy Martinez WOULD have had an effect on the injuries. Everything would've changed (butterfly effect). We would not have ran the same plays with the same personnel in the same situations where all the injuries occurred. Granted, we might've ended up with more injuries and worse injuries. But with the sheer number we had, odds are we would've had less if things had been different.

 

OK, three things. You have to admit, if you can go back in time and we do win the UCLA game, all the other games look a LOT more winnable.

 

Thx again.

why did we not beat UCLA the first time we played?

[NUpolo8]

Thank you. I sincerely mean that.

 

I'll just add two small things.

 

1st, Martinez was 10 for -13 yds rushing against UCLA. It's hard to argue that wouldn't have been a lot different if he was healthy.

 

2nd, a healthy Martinez WOULD have had an effect on the injuries. Everything would've changed (butterfly effect). We would not have ran the same plays with the same personnel in the same situations where all the injuries occurred. Granted, we might've ended up with more injuries and worse injuries. But with the sheer number we had, odds are we would've had less if things had been different.

 

OK, three things. You have to admit, if you can go back in time and we do win the UCLA game, all the other games look a LOT more winnable.

 

Thx again.

why did we not beat UCLA the first time we played?

 

He'll say Burkhead. Guarantee it.

[Guy Chamberlin]

We lost four games last year with a healthy Martinez. I'm not sure it would have been much different this year, as it took a half season for the defense to gel.

 

I'd also point out that Martinez had become a solid 64% passer, and being able to sprint 9 yards to the sticks if not a 90 yard barn-burner still made the injured Martinez a dual threat: a better passer than both Armstrong and Kellogg (seriously) and a better runner than Kellogg. Given Abdullah, Cross and Newby behind him, the Nebraska offense was not, nor should it have been reliant on Taylor Martinez executing zone reads. The injured Taylor Martinez executed beautiful drives against UCLA and Minnesota using a multi-dimensional offense.

 

Watching the UCLA and Minnesota losses, I honestly didn't see that Taylor Martinez's mobility was the problem. The defense was a problem. The second half was a problem. Intensity and focus were problems. Nebraska inability to make adjustments were problems. Turnover were....well, you know. There was too much to hang on whatever pain Taylor felt when he planted his foot. That's why the exact same problems were evident when two different quarterbacks filled in.

[TheSker]

That's why the exact same problems were evident when two different quarterbacks filled in.

I would agree. Defense aside.......each of our quarterbacks were turnover prone. Turnovers and the inability to move the sticks at needed times were both issues.

[DTrain2020]

None of you guys ever voted for your sister in a wet T-shirt contest before? Wait that's probably not a reasonable comparison.

:nanalama

[QMany]

About that ...