Armstrong Leading the QB Race

[HUSKER FREAK]

That is true, but I really think it back fired for the most part. I mean the Penn St game, wasn't that the one that he got hurt in or was he just playing that badly I don't remember because I was deer hunting at the time.

[Landlord]

 

I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.

 

 

 

Not picking on you specifically with this, but this is such a funny example about how our fanbase goes back and forth.

 

 

For a long time we were overly frustrated with backups not having any "real" in-game experience, because Osborne used to get backups planned series in games before they were out of hand. Then when Taylor got the nod in 2010, the coaching staff started trying that with Cody Green; giving him a guaranteed drive or two in the first half, and when he sucked, everyone thought that it was the worst idea ever.

[The Dude]

It might be because it's possible for there to be differing viewpoints within the fanbase.

[Count 'Bility]

Personally, I thought the insertion of Kellog in the Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan, and Michigan St games all hurt the early rythm Tommy had built. if you remember, Tommy started off pretty well in all those games with maybe the exception of Mich St.-and even then, when they didnt turn the ball over, they were moving the ball and flew down the field for a TD on the third possession. And Tommy wound up not playin so hot the rest of the game.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.

 

 

 

Not picking on you specifically with this, but this is such a funny example about how our fanbase goes back and forth.

 

 

For a long time we were overly frustrated with backups not having any "real" in-game experience, because Osborne used to get backups planned series in games before they were out of hand. Then when Taylor got the nod in 2010, the coaching staff started trying that with Cody Green; giving him a guaranteed drive or two in the first half, and when he sucked, everyone thought that it was the worst idea ever.

 

I don't remember Osborne putting backup QBs in games before they got out of hand. Back then, they got playing time late in the second quarter if we were way ahead, the starters would come out and start the third quarter again until we scored a few more TDs and then back ups would play the rest of the game.

 

I don't ever remember backup QBs being put in on a regular basis while games are tight and in question.

 

This entier..."we gotta get our backup QBs playing time in the first half no matter what" mantra is ridiculous. Name me the top teams in the country that do that.

The trick to get your backups playing time is to get way ahead to where there is no question we are going to win.

[The Dude]

Personally, I thought the insertion of Kellog in the Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan, and Michigan St games all hurt the early rythm Tommy had built. if you remember, Tommy started off pretty well in all those games with maybe the exception of Mich St.-and even then, when they didnt turn the ball over, they were moving the ball and flew down the field for a TD on the third possession. And Tommy wound up not playin so hot the rest of the game.

I agree with that. I had no problem with the 2-QB system itself, it just seemed like they would pull a guy as soon as he got into a rhythm. Kind of put us in a hole early against Northwestern.

[The Dude]

 

 

 

I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.

 

 

 

Not picking on you specifically with this, but this is such a funny example about how our fanbase goes back and forth.

 

 

For a long time we were overly frustrated with backups not having any "real" in-game experience, because Osborne used to get backups planned series in games before they were out of hand. Then when Taylor got the nod in 2010, the coaching staff started trying that with Cody Green; giving him a guaranteed drive or two in the first half, and when he sucked, everyone thought that it was the worst idea ever.

 

I don't remember Osborne putting backup QBs in games before they got out of hand. Back then, they got playing time late in the second quarter if we were way ahead, the starters would come out and start the third quarter again until we scored a few more TDs and then back ups would play the rest of the game.

 

I don't ever remember backup QBs being put in on a regular basis while games are tight and in question.

 

This entier..."we gotta get our backup QBs playing time in the first half no matter what" mantra is ridiculous. Name me the top teams in the country that do that.

The trick to get your backups playing time is to get way ahead to where there is no question we are going to win.

 

Yeah, ideally you want to get your back up experience during garbage time after you cruise to victory against teams like Wyoming, Northwestern, Iowa, and Minnesota. . .

 

. . . whoops.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

It might be because it's possible for there to be differing viewpoints within the fanbase.

I disagree.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

 

 

I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.

 

 

 

Not picking on you specifically with this, but this is such a funny example about how our fanbase goes back and forth.

 

 

For a long time we were overly frustrated with backups not having any "real" in-game experience, because Osborne used to get backups planned series in games before they were out of hand. Then when Taylor got the nod in 2010, the coaching staff started trying that with Cody Green; giving him a guaranteed drive or two in the first half, and when he sucked, everyone thought that it was the worst idea ever.

 

I don't remember Osborne putting backup QBs in games before they got out of hand. Back then, they got playing time late in the second quarter if we were way ahead, the starters would come out and start the third quarter again until we scored a few more TDs and then back ups would play the rest of the game.

 

I don't ever remember backup QBs being put in on a regular basis while games are tight and in question.

 

This entier..."we gotta get our backup QBs playing time in the first half no matter what" mantra is ridiculous. Name me the top teams in the country that do that.

The trick to get your backups playing time is to get way ahead to where there is no question we are going to win.

 

Yeah, ideally you want to get your back up experience during garbage time after you cruise to victory against teams like Wyoming, Northwestern, Iowa, and Minnesota. . .

 

. . . whoops.

 

and Southern Miss, South dakota St, Illinois, Purdue...........

 

There. FIFY

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.

 

 

Not picking on you specifically with this, but this is such a funny example about how our fanbase goes back and forth.

 

 

For a long time we were overly frustrated with backups not having any "real" in-game experience, because Osborne used to get backups planned series in games before they were out of hand. Then when Taylor got the nod in 2010, the coaching staff started trying that with Cody Green; giving him a guaranteed drive or two in the first half, and when he sucked, everyone thought that it was the worst idea ever.

I don't recall Osborne doing it that way. I remember him putting the back up in when we were up 28-0, and often times that was mid 2nd quarter so maybe it felt like it wasn't out of hand. It's possible I'm remembering wrong.

 

Anyhow, yea, it annoyed me when Green was put in. We were up 14-7 or whatever against Washington and Martinez was kicking butt and Green gets put in. Made no sense.

[zoogs]

I thought it was weird, what they did with Green. Right now we're talking about getting some guys' feet wet when they've never been out there before. That's a good coaching move, I think.

 

Green, at that point, had already started games in the previous season. They gave him starts and then pulled him. As a sophomore, they put him in more than once backed up on the 1-yard line, and then yank him immediately. I think the criticisms that this was odd and confidence-shattering were on point. But I'd be in full support of giving some time, garbage time or otherwise, in early games for both Ryker and Johnny.

[Mavric]

Personally, I thought the insertion of Kellog in the Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan, and Michigan St games all hurt the early rythm Tommy had built. if you remember, Tommy started off pretty well in all those games with maybe the exception of Mich St.-and even then, when they didnt turn the ball over, they were moving the ball and flew down the field for a TD on the third possession. And Tommy wound up not playin so hot the rest of the game.

 

Against Purdue, we scored a TD on the first possession then went three-and-out then he threw a pick before RKIII went in on the fourth possesion and we scored a TD.

Against Illinois, we scored TDs on the first two possessions, RKIII got a FG then TA lead another TD drive.

Against Northwestern, we scored a TD, went three-and-out, had a nice drive but missed a FG then RKIII went three-and-out before TA came back in and led a TD drive.

Against Michigan, we went punt, FG, TD then RKIII had a short drive but punted then TA went three-and-out.

Against Michigan State, we fumbled the fist possession then TA threw a pick.

 

I would say only against Michigan did it possibly disrupt our rythm. Against Purdue and Michigan State, TA wasn't getting a lot done and the other two he came right back out and led a TD drive so I don't see much disruption in any of the others.

[The Dude]

Against Northwestern, we scored a TD, went three-and-out, had a nice drive but missed a FG then RKIII went three-and-out before TA came back in and led a TD drive.

RKIII actually threw an INT deep in our own territory.

[Mavric]

 

Against Northwestern, we scored a TD, went three-and-out, had a nice drive but missed a FG then RKIII went three-and-out before TA came back in and led a TD drive.

RKIII actually threw an INT deep in our own territory.

 

 

Yep, you're right. Looked quickly and saw three plays.

[HUSKER FREAK]

IMO. We got an answer to all of the people in the past that often said "what would it hurt to put the back up in for a series of "real" game time". I think we found this out last season. I think when TA threw one pick the worst thing you can do is yank him out of the game for a learning experience. But, if he throws a pick/fumbles or two and shows real obvious signs of distress on the field (I don't think he would) then you pull him and try someone else.