Armstrong at QB

[SouthLincoln Husker]

 

 

I'm trying to figure out where over the last 3 years in what bizzaro world a 52% passer who has a habit of hitting the defenders right in their hands is good or very good, yet a 63% passer sucked.

 

The way this is worded is extreme and slanted. One of the top priorities this season is the reduction of turnovers, whether by INT or fumble. The completion percentage does not reflect our improvement (thus far) in the turnover category.......which is one of the more telling categories for wins and losses.

 

What is missing is the fact that he is 29th in QB rating and 39th in rushing. The questions lies in how many passes were dropped and how many were thrown away. Terrible is the wrong term and every player on this team needs improvement. To me this sounds like a bashing.

[Hunter94]

at least the kid has decent throwing motion, Tmart threw like a girl......but Tommie lacks discipline and reads....although he may be getting better, he is far from a natural.

yes, he needs a chance to get better.

[BigRedBuster]

 

1. I guess you're able to see something that I'm not, or you're watching for it and I'm not. In my defense I had to watch the first quarter and a half of FAU game on a tv 2 houses away, and the rest of it through a crowded party. The second game was at a bar where the best tv was about 20 feet away, and last game was (what little I caught) was on a grainy stream in the middle of a wedding reception. Hopefully I'll be able to actually catch this week's game where I can see it better.

 

 

 

Don't take this as me acting like an expert by any stretch. You may even think I'm a freak for this. But, I DVR just about every game and will rewatch it as many as three times. If it's an 11:00 or 2:30 game, many times late Saturday I will quickly watch it again fast forwarding through all the crap. Usually takes about an hour. I will watch key plays several times looking to see what worked and what didn't. Then, if I have questions about the offense or defense, I will fast forward through it just watching that side of the ball and sometimes just watching a player or group that I want to see what they are doing.

 

My question is, how can you make sweeping judgements on how a player is doing when you sort of have watched the games and couldn't really see them even the first time?

[junior4949]

 

 

 

Let's clear up one thing.

 

Tommy checks down on receivers.

 

Unless he sees his primary receiver getting separation, which often happens. It's a good thing. It's why he's the primary receiver. Also a sign the pass protection is working.

 

Sometimes Tommy even looks off a receiver as strategy. He completes those second look passes least as often as he misses a wide-open receiver.

 

Honestly don't know what games you guys are watching.

 

 

The comparison to Frazier, Frost and Crouch's completion percentage is perfectly relevant. We all want that percentage to go up, but to declare it a failure in this particular "system" is ludicrous.

1) I honestly don't know how from tv shots you can see his head or eyes move through his progressions. Unless you've got a different view than I do, or maybe your tv has better definition than mine, I'm not sure you can make that distinction.

2) Oh,and if you don't know the differences from the Osbone and Solich offenses and Becks offense in regards to passing, then I highly over estimated your knowledge of football.

1) Tommy drops back to pass. You see him looking downfield. Then he turns his head and body and throws the ball to his secondary receiver. Sometimes his third. It's actually hard NOT to notice. The announcers notice, too, and sometimes mention it. If you, on the other hand, CAN'T make that distinction, how can you assert that Tommy doesn't move through his progressions?

 

2) Osborne and Solich passed less than Beck. Which was good, because Frazier, Frost, Crouch weren't very good passers. But those teams were always measured by their passing efficiency as it served a run-first offense. In which case 50% could be considered acceptable, but only because we were winning a lot of games for a lot of other reasons. And so Frazier, Frost and Crouch didn't take as much shite as you're inclined to give Armstrong here. In Beck's offense, which passes more than Osborne's, but still runs more than it passes, it's still a matter of efficiency, and 55% with 9.0 yards per attempt makes Nebraska a legitimate dual threat offense. It's cause for optimism, not hand-wringing. If you don't think Tom Osborne and Frank Solich would have started Tommy Armstrong over 75% of their quarterbacks, you may want to revisit your Husker history.

1. I guess you're able to see something that I'm not, or you're watching for it and I'm not. In my defense I had to watch the first quarter and a half of FAU game on a tv 2 houses away, and the rest of it through a crowded party. The second game was at a bar where the best tv was about 20 feet away, and last game was (what little I caught) was on a grainy stream in the middle of a wedding reception. Hopefully I'll be able to actually catch this week's game where I can see it better.

 

2). The 52% is a big reason why we've had so much feast or famine this year, so many 3 and outs.of you don't see that as s problem, then I don't know what to say.

 

As for who Tommy would start over....

 

Frazier...nope

Berriinger....nope

Steve Taylor...nope

Crouch....nope

Gill....nope

Gdowski....nope

McCant....doubtful

Frost.....doubtful

Newcombe....doubtful

Lord....doubtful

Sundberg....toss up

Clayton. ....toss up

Grant.....toss up

Joseph...toss up

Christo.....probably

 

It looks like again, we're not going to agree, so I'll leave it with this:

 

I'm trying to figure out where over the last 3 years in what bizzaro world a 52% passer who has a habit of hitting the defenders right in their hands is good or very good, yet a 63% passer sucked.

 

 

There's only about four players you mentioned I wouldn't put Tommy Armstrong over: Gill, Frazier, Frost, and Crouch. Things to keep in consideration. Armstrong isn't playing behind near the OL almost all of the players you mentioned. Plus, he's only a sophomore where as you're comparing him to players and things they accomplished by their senior year. Armstrong is young, and his inexperience does concern me a bit. However, our OL's inability to push a FCA defense around bothers me significantly more.

[The Dude]

I'm trying to figure out where over the last 3 years in what bizzaro world a 52% passer who has a habit of hitting the defenders right in their hands is good or very good, yet a 63% passer sucked.

 

Yards per pass attempt is pretty much the best statistic to truly gauge how effective a passer is (yes, this stat includes incompletions). At 53.1%, Tommy is averaging 9.54 yards per attempt. At 62.7%, Taylor was averaging only 6.1 yards per attempt. So it's not any bizzaro world, it's the real world where a passer with a lower completion percentage can be a more effective passer.

 

By the way, I know I'm probably pissing into the wind here, but it's worth a shot.

 

Also, I should point out I think both Tommy and Taylor are/were good QBs, but for different reasons.

[deedsker]

 

 

 

1. I guess you're able to see something that I'm not, or you're watching for it and I'm not. In my defense I had to watch the first quarter and a half of FAU game on a tv 2 houses away, and the rest of it through a crowded party. The second game was at a bar where the best tv was about 20 feet away, and last game was (what little I caught) was on a grainy stream in the middle of a wedding reception. Hopefully I'll be able to actually catch this week's game where I can see it better.

 

 

 

 

Don't take this as me acting like an expert by any stretch. You may even think I'm a freak for this. But, I DVR just about every game and will rewatch it as many as three times. If it's an 11:00 or 2:30 game, many times late Saturday I will quickly watch it again fast forwarding through all the crap. Usually takes about an hour. I will watch key plays several times looking to see what worked and what didn't. Then, if I have questions about the offense or defense, I will fast forward through it just watching that side of the ball and sometimes just watching a player or group that I want to see what they are doing.

 

My question is, how can you make sweeping judgements on how a player is doing when you sort of have watched the games and couldn't really see them even the first time?

Yep, I do something similar. I usually look into things people are calling out or have players I saw flashes of when originally watched the game (good or bad). I don't like making too many comments until I rewatched everything at least once to get a better grasp of breakdowns or successes.

[QMany]

 

I'm trying to figure out where over the last 3 years in what bizzaro world a 52% passer who has a habit of hitting the defenders right in their hands is good or very good, yet a 63% passer sucked.

 

Yards per pass attempt is pretty much the best statistic to truly gauge how effective a passer is (yes, this stat includes incompletions). At 53.1%, Tommy is averaging 9.54 yards per attempt. At 62.7%, Taylor was averaging only 6.1 yards per attempt. So it's not any bizzaro world, it's the real world where a passer with a lower completion percentage can be a more effective passer.

 

By the way, I know I'm probably pissing into the wind here, but it's worth a shot.

 

Also, I should point out I think both Tommy and Taylor are/were good QBs, but for different reasons.

Good points, Dude. Tommy's YPA was 7.3 last year, which isn't terrible at all. I hope he maintains the 9.5 YPA. Tommy seems to prefer the long ball, which is inherently going to have more YPA and a lower completion percentage. YPA can be deceiving though, and isn't necessarily a great stat if you're not moving the chains with some regularity. (Not saying TA doesn't).

[Mavric]

 

 

I'm trying to figure out where over the last 3 years in what bizzaro world a 52% passer who has a habit of hitting the defenders right in their hands is good or very good, yet a 63% passer sucked.

 

Yards per pass attempt is pretty much the best statistic to truly gauge how effective a passer is (yes, this stat includes incompletions). At 53.1%, Tommy is averaging 9.54 yards per attempt. At 62.7%, Taylor was averaging only 6.1 yards per attempt. So it's not any bizzaro world, it's the real world where a passer with a lower completion percentage can be a more effective passer.

 

By the way, I know I'm probably pissing into the wind here, but it's worth a shot.

 

Also, I should point out I think both Tommy and Taylor are/were good QBs, but for different reasons.

Good points, Dude. Tommy's YPA was 7.3 last year, which isn't terrible at all. I hope he maintains the 9.5 YPA. Tommy seems to prefer the long ball, which is inherently going to have more YPA and a lower completion percentage. YPA can be deceiving though, and isn't necessarily a great stat if you're not moving the chains with some regularity. (Not saying TA doesn't).

 

 

Agree with both. The only question I have is similar to QMany's caveat that he hopes it stays up there. It is easier to keep the YPA steady on shorter, more precise passes as the level of your competition improves. If we stay up in the 8/9 range when we the other teams can put athletes on the field that are more comparable to our own, we'll be in great shape.

[RedDenver]

 

 

In this offense, his completion percentage is horrible. Fact.

If you or anyone else isn't concerned about him putting the ball in defenders hands then I'll just shake my head in disbelief. He won't continue to be as lucky as he has by having them dropped.

And I'll bet you that he doesn't average 10 ypc against MSU.

Umm... you're even wrong on what a fact is. And your opinion does not match descriptions of a vertical passing game: Air Coryell

 

Or we may in fact believe that the future is not set. Possible TA does not throw into coverage as much is just as likely as that he does and the defense catches more of them. Past amount of lucky does not guarantee future amount of luck.

 

I think he'll get 10 ypc against MSU - he's currently at 18.0 (773 yards and 43 completions). You might have meant ypa, which I'd agree is unlikely, since he's currently 9.54 ypa (773 on 81 attempts).

52% isn't good regardless of the system they run.

 

There's the opinion I disagree with most - that you don't think passing system matters for completion percentage. And yes, we'll just have to disagree.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Independent college football analysts seem impressed by Tommy Armstrong and the Nebraska offense. They are well aware of his youth and liabilities, but the arrow is pointing upward.

 

Until proven otherwise, I see no reason not to enjoy this.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

Let's clear up one thing.

 

Tommy checks down on receivers.

 

Unless he sees his primary receiver getting separation, which often happens. It's a good thing. It's why he's the primary receiver. Also a sign the pass protection is working.

 

Sometimes Tommy even looks off a receiver as strategy. He completes those second look passes least as often as he misses a wide-open receiver.

 

Honestly don't know what games you guys are watching.

 

 

The comparison to Frazier, Frost and Crouch's completion percentage is perfectly relevant. We all want that percentage to go up, but to declare it a failure in this particular "system" is ludicrous.

1) I honestly don't know how from tv shots you can see his head or eyes move through his progressions. Unless you've got a different view than I do, or maybe your tv has better definition than mine, I'm not sure you can make that distinction.

2) Oh,and if you don't know the differences from the Osbone and Solich offenses and Becks offense in regards to passing, then I highly over estimated your knowledge of football.

1) Tommy drops back to pass. You see him looking downfield. Then he turns his head and body and throws the ball to his secondary receiver. Sometimes his third. It's actually hard NOT to notice. The announcers notice, too, and sometimes mention it. If you, on the other hand, CAN'T make that distinction, how can you assert that Tommy doesn't move through his progressions?

 

2) Osborne and Solich passed less than Beck. Which was good, because Frazier, Frost, Crouch weren't very good passers. But those teams were always measured by their passing efficiency as it served a run-first offense. In which case 50% could be considered acceptable, but only because we were winning a lot of games for a lot of other reasons. And so Frazier, Frost and Crouch didn't take as much shite as you're inclined to give Armstrong here. In Beck's offense, which passes more than Osborne's, but still runs more than it passes, it's still a matter of efficiency, and 55% with 9.0 yards per attempt makes Nebraska a legitimate dual threat offense. It's cause for optimism, not hand-wringing. If you don't think Tom Osborne and Frank Solich would have started Tommy Armstrong over 75% of their quarterbacks, you may want to revisit your Husker history.

1. I guess you're able to see something that I'm not, or you're watching for it and I'm not. In my defense I had to watch the first quarter and a half of FAU game on a tv 2 houses away, and the rest of it through a crowded party. The second game was at a bar where the best tv was about 20 feet away, and last game was (what little I caught) was on a grainy stream in the middle of a wedding reception. Hopefully I'll be able to actually catch this week's game where I can see it better.

 

2). The 52% is a big reason why we've had so much feast or famine this year, so many 3 and outs.of you don't see that as s problem, then I don't know what to say.

 

As for who Tommy would start over....

 

Frazier...nope

Berriinger....nope

Steve Taylor...nope

Crouch....nope

Gill....nope

Gdowski....nope

McCant....doubtful

Frost.....doubtful

Newcombe....doubtful

Lord....doubtful

Sundberg....toss up

Clayton. ....toss up

Grant.....toss up

Joseph...toss up

Christo.....probably

 

It looks like again, we're not going to agree, so I'll leave it with this:

 

I'm trying to figure out where over the last 3 years in what bizzaro world a 52% passer who has a habit of hitting the defenders right in their hands is good or very good, yet a 63% passer sucked.

 

 

I watched every quarterback of the Osborne/Solich era play. I can guarantee you that Tommy Armstrong would not have sat on the bench while 75% of them started. Tom Osborne would have drooled over Tommy's skill set. Probably still does. Solich would have benched Lord immediately if Armstrong was an option. The qualities you don't like in Armstrong were far more evident in several of the QBs you list here, and many of them clearly lacked Armstrong's raw talent.

 

I think we all need to chip in and buy you an HD TV.

[suh_fan93]

 

 

 

 

Let's clear up one thing.

 

Tommy checks down on receivers.

 

Unless he sees his primary receiver getting separation, which often happens. It's a good thing. It's why he's the primary receiver. Also a sign the pass protection is working.

 

Sometimes Tommy even looks off a receiver as strategy. He completes those second look passes least as often as he misses a wide-open receiver.

 

Honestly don't know what games you guys are watching.

 

 

The comparison to Frazier, Frost and Crouch's completion percentage is perfectly relevant. We all want that percentage to go up, but to declare it a failure in this particular "system" is ludicrous.

1) I honestly don't know how from tv shots you can see his head or eyes move through his progressions. Unless you've got a different view than I do, or maybe your tv has better definition than mine, I'm not sure you can make that distinction.

2) Oh,and if you don't know the differences from the Osbone and Solich offenses and Becks offense in regards to passing, then I highly over estimated your knowledge of football.

1) Tommy drops back to pass. You see him looking downfield. Then he turns his head and body and throws the ball to his secondary receiver. Sometimes his third. It's actually hard NOT to notice. The announcers notice, too, and sometimes mention it. If you, on the other hand, CAN'T make that distinction, how can you assert that Tommy doesn't move through his progressions?

 

2) Osborne and Solich passed less than Beck. Which was good, because Frazier, Frost, Crouch weren't very good passers. But those teams were always measured by their passing efficiency as it served a run-first offense. In which case 50% could be considered acceptable, but only because we were winning a lot of games for a lot of other reasons. And so Frazier, Frost and Crouch didn't take as much shite as you're inclined to give Armstrong here. In Beck's offense, which passes more than Osborne's, but still runs more than it passes, it's still a matter of efficiency, and 55% with 9.0 yards per attempt makes Nebraska a legitimate dual threat offense. It's cause for optimism, not hand-wringing. If you don't think Tom Osborne and Frank Solich would have started Tommy Armstrong over 75% of their quarterbacks, you may want to revisit your Husker history.

1. I guess you're able to see something that I'm not, or you're watching for it and I'm not. In my defense I had to watch the first quarter and a half of FAU game on a tv 2 houses away, and the rest of it through a crowded party. The second game was at a bar where the best tv was about 20 feet away, and last game was (what little I caught) was on a grainy stream in the middle of a wedding reception. Hopefully I'll be able to actually catch this week's game where I can see it better.

 

2). The 52% is a big reason why we've had so much feast or famine this year, so many 3 and outs.of you don't see that as s problem, then I don't know what to say.

 

As for who Tommy would start over....

 

Frazier...nope

Berriinger....nope

Steve Taylor...nope

Crouch....nope

Gill....nope

Gdowski....nope

McCant....doubtful

Frost.....doubtful

Newcombe....doubtful

Lord....doubtful

Sundberg....toss up

Clayton. ....toss up

Grant.....toss up

Joseph...toss up

Christo.....probably

 

It looks like again, we're not going to agree, so I'll leave it with this:

 

I'm trying to figure out where over the last 3 years in what bizzaro world a 52% passer who has a habit of hitting the defenders right in their hands is good or very good, yet a 63% passer sucked.

 

 

I watched every quarterback of the Osborne/Solich era play. I can guarantee you that Tommy Armstrong would not have sat on the bench while 75% of them started. Tom Osborne would have drooled over Tommy's skill set. Probably still does.

 

 

There is no way Osborne would have overlooked the turnovers the way Pelini has with his last 2 quarterbacks. Not a chance.

[True2tRA]

 

 

 

 

Let's clear up one thing.

 

Tommy checks down on receivers.

 

Unless he sees his primary receiver getting separation, which often happens. It's a good thing. It's why he's the primary receiver. Also a sign the pass protection is working.

 

Sometimes Tommy even looks off a receiver as strategy. He completes those second look passes least as often as he misses a wide-open receiver.

 

Honestly don't know what games you guys are watching.

 

 

The comparison to Frazier, Frost and Crouch's completion percentage is perfectly relevant. We all want that percentage to go up, but to declare it a failure in this particular "system" is ludicrous.

 

1) I honestly don't know how from tv shots you can see his head or eyes move through his progressions. Unless you've got a different view than I do, or maybe your tv has better definition than mine, I'm not sure you can make that distinction.

2) Oh,and if you don't know the differences from the Osbone and Solich offenses and Becks offense in regards to passing, then I highly over estimated your knowledge of football.

1) Tommy drops back to pass. You see him looking downfield. Then he turns his head and body and throws the ball to his secondary receiver. Sometimes his third. It's actually hard NOT to notice. The announcers notice, too, and sometimes mention it. If you, on the other hand, CAN'T make that distinction, how can you assert that Tommy doesn't move through his progressions?

 

2) Osborne and Solich passed less than Beck. Which was good, because Frazier, Frost, Crouch weren't very good passers. But those teams were always measured by their passing efficiency as it served a run-first offense. In which case 50% could be considered acceptable, but only because we were winning a lot of games for a lot of other reasons. And so Frazier, Frost and Crouch didn't take as much shite as you're inclined to give Armstrong here. In Beck's offense, which passes more than Osborne's, but still runs more than it passes, it's still a matter of efficiency, and 55% with 9.0 yards per attempt makes Nebraska a legitimate dual threat offense. It's cause for optimism, not hand-wringing. If you don't think Tom Osborne and Frank Solich would have started Tommy Armstrong over 75% of their quarterbacks, you may want to revisit your Husker history.

1. I guess you're able to see something that I'm not, or you're watching for it and I'm not. In my defense I had to watch the first quarter and a half of FAU game on a tv 2 houses away, and the rest of it through a crowded party. The second game was at a bar where the best tv was about 20 feet away, and last game was (what little I caught) was on a grainy stream in the middle of a wedding reception. Hopefully I'll be able to actually catch this week's game where I can see it better.

2). The 52% is a big reason why we've had so much feast or famine this year, so many 3 and outs.of you don't see that as s problem, then I don't know what to say.

As for who Tommy would start over....

Frazier...nope

Berriinger....nope

Steve Taylor...nope

Crouch....nope

Gill....nope

Gdowski....nope

McCant....doubtful

Frost.....doubtful

Newcombe....doubtful

Lord....doubtful

Sundberg....toss up

Clayton. ....toss up

Grant.....toss up

Joseph...toss up

Christo.....probably

It looks like again, we're not going to agree, so I'll leave it with this:

I'm trying to figure out where over the last 3 years in what bizzaro world a 52% passer who has a habit of hitting the defenders right in their hands is good or very good, yet a 63% passer sucked.

I watched every quarterback of the Osborne/Solich era play. I can guarantee you that Tommy Armstrong would not have sat on the bench while 75% of them started. Tom Osborne would have drooled over Tommy's skill set. Probably still does. Solich would have benched Lord immediately if Armstrong was an option. The qualities you don't like in Armstrong were far more evident in several of the QBs you list here, and many of them clearly lacked Armstrong's raw talent.

 

I think we all need to chip in and buy you an HD TV.

I am one hundred percent on board with this. Armstrong will figure out all the mental stuff, hell he already is growing in that aspect. Armstrong has the unteachable things. He is the first true dual threat Nebraska has probably ever had. I know I've said that a hundred times but I believe it.

 

People think I'm going overboard on my belief in this kid. I saw some special things from the word go last year. This guy is the real deal in my opinion.

[lo country]

Had this discussion before comparing NU greats. The Hypesman in Crouch, MNC's with Tommie and Scott etc........They were "horrible" passers, but great QB's.

 

TA is that same type of QB even in different systems. The thing being (thanks Junior) is that Beck's system requires a QB who can get to that 65-70% completion rate to be lethal. We don't have that. Yet. TA is doing a very good job as it relates to TD's vs INT's, sacks, throwing it away etc...., but in Beck ball, he needs to be able to routinely hit the shorter passes to really execute Beck's O IMO.

 

TO was predicated on the PA, rolling out and the long passes to keep the D honest. Beck, not so much. He still likes to use the gun and stand in the pocket, go through progressions and hit the man. TA doesn't have that skill set yet.

 

IMO, completion percentage isn't as important as what he does with those he completes.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

Can we please stop comparing TA to QBs that had full careers. TA isn't a finished product. Why is that so hard for people to grasp. He will get better. I PROMISE. If he loses 4 or 5 games this year and then loses a couple early next year then im on the TA needs to be replaced trip with the rest of you. But I don't see that happening. I think hes gonna be a great Husker. Thing is, let him grow. Let him mold your opinion along the way. Don't rush to judgement on the kid after 10 games. Of which hes lost 1. Coulda woulda shoulda. Guess what HE WON ALL BUT 1. If you've already jumped off the TA bandwagon, good. The mods should pin your profile somewhere with your most douche TA hating quote. Then if he ends up being a great one, you can voluntarily kick rocks.