Armstrong at QB

[Landlord]

My only real criticism of Tommy 3 games into his sophomore year is that he tends to fall away on his throws when there's pressure. I'd like to see him be able to stand in there firm even if he gets a few licks doing it.

 

 

Other than that, I think any other shortcomings are being improved upon and if they bite us against better competition, we can wait to actually criticize them until that happens.

[Stumpy1]

60% career completion rate in college

61% career completion rate in college

60% career completion rate in college

 

These 3 are from current QBs in the NFL that are considered to be the best at what they do...2 of them are sure HOFs.

 

We don't need a QB to have a high % rate for us to be good. He needs to be serviceable and able to move the chains when needed and not make tons of mistakes. We have that right now in Armstrong.

[TheSker]

Last month, Tom Osborne referred to two key areas......the field position battle via special teams and turnovers. These two things were top priorities during the offseason. Armstrong has not put the ball on the carpet, and has 1 INT through three games. That is improvement in a special area of focus.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

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

 

 

Osborne didn't have to throw a Freshman quarterback into a part-time starting role mid-season when his four year starter got injured very often, so it's hard to determine what he was willing to overlook, if by "overlook" you mean not yanking the quarterback out at the first sign of trouble, with no better option available.

Osborne certainly stuck with quarterbacks who threw more interceptions per attempt than Freshman Tommy Armstrong did last year, not to mention lower completion percentages, fewer yards per carry and fewer wins per start. This year Tommy appears to be doing better. Actually, Tommy Armstrong is doing everything we used to love in a quarterback, while nearly eliminating his turnovers. Again, it's a bit mystifying why we're not supposed to enjoy Tommy Armstrong too much.

If you're saying Tom Osborne would have started Cody Green, Zac Lee or Ron Kellogg III over Taylor Martinez.....I think he might have started Lee in 2010. I don't know if he would have maintained that stance, or if that would have been better for Nebraska football.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Underrated

 

Nebraska’s passing offense: The Huskers have Ameer Abdullah sitting at No. 2 in the league in rushing, which is no surprise. Abdullah led the Big Ten in rushing last season, and many believed he or Melvin Gordon would win the league rushing title again. The surprise on offense for Nebraska has been the success of Tommy Armstrong and the passing game. Armstrong is No. 4 in the league in passing yards per game at 257.7 yards and the Huskers are fourth in passing efficiency. Jordan Westerkamp and Kenny Bell are in the top 10 in receiving yards per game, and Armstrong is second in the league in total offense behind Christian Hackenberg. We knew the Huskers would be able to run, but their passing game has been better than expected.

http://247sports.com/Article/Big-Ten-OverratedUnderrated-31247998

[Dagerow]

Everybody has their own opinions and what's nice is we can (unless you are unable to view things objectively) see whose right over the course of this season.

[deedsker]

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.

I agree that he is young and can get better, but a lot of college quarterbacks careers boil down to 13 games or less. I think some people are less optimistic about TA's last three games due to the lack of competition faced. I am still cautiously optimistic, but holding out on Miami and Michigan State for a better understanding of his maturity. Until then, I can't really tell how much he has fixed and what he still may have major problems with.

 

If TA whips Miami and throws/runs for crazy stats, I would say he is well on his way.

[74Hunter]

 

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?

Great question. I guess in the limited time I've been able to watch and the circumstances involved, I've seen him clearly hit defenders in the hands a few tines and had a few more questionable balls that would have been swatted or picked had we played more talented teams. I've probably missed a few too due to the circumstances, so let's not act like ball security isn't still an issue, we've been lucky.

 

As another poster pointed out, for this offense to be lethal you need a 65% passer.

 

When I'm watching the game, I normally follow the ball. Quite frankly I wish I had the time and resources to sit down and watch the game 2 or 3 times and break things down but hell I don't even have the time to watch most games once, unfortunately.

 

So Guy, if you want to raise the funds to get me high def TV and DVR, that'd be great. I'll gladly accept,even if they'd be under utilized.

[The Dude]

As another poster pointed out, for this offense to be lethal you need a 65% passer.

 

Except it's not really true. At all.

[knapplc]

 

As another poster pointed out, for this offense to be lethal you need a 65% passer.

Except it's not really true. At all.

 

Yeah, that jumped out at me, too. We currently have a 50% passer at QB, and we've scored 55 points twice this year. That same QB is somewhere in the lower top 30 in all purpose yards, and we're in the top 50 in the nation in passing offense.

 

Warts and all, Tommy's doing just fine as a sophomore.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The creation of the 65% passer in recent years in both the NFL and NCAA is largely due to the West Coast offense, in which short, high percentage passes are used in place of running plays. Even then, the top metric for a high QB rating is yards per attempt and the biggest negative is interceptions. Tommy is doing all right three games into a career as undisputed starting quarterback.

 

I will absolutely guarantee you that Tommy Armstrong sh#ts the bed one of these games. Things that were going right will not go right. There will be interceptions. Fumbles. The offense will fall out of rhythm, or be forced out of its comfort zone. Tommy will share this experience with every other quarterback who has ever played the game. How he recovers in that game and over the season will determine his leadership creds.

 

For my money, he handled adversity pretty well as a freshman.

[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?

Great question. I guess in the limited time I've been able to watch and the circumstances involved, I've seen him clearly hit defenders in the hands a few tines and had a few more questionable balls that would have been swatted or picked had we played more talented teams. I've probably missed a few too due to the circumstances, so let's not act like ball security isn't still an issue, we've been lucky.

 

As another poster pointed out, for this offense to be lethal you need a 65% passer.

 

When I'm watching the game, I normally follow the ball. Quite frankly I wish I had the time and resources to sit down and watch the game 2 or 3 times and break things down but hell I don't even have the time to watch most games once, unfortunately.

 

So Guy, if you want to raise the funds to get me high def TV and DVR, that'd be great. I'll gladly accept,even if they'd be under utilized.

 

I'm not really interested in if you have HD TV or not. But, I find it interesting that you keep admitting that you really don't watch the games but then you claim you know what all of our problems are.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

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?

Great question. I guess in the limited time I've been able to watch and the circumstances involved, I've seen him clearly hit defenders in the hands a few tines and had a few more questionable balls that would have been swatted or picked had we played more talented teams. I've probably missed a few too due to the circumstances, so let's not act like ball security isn't still an issue, we've been lucky.

 

As another poster pointed out, for this offense to be lethal you need a 65% passer.

 

When I'm watching the game, I normally follow the ball. Quite frankly I wish I had the time and resources to sit down and watch the game 2 or 3 times and break things down but hell I don't even have the time to watch most games once, unfortunately.

 

So Guy, if you want to raise the funds to get me high def TV and DVR, that'd be great. I'll gladly accept,even if they'd be under utilized.

 

I'm not really interested in if you have HD TV or not. But, I find it interesting that you keep admitting that you really don't watch the games but then you claim you know what all of our problems are.

 

 

In fairness to Hunter, this phenomenon pretty much drives the Internet.

 

The poltical boards are even worse.

[junior4949]

 

 

 

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

 

 

Osborne didn't have to throw a Freshman quarterback into a part-time starting role mid-season when his four year starter got injured very often, so it's hard to determine what he was willing to overlook, if by "overlook" you mean not yanking the quarterback out at the first sign of trouble, with no better option available.

Osborne certainly stuck with quarterbacks who threw more interceptions per attempt than Freshman Tommy Armstrong did last year, not to mention lower completion percentages, fewer yards per carry and fewer wins per start. This year Tommy appears to be doing better. Actually, Tommy Armstrong is doing everything we used to love in a quarterback, while nearly eliminating his turnovers. Again, it's a bit mystifying why we're not supposed to enjoy Tommy Armstrong too much.

If you're saying Tom Osborne would have started Cody Green, Zac Lee or Ron Kellogg III over Taylor Martinez.....I think he might have started Lee in 2010. I don't know if he would have maintained that stance, or if that would have been better for Nebraska football.

 

 

The one thing most overlooked when trying to compare Armstrong to really any of those QB's in the TO era is the fact the QB wasn't nearly as big of part in the offense in the TO era. We went down to Manhattan, KS with a third string walkon playing the 16th ranked kittycats. We handled them just fine primarily because Turman didn't have to make all the zone reads and things the QB now has to do in this offense. Taylor Martinez would have excelled and more than likely hoisted a trophy or two had he been born two decades earlier. When I see Armstrong play, I see a player with a tremendous amount of upside. We'll know a lot more about his abilities in the next 30-45 days.

[74Hunter]

 

 

 

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?

Great question. I guess in the limited time I've been able to watch and the circumstances involved, I've seen him clearly hit defenders in the hands a few tines and had a few more questionable balls that would have been swatted or picked had we played more talented teams. I've probably missed a few too due to the circumstances, so let's not act like ball security isn't still an issue, we've been lucky.

As another poster pointed out, for this offense to be lethal you need a 65% passer.

When I'm watching the game, I normally follow the ball. Quite frankly I wish I had the time and resources to sit down and watch the game 2 or 3 times and break things down but hell I don't even have the time to watch most games once, unfortunately.

So Guy, if you want to raise the funds to get me high def TV and DVR, that'd be great. I'll gladly accept,even if they'd be under utilized.

I'm not really interested in if you have HD TV or not. But, I find it interesting that you keep admitting that you really don't watch the games but then you claim you know what all of our problems are.

Please show where I've said that I know all of the problems.

 

The bad part is I've seen enough to watch Tommy split the defender's numbers too much. No? If the stone hands defenders would have held on to the gifts they were given his TD/INT would be closer to 1/1. I didn't need a HDTV to see that.

 

So it's likely worse than I've seen.