Armstrong at QB

[True2tRA]

 

 

I'm just getting back to this conversation. I haven't had a chance to read through it but I just want to point out an observation I've had from some of MO Huskers comments and a few others on this board.

Nobody, not one person has said Tommy Armstrong is the second coming of Jesus or the next Joe Montana or whatever extreme some of you want to take this conversation to. The people in real support of Armstrong have simply said he's doing some damn good things in the running and passing game. He's set some pretty high numbers already. He is one a sophomore, he needs to improve and we expect him to do so. MO Husker literally quoted two comments, one from me and one from sd'sker, in the woodshed and both those comments said Tommy's done a nice job, but both comments also discussed improvement to be made. Yet the response to those comments completely ignored that aspect.

It seems to me the people taking this discussion to the extreme are the people refusing to give Tommy any credit whatsoever. And that's just ridiculous.

 

i am rewatching the fresno game and i already see improvement from tommy this year.

Good coaching, ay?

I'm hesitant to completely admit Beck has figured it out, but I will give him credit. Especially that Fresno game, I thought the play calling and the formations we used were awesome. Finally some creativity in the run game and the TE got some action too.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

 

 

i am rewatching the fresno game and i already see improvement from tommy this year.

 

I thought he played a very good game in Fresno. I was surprised and a little disappointed to see the high level of criticism after that game on this board.

 

Surprised? Are you new here?

[True2tRA]

 

i am rewatching the fresno game and i already see improvement from tommy this year.

 

I thought he played a very good game in Fresno. I was surprised and a little disappointed to see the high level of criticism after that game on this board.

This is exactly where I'm at. I have no problem with people saying Tommy has plenty to work on, I've said it myself. Especially in the mental aspect of it all. You can never break down enough film. Peyton Manning studies defenses and he's seen them all, Tommy isn't even close to seeing it all. Yet, the reluctance to give him credit around here for some of the fantastic plays he's made, it just baffles me. The kid deserves some credit.

[sd'sker]

 

 

i am rewatching the fresno game and i already see improvement from tommy this year.

 

I thought he played a very good game in Fresno. I was surprised and a little disappointed to see the high level of criticism after that game on this board.

 

he improved his completion percentage, made mostly good decisions, and threw few bad balls. some where off, but few were forced or way off.

 

that is why when people say they just want him to improve and then follow that with a bunch of criticisms that seem fairly unfounded, it is hard to take it too seriously.

 

i am excited to see how he does against miami. hopefully he continues to improve and the larger sample gives us a better picture. msu will be the true test, but he can get a lot better and we may be able to put together a pretty good gameplan by then.

[True2tRA]

One of the best stats aside from all the yards passing and rushing and the touchdowns, is the 1 turnover from Tommy. Its everything we Husker fans have been begging for for years now.

 

Throwing the ball away and throwing the ball in spots where only his receiver will get it or nobody will are both great things to see.

[Stumpy1]

Wasn't it just a few years ago that people were wanting us to strech the field with vertical passing?

 

Nothing is more demoralizing to a defense then giving up big plays whether it comes from vertical passing or big rushes and Pelini knows this and that is why we play the defense we do. I like the fact that Tommy is going down field more often and if it continues and he keeps connecting on at least 50% of them, defenses will have to start considering it. Could open up more of the short passing game and the running game. Tommy has definitly improved and it seems the team just plays better. My wife has made the comment a couple times that she thinks we look different and seem to play different when Tommy is in.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

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.

Thanks for typing they out.

 

Also, many times in the replay of the play they will show a front view of him before he throws the ball. Many times he is looking elsewhere before he looks and throws.

[74Hunter]

 

Oh yeah? How so? Where in this thread have it I beat the drum that Tommy should be replaced? I think I've said on numerous occasions that he is probably (sadly) the best we have so we're kind of stuck with him right now.

I think if you apply yourself to how you're wrong here, you'll get the answer you're demanding as to why you're wrong about the MSU game last year.

Are you saying that Tommys 4 turnovers weren't a major factor in that loss?

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

Oh yeah? How so? Where in this thread have it I beat the drum that Tommy should be replaced? I think I've said on numerous occasions that he is probably (sadly) the best we have so we're kind of stuck with him right now.

I think if you apply yourself to how you're wrong here, you'll get the answer you're demanding as to why you're wrong about the MSU game last year.

Are you saying that Tommys 4 turnovers weren't a major factor in that loss?

 

I thought some I've discussed the turnovers in that game pretty in depth and came to a conclusion that only one of his turnovers were 100% his fault as a boneheaded mistake. Newby dropped a pitch. Calhoun stripped Tommy, 100% great defensive play. Sometimes the OTHER guy just makes a play. Calling a pull play on the goal line, lineman knocks ball out of Tommy's hand. Really the int was the one that was just a boneheaded mistake. Of course theyre all mistakes, but shucks, any qb couldve been stripped by Calhoun, or have the ball knocked out by a pulling guard, or have your running back drop a pitch.

[74Hunter]

 

 

 

 

I don't see how people can be upset with the QB play at this point in the season. I'm sure Tommy would be the first person to tell you he'd want a few throws back but he's played really only one bad half so far this year. He's lead the team to a top 11 scoring offense and has the team sitting in the top 5 for yards per play. What more do you really want from him? At this point it seems like the only thing that is going to make some posters happy is a complete turnover in coaching staff and playing nothing but walk-ons for the entire season.

 

Let's wait and see what happens against a decent defense. As of now, his completion % is horrible, he's missed way too many wide open receivers, he doesn't check down enough, he's had too many potential INTs dropped, and this had led to too many 3 and outs with very little sustained scoring drives.

Against decent defenses when his ypc drops back to 3 yards, those INTs aren't dropped, those missed opportunities could be a killer. Also , not being able to sustain drives is going to hurt the defense, especially the DL late in the year when they're beat up.

Edit: he als likely won't have a nice clean pocket like he has had the first 3 games.

His completion percentage isn't even close to "horrible". If we're going to play the "potential INT's" card, then the "dropped by his receivers" card means TA's completion percentage is 60+%. Your first paragraph is all your own opinion - and I disagree.

 

The rest of your post is rampant speculation. I could just as easily speculate that TA will play better against better defenses; therefore, more sustained drives and stuff.

 

Your post just seems like you're looking for things to criticize.

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).

30 years ago, a 55% completion percentage was considered pretty good, but nowadays with QBs regularly completing 65 to 70% of their passes, 52% isn't good regardless of the system they run. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

The 10 ypc was yards per carry, not completion. Sorry.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

 

 

 

Oh yeah? How so? Where in this thread have it I beat the drum that Tommy should be replaced? I think I've said on numerous occasions that he is probably (sadly) the best we have so we're kind of stuck with him right now.

 

I think if you apply yourself to how you're wrong here, you'll get the answer you're demanding as to why you're wrong about the MSU game last year.

Are you saying that Tommys 4 turnovers weren't a major factor in that loss?

I thought some I've discussed the turnovers in that game pretty in depth and came to a conclusion that only one of his turnovers were 100% his fault as a boneheaded mistake. Newby dropped a pitch. Calhoun stripped Tommy, 100% great defensive play. Sometimes the OTHER guy just makes a play. Calling a pull play on the goal line, lineman knocks ball out of Tommy's hand. Really the int was the one that was just a boneheaded mistake. Of course theyre all mistakes, but shucks, any qb couldve been stripped by Calhoun, or have the ball knocked out by a pulling guard, or have your running back drop a pitch.

This logic chips away at the foundation of his whole argument. Stop it. He won't have anything else to do without it. It's like letting your kid bang away at a pot with a wooden spoon. Annoying as hell, but while you need to be left alone, it serves a purpose.

[SouthLincoln Husker]

 

 

 

Oh yeah? How so? Where in this thread have it I beat the drum that Tommy should be replaced? I think I've said on numerous occasions that he is probably (sadly) the best we have so we're kind of stuck with him right now.

I think if you apply yourself to how you're wrong here, you'll get the answer you're demanding as to why you're wrong about the MSU game last year.

Are you saying that Tommys 4 turnovers weren't a major factor in that loss?

 

I thought some I've discussed the turnovers in that game pretty in depth and came to a conclusion that only one of his turnovers were 100% his fault as a boneheaded mistake. Newby dropped a pitch. Calhoun stripped Tommy, 100% great defensive play. Sometimes the OTHER guy just makes a play. Calling a pull play on the goal line, lineman knocks ball out of Tommy's hand. Really the int was the one that was just a boneheaded mistake. Of course theyre all mistakes, but shucks, any qb couldve been stripped by Calhoun, or have the ball knocked out by a pulling guard, or have your running back drop a pitch.

 

There are always haters and no matter what facts are provided nothing will change!

[74Hunter]

 

 

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.

[SouthLincoln Husker]

 

 

 

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.

 

How did you come up with this comparison? Most of these guys never threw as many passes in a season as Tommy has thrown in the first 3 games. Plus, they were in a totally different offenses that relied heavily on the run and play action. Apples & Oranges

[TheSker]

 

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.