Spring Quarterback Competition

[Stumpy1]

 

Under Bo's system, the DL stood around, and the QBs didn't feel any pressure. .

 

According to media reports from practice last spring, this would be more than slightly incorrect.

 

Did you watch any games? Our DL has been less then scary the last couple years.

[Hedley Lamarr]

 

 

 

 

Under Bo's system, the DL stood around, and the QBs didn't feel any pressure. .

 

According to media reports from practice last spring, this would be more than slightly incorrect.

Did you watch any games? Our DL has been less then scary the last couple years.

Against our OL they have been world beaters

[Hayseed]

Will be interesting to see what we find out (if anything).

 

I think Sipple is onto something.........the more I hear, the more I think AJ Bush will be the guy.

[Mavric]

CALL FOR BACKUP

In practice, redshirt freshman AJ Bush has stood out for his relative comfort in some of the basics of a Riley/Langsdorf offense, his arm strength and his accuracy when throwing on the run. Bush is raw and inexperienced, but intriguing. Johnny Stanton, a ballyhooed recruit, can lack confidence and decisiveness as a passer, but he’s still the unit’s most physical runner. Ryker Fyfe, last season’s backup, will have to put in a strong two weeks to keep that spot. Tyson Broekemeier and Zack Darlington are options as a passer and decision-maker, respectively.

PROVE-IT PLAYER

Stanton. His throwing motion is more deliberate than the rest. Combined with some hesitancy as a thrower, Stanton has to turn it on in the second half of spring. He has many of the right tools, and he’s clearly sharp.

 

OWH

[SouthLincoln Husker]

 

Will be interesting to see what we find out (if anything).

 

I think Sipple is onto something.........the more I hear, the more I think AJ Bush will be the guy.

 

Remember Bush has been practicing against the 2nd team defense. He has showed good, but has problems with pressure and this is why they are keeping him from the first team defense. He is great athlete, but he will most likely be sitting #3 in depth charts by the end of spring.

[admo]

 

CALL FOR BACKUP

In practice, redshirt freshman AJ Bush has stood out for his relative comfort in some of the basics of a Riley/Langsdorf offense, his arm strength and his accuracy when throwing on the run. Bush is raw and inexperienced, but intriguing. Johnny Stanton, a ballyhooed recruit, can lack confidence and decisiveness as a passer, but he’s still the unit’s most physical runner. Ryker Fyfe, last season’s backup, will have to put in a strong two weeks to keep that spot. Tyson Broekemeier and Zack Darlington are options as a passer and decision-maker, respectively.

PROVE-IT PLAYER

Stanton. His throwing motion is more deliberate than the rest. Combined with some hesitancy as a thrower, Stanton has to turn it on in the second half of spring. He has many of the right tools, and he’s clearly sharp.

 

OWH

 

Langsdorf "The Coach" - he values good decision-making and passing accuracy.

 

Isn't this the key to this new offense that will ultimately determine success or failure? Can TA do that this season as an upperclassman? Aren't these coaches readily available to work with him? I know it's a lot on Tommy right now, but there's ample time and it's really up to him to develop into that.

[True2tRA]

Play the most consistent guy. The guy who turns the ball over least. There's no reason this staff goes any other direction, regardless of talent, leadership, seniority or other, is there?

 

Turnovers have plagued this team for years now. Turnovers lose games, period.

 

These guys are all starting over. It doesn't matter who is more athletic or who has done wht IMO. If Tommy is not hitting his own receivers and hitting them in stride, it's been made pretty clear that A.J. Bush can. So who picks up the system first and at what point do we find out who that guy is?

 

It could be learned in practice or it could take a few games. Whoever it is, they can't be a liability to this team.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

The offensive line and the running game can make ordinary qbs look great. I think that's the recipe for the team at least until Riley gets a Qb that fits his system a little better.

[Hunter94]

The offensive line and the running game can make ordinary qbs look great. I think that's the recipe for the team at least until Riley gets a Qb that fits his system a little better.

to some degree, but we need a qb that can make the throws and look off his receivers without telegraphing his target, INT's.

[alexhortdog95]

 

Will be interesting to see what we find out (if anything).

 

I think Sipple is onto something.........the more I hear, the more I think AJ Bush will be the guy.

 

 

I can believe Sipple as far as I can throw him. Sip said this too after the Wisconsin debacle last year:

 

 

No way anybody could've seen this coming. No way, no how.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/sports/college/football/steven-m-sipple-bo-pelini-s-nebraska-program-should-be/article_ac41e798-06d8-5d59-8a9e-9b60a5f6dec4.html#ixzz3VtgzDTEi

 

Uh, no Sip. We all saw this coming.

[husker98]

 

 

 

 

So our QBs need to complete a higher percentage, throw fewer INTs, make better decisions and read defenses better.

 

Other than that, we're golden.

Kind of what I was thinking.

How many position groups are basically erasing everything and re-learning it all though? Probably every one of them.

I truly don't believe in much the former staff was doing.

 

 

All of them, but let's be honest. In today's day and age of college football, the good players are just able to play period. Our last two heisman winners were freshmen, as example. More and more schemes are being simplified down into, essentially, drawing lines in the sand kind of playground ball, and players are thriving in them.

The last staff literally contradicts almost every word of what you just wrote. The best players weren't always able to get on the field. Their schemes weren't being simplified, at all. Matter of fact, we tried to do a little bit of everything.

 

Also, those two freshman Heisman winners are pretty special players.

 

I see what you're trying to say, but this statement of yours really devalues teaching and player development. You being a Stanton fan, I'd say you'd hope he proves your theory of "good players play" wrong considering he has been evaluated by two staffs now.

 

Different players fit different systems. A guy that may have played under Pelini may or play for Banker or Langsdorf. This is why recruiting is important, evaluating is important, and coaching changes are a big deal.

 

 

 

The last staff didn't do a good job, and a big part of that, according to the perspective of many, is that they tried too hard to coach the players up. How many times would we see someone make a really nice, natural, athletic play, and never see the field again?

 

Obviously not everyone fits in every scenario. My point is, in 2015, and seeing the success of teams like Auburn and Oregon and Baylor and others with these very simplified but deadly offenses, I'm a tiny bit wary of any kind of system that necessitates a lot of coaching up. In the same way that different players fit different systems, different systems fit different eras. I'm hoping Riley and co.'s can still fit today.

 

 

Where did you read or learn that Auburn, Oregon, and Baylor run simplified offenses?

I've taken the time to read through the available material on Oregon's offense and I can assure you it is anything but 'simplified'. The same can be said for your other schools. What has made them so successful on Offense is the hurry up no huddle and execution. You will consistently see those teams among the best in turnover margin, Oregon was among the best in the nation in that category if my memory serves me right.

 

But what your failing to take into account here is that not a one of those teams you listed with their 'deadly offenses' have won a national title with their current head coach out side of Auburn, and even then that was when Malzahn was OC for Aubrun under chizik.

Each of those teams have in the past been confronted by a great defensive team, other than Baylor in their buttercup conference, and had their asses whipped in front of god and everyone. Oregon's juggernaut offense has had it's ass beaten by the better Stanford and USC teams just in it's own conference, and then lets not forget the National title c$%k kick that Ohio State laid on them.

 

All of these systems take a significant amount of coaching up. There is no recruit, plug in, and profit. And those that start as freshmen are starting either because they did the work, or their team is thin at their position and needed the help. Not because the offense is 'simplified'.

[Landlord]

 

 

 

 

 

So our QBs need to complete a higher percentage, throw fewer INTs, make better decisions and read defenses better.

 

Other than that, we're golden.

Kind of what I was thinking.

How many position groups are basically erasing everything and re-learning it all though? Probably every one of them.

I truly don't believe in much the former staff was doing.

 

 

All of them, but let's be honest. In today's day and age of college football, the good players are just able to play period. Our last two heisman winners were freshmen, as example. More and more schemes are being simplified down into, essentially, drawing lines in the sand kind of playground ball, and players are thriving in them.

The last staff literally contradicts almost every word of what you just wrote. The best players weren't always able to get on the field. Their schemes weren't being simplified, at all. Matter of fact, we tried to do a little bit of everything.

 

Also, those two freshman Heisman winners are pretty special players.

 

I see what you're trying to say, but this statement of yours really devalues teaching and player development. You being a Stanton fan, I'd say you'd hope he proves your theory of "good players play" wrong considering he has been evaluated by two staffs now.

 

Different players fit different systems. A guy that may have played under Pelini may or play for Banker or Langsdorf. This is why recruiting is important, evaluating is important, and coaching changes are a big deal.

 

 

 

The last staff didn't do a good job, and a big part of that, according to the perspective of many, is that they tried too hard to coach the players up. How many times would we see someone make a really nice, natural, athletic play, and never see the field again?

 

Obviously not everyone fits in every scenario. My point is, in 2015, and seeing the success of teams like Auburn and Oregon and Baylor and others with these very simplified but deadly offenses, I'm a tiny bit wary of any kind of system that necessitates a lot of coaching up. In the same way that different players fit different systems, different systems fit different eras. I'm hoping Riley and co.'s can still fit today.

 

 

Where did you read or learn that Auburn, Oregon, and Baylor run simplified offenses?

I've taken the time to read through the available material on Oregon's offense and I can assure you it is anything but 'simplified'. The same can be said for your other schools. What has made them so successful on Offense is the hurry up no huddle and execution. You will consistently see those teams among the best in turnover margin, Oregon was among the best in the nation in that category if my memory serves me right.

 

But what your failing to take into account here is that not a one of those teams you listed with their 'deadly offenses' have won a national title with their current head coach out side of Auburn, and even then that was when Malzahn was OC for Aubrun under chizik.

Each of those teams have in the past been confronted by a great defensive team, other than Baylor in their buttercup conference, and had their asses whipped in front of god and everyone. Oregon's juggernaut offense has had it's ass beaten by the better Stanford and USC teams just in it's own conference, and then lets not forget the National title c$%k kick that Ohio State laid on them.

 

All of these systems take a significant amount of coaching up. There is no recruit, plug in, and profit. And those that start as freshmen are starting either because they did the work, or their team is thin at their position and needed the help. Not because the offense is 'simplified'.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, yeah.

 

 

Auburn was one play away from a national championship last year, and gave up 500+ points to Missouri in their playground ball SEC championship game. Great defensive team indeed.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

No way anybody could've seen this coming. No way, no how.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/sports/college/football/steven-m-sipple-bo-pelini-s-nebraska-program-should-be/article_ac41e798-06d8-5d59-8a9e-9b60a5f6dec4.html#ixzz3VtgzDTEi

 

Uh, no Sip. We all saw this coming.

 

 

Not defending Sipple on balance, but he's right.

 

I remember plenty of skepticism that the Husker's could steal a win at Camp Randall, and lots of folks predicting another humbling, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that game would be as bad or worse than the 2012 CCG disaster.

 

In hindsight it was a familiar meltdown, but at the time I still found Nebraska's level of helplessness shocking.

[Hunter94]

this was just one game where Bo sh#t the bed........exit, stage left for Bodacious!

[skersfan]

I still expect to see Stanton to get a good shot at this. He was recruited by Coach Riley to play at OSU. Welcome faces for both is my guess. Really do not want to see a freshman start. But if he is the best, then so be it. Still a lot of time for the cream to rise to the top. I feel confident the coaches will make the right decisions on this. I hope all the kids take advantage of this start over.