Looking Back ... Looking Forward

[Saunders]

 

Remember, Ron Kellogg III was the better percentage passer, the pure drop back guy, the stay in the pocket guy and a really nice guy, but that didn't make him a better quarterback or leader, which is really the job description.

 

Ronnie never got called on until injury at the position so with Bo the genius that he was running things pretty sure Ron never got the playing time he probably deserved. T Mart was definitely not what I would I call a leader by any stretch of the imagination either that's for sure.

 

 

You're still mad that Brion Carnes didn't start over Taylor???

 

Let it Bo....

[suh_fan93]

 

 

Remember, Ron Kellogg III was the better percentage passer, the pure drop back guy, the stay in the pocket guy and a really nice guy, but that didn't make him a better quarterback or leader, which is really the job description.

 

Ronnie never got called on until injury at the position so with Bo the genius that he was running things pretty sure Ron never got the playing time he probably deserved. T Mart was definitely not what I would I call a leader by any stretch of the imagination either that's for sure.

 

 

You're still mad that Brion Carnes didn't start over Taylor???

 

Let it Bo....

 

 

Cause Bo knows football.......

 

 

Let it Bo....

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

Remember, Ron Kellogg III was the better percentage passer, the pure drop back guy, the stay in the pocket guy and a really nice guy, but that didn't make him a better quarterback or leader, which is really the job description.

 

Ronnie never got called on until injury at the position so with Bo the genius that he was running things pretty sure Ron never got the playing time he probably deserved. T Mart was definitely not what I would I call a leader by any stretch of the imagination either that's for sure.

 

 

 

That's an odd way to remember the 2013 season.

 

It was clear to most folks that the coaching staff considered Armstrong too green and Kellogg too limited to anoint as undisputed starter when Martinez went down. So both perfectly healthy quarterbacks were alternated by series or by quarter for several games, to fairly good results initially. When it became apparent that Armstrong's passing skills weren't that much worse than Kellogg's, and his elusiveness was far superior, Armstrong largely took over the job. When Armstrong was out for the Iowa game, the offense was 100% Ron Kellogg's. At home. On Senior Day. As the hero of the Northwestern miracle. At which point Ron Kellogg III proved why he didn't deserve more playing time.

 

 

So the losses with Taylor at QB including the thrashing at Wisconsin proved Taylor Martinez deserved more playing time?!!?!! Kind of hard for a QB to develop chemistry and rhythm also when you come off the bench in the middle of the season like Ron did.

 

Let it Bo.

 

 

Another weird way to read this.

 

I thought the question was whether Ron Kellogg deserved more playing time. Both Kellogg and Armstrong had to come cold off the bench. For that matter, Taylor Martinez was asked to start the 2010 season with zero game experience and an experienced senior on the bench. Cardale Jones came in cold, too. Leaders can't wait to get the ball.

 

Ron Kellogg III never looked like that guy to me. Iowa had everything stacked in his favor. Kellogg responded weakly in every facet.

 

No amount of reps would have changed it.

 

I'm willing to blame Bo for a lot, but not playing Ron Kellog III more doesn't make the list.

[BigRedBuster]

Why do we need to trash ex players? Let's look forward.

[Saunders]

If Bo and co were as terrible as some here seem to make it out (I love revisionist history) and couldn't develop a QB, Mike and Danny should have our guys looking infinitely better because they're gurus. Also, Riley and his staff should win 10 games minimum, right?

 

I love offseason koolaid, but holy cow.....

[suh_fan93]

 

 

 

 

Remember, Ron Kellogg III was the better percentage passer, the pure drop back guy, the stay in the pocket guy and a really nice guy, but that didn't make him a better quarterback or leader, which is really the job description.

 

Ronnie never got called on until injury at the position so with Bo the genius that he was running things pretty sure Ron never got the playing time he probably deserved. T Mart was definitely not what I would I call a leader by any stretch of the imagination either that's for sure.

 

 

 

That's an odd way to remember the 2013 season.

 

It was clear to most folks that the coaching staff considered Armstrong too green and Kellogg too limited to anoint as undisputed starter when Martinez went down. So both perfectly healthy quarterbacks were alternated by series or by quarter for several games, to fairly good results initially. When it became apparent that Armstrong's passing skills weren't that much worse than Kellogg's, and his elusiveness was far superior, Armstrong largely took over the job. When Armstrong was out for the Iowa game, the offense was 100% Ron Kellogg's. At home. On Senior Day. As the hero of the Northwestern miracle. At which point Ron Kellogg III proved why he didn't deserve more playing time.

 

 

So the losses with Taylor at QB including the thrashing at Wisconsin proved Taylor Martinez deserved more playing time?!!?!! Kind of hard for a QB to develop chemistry and rhythm also when you come off the bench in the middle of the season like Ron did.

 

Let it Bo.

 

 

Another weird way to read this.

 

I thought the question was whether Ron Kellogg deserved more playing time. Both Kellogg and Armstrong had to come cold off the bench. For that matter, Taylor Martinez was asked to start the 2010 season with zero game experience and an experienced senior on the bench. Cardale Jones came in cold, too. Leaders can't wait to get the ball.

 

Ron Kellogg III never looked like that guy to me. Iowa had everything stacked in his favor. Kellogg responded weakly in every facet.

 

No amount of reps would have changed it.

 

I'm willing to blame Bo for a lot, but not playing Ron Kellog III more doesn't make the list.

 

 

Pretty sure a lot of successful athletes would completely disagree with this notion. Scott Frost was mentioned just a few posts ago. There's just one example of a Nebraska QB who definitely got better the more reps he got. Not everyone is Cardale Jones. Most athletes need more reps to get better. To become more comfortable with what they're asked to do and as far as quarterbacks to develop timing and chemistry and to develop just plain ol' experience among other things. Some guys (Steve Taylor, Tommie Frazier, Turner Gill) can step right in and hit the ground running. Others definitely need time to develop and just because they do doesn't mean their not capable of becoming good or even great players.

[Mavric]

If Bo and co were as terrible as some here seem to make it out (I love revisionist history) and couldn't develop a QB, Mike and Danny should have our guys looking infinitely better because they're gurus. Also, Riley and his staff should win 10 games minimum, right?

 

I love offseason koolaid, but holy cow.....

 

Not sure about QBs specifically because it may take some time to work with them - or any individual player - but I also find it interesting if not laughable at how many blame the short-comings of the last few years totally on the coaches and insist that we have upgraded every single coaching position in addition to the support staff yet are predicting fewer wins against basically the same schedule.

[Saunders]

 

If Bo and co were as terrible as some here seem to make it out (I love revisionist history) and couldn't develop a QB, Mike and Danny should have our guys looking infinitely better because they're gurus. Also, Riley and his staff should win 10 games minimum, right?

 

I love offseason koolaid, but holy cow.....

 

Not sure about QBs specifically because it may take some time to work with them - or any individual player - but I also find it interesting if not laughable at how many blame the short-comings of the last few years totally on the coaches and insist that we have upgraded every single coaching position in addition to the support staff yet are predicting fewer wins against basically the same schedule.

 

It's a total mindf*** reading some of these posts. It is good for laughs though.

[zoogs]

I wouldn't find it surprising at all to see a team that loses by far its best players on offense, doesn't have a quarterback, inherits a shaky situation at DE & LB, and is changing schemes on both sides of the ball along with every single coach, might win fewer games this year than last year. Considering last year was a pretty flat performance that was closer to 8 than 10 wins.

 

I mean, this team was in nailbiters with McNeese St., Minnesota, and Iowa. They just managed to take 2 out of those 3 to get to 9. Really don't think we're at a point to write off too many teams on the schedule.

 

Maybe the transition will be seamless. Maybe they'll not take so long to work with "any individual player." Or maybe not.

 

What I find silly is the idea that if Riley doesn't win 10? 11? games in Year One, it would somehow prove something one way or another. That's a standard that seems to be applied only to Mike Riley.

[lo country]

 

 

 

Really frustrating that after 7 years, we are left with a position that lacks the one fundamental that makes the position. Accuracy.

 

 

You make it sound like players are on 7+ year scholarships.

Name a QB under Bo who had it? That's my point. NU has not had an accurate passer under Bo. Ganz? Not his recruit. Martinez? Better, but a private QB coach helped more than anything. NU, IIRC was the only school to offer Martinez a shot to play QB.

 

No, accurate QB's have not been the calling card of a TimBo Wats offense.........

 

Make up your mind on what point you're trying to make. Bo and Beck didn't recruit or develop highly accurate passers? Okay sure. But your original statement had an implication that neverending progress on accuracy should have been made from year 1 to year 7, which is weird and nonsensical, because different players come and go over a time period that long, and coaches don't have magic fairy dust to make each year's quarterback more accurate than the year before.

 

If we have 65% passers for the next five years, and then have a new quarterback that struggles around 55%, are you going to say, "I can't believe after six years we don't even have an accurate quarterback by now!"

Let me spell it out. Bo never recruited a QB who could throw. We don't have a QB now who is accurate enough for this current staff. Riley has yet to recruit one. So my original comment stands. Bo, by virtue of not recruiting a QB who can throw accurately enough for Riley, has left it bare. Martinez has no bearing on on TA nor TA on Darlington. Bo failed to recruit and develop QB's. If he had, TA in year 3 should be better than a 52% passer.......

[Saunders]

I wouldn't find it surprising at all to see a team that loses by far its best players on offense, doesn't have a quarterback, inherits a shaky situation at DE & LB, and is changing schemes on both sides of the ball along with every single coach, might win fewer games this year than last year. Considering last year was a pretty flat performance that was closer to 8 than 10 wins.

 

I mean, this team was in nailbiters with McNeese St., Minnesota, and Iowa. They just managed to take 2 out of those 3 to get to 9. Really don't think we're at a point to write off too many teams on the schedule.

 

Maybe the transition will be seamless. Maybe they'll not take so long to work with "any individual player." Or maybe not.

 

What I find silly is the idea that if Riley doesn't win 10? 11? games in Year One, it would somehow prove something one way or another. That's a standard that seems to be applied only to Mike Riley.

Yes, we had close games, some wins, some losses. We could have been 7-5 (losses to McNeese, Iowa), but could have also been 12-1 (Wins against USC, Minnesota, and MSU). It's basically the whole BP era in a nutshell.

 

My point was, simple. There seems to be a sentiment with a segment of the board that everything in the BP era was a clownshow, and we've upgraded at every coaching position (we couldn't recruit either, remember?). If that's the case, then even with a regress at talent in certain positions, the coaching should overcome that issue.

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

[BigRedBuster]

Your last sentence is the truth.

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

 

I wouldn't find it surprising at all to see a team that loses by far its best players on offense, doesn't have a quarterback, inherits a shaky situation at DE & LB, and is changing schemes on both sides of the ball along with every single coach, might win fewer games this year than last year. Considering last year was a pretty flat performance that was closer to 8 than 10 wins.

 

I mean, this team was in nailbiters with McNeese St., Minnesota, and Iowa. They just managed to take 2 out of those 3 to get to 9. Really don't think we're at a point to write off too many teams on the schedule.

 

Maybe the transition will be seamless. Maybe they'll not take so long to work with "any individual player." Or maybe not.

 

What I find silly is the idea that if Riley doesn't win 10? 11? games in Year One, it would somehow prove something one way or another. That's a standard that seems to be applied only to Mike Riley.

Yes, we had close games, some wins, some losses. We could have been 7-5 (losses to McNeese, Iowa), but could have also been 12-1 (Wins against USC, Minnesota, and MSU). It's basically the whole BP era in a nutshell.

 

My point was, simple. There seems to be a sentiment with a segment of the board that everything in the BP era was a clownshow, and we've upgraded at every coaching position (we couldn't recruit either, remember?). If that's the case, then even with a regress at talent in certain positions, the coaching should overcome that issue.

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

Yes, thank you.

[teachercd]

 

If Bo and co were as terrible as some here seem to make it out (I love revisionist history) and couldn't develop a QB, Mike and Danny should have our guys looking infinitely better because they're gurus. Also, Riley and his staff should win 10 games minimum, right?

 

I love offseason koolaid, but holy cow.....

 

Not sure about QBs specifically because it may take some time to work with them - or any individual player - but I also find it interesting if not laughable at how many blame the short-comings of the last few years totally on the coaches and insist that we have upgraded every single coaching position in addition to the support staff yet are predicting fewer wins against basically the same schedule.

 

Yes! 1000 times YES!

This is what has been driving me crazy! Bo was the worst coach ever, his staff was horrible and should have been coaching rec league football...He was always out coached and this new staff is better in every single way shape and form...

 

Oh but ummmm...there is a chance the only go 7-5. WHAT?!?!?!

 

Mav...your post nailed it for me.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

 

Remember, Ron Kellogg III was the better percentage passer, the pure drop back guy, the stay in the pocket guy and a really nice guy, but that didn't make him a better quarterback or leader, which is really the job description.

 

Ronnie never got called on until injury at the position so with Bo the genius that he was running things pretty sure Ron never got the playing time he probably deserved. T Mart was definitely not what I would I call a leader by any stretch of the imagination either that's for sure.

 

 

 

That's an odd way to remember the 2013 season.

 

It was clear to most folks that the coaching staff considered Armstrong too green and Kellogg too limited to anoint as undisputed starter when Martinez went down. So both perfectly healthy quarterbacks were alternated by series or by quarter for several games, to fairly good results initially. When it became apparent that Armstrong's passing skills weren't that much worse than Kellogg's, and his elusiveness was far superior, Armstrong largely took over the job. When Armstrong was out for the Iowa game, the offense was 100% Ron Kellogg's. At home. On Senior Day. As the hero of the Northwestern miracle. At which point Ron Kellogg III proved why he didn't deserve more playing time.

 

 

So the losses with Taylor at QB including the thrashing at Wisconsin proved Taylor Martinez deserved more playing time?!!?!! Kind of hard for a QB to develop chemistry and rhythm also when you come off the bench in the middle of the season like Ron did.

 

Let it Bo.

 

 

Another weird way to read this.

 

I thought the question was whether Ron Kellogg deserved more playing time. Both Kellogg and Armstrong had to come cold off the bench. For that matter, Taylor Martinez was asked to start the 2010 season with zero game experience and an experienced senior on the bench. Cardale Jones came in cold, too. Leaders can't wait to get the ball.

 

Ron Kellogg III never looked like that guy to me. Iowa had everything stacked in his favor. Kellogg responded weakly in every facet.

 

No amount of reps would have changed it.

 

I'm willing to blame Bo for a lot, but not playing Ron Kellog III more doesn't make the list.

 

 

Pretty sure a lot of successful athletes would completely disagree with this notion. Scott Frost was mentioned just a few posts ago. There's just one example of a Nebraska QB who definitely got better the more reps he got. Not everyone is Cardale Jones. Most athletes need more reps to get better. To become more comfortable with what they're asked to do and as far as quarterbacks to develop timing and chemistry and to develop just plain ol' experience among other things. Some guys (Steve Taylor, Tommie Frazier, Turner Gill) can step right in and hit the ground running. Others definitely need time to develop and just because they do doesn't mean their not capable of becoming good or even great players.

 

 

Oh I think 100% of successful athletes would say reps make you better.

 

And at the same time, many wouldn't consider Ron Kellogg III a starter at the major conference level.