StPaulHusker Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 They need to teach TA to throw the ball away when the play isn't there. How many INT's would have been eliminated by that one coachable aspect? You would think that would be one of the first things covered when you're coaching a QB that's prone to INTs...right?... Well you can lead a horse to water....... 1 Quote Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted December 1, 2015 Author Share Posted December 1, 2015 They need to teach TA to throw the ball away when the play isn't there. How many INT's would have been eliminated by that one coachable aspect? You would think that would be one of the first things covered when you're coaching a QB that's prone to INTs...right?... Well you can lead a horse to water....... Problem is, I don't think this horse was led to any sort of water. Nor do I think Langsdorf was qualified to jockey what he had in the stable. Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 They need to teach TA to throw the ball away when the play isn't there. How many INT's would have been eliminated by that one coachable aspect? You would think that would be one of the first things covered when you're coaching a QB that's prone to INTs...right?... Well you can lead a horse to water....... Problem is, I don't think this horse was led to any sort of water. Nor do I think Langsdorf was qualified to jockey what he had in the stable. bullsh#t 3 Quote Link to comment
lo country Posted December 1, 2015 Share Posted December 1, 2015 The press is realizing what some said after BYU. Square peg meet round hole........ We will be average until this experiment is ended. Maybe Riley can turn things around, but not with this staff and its current configuration. Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The press is realizing what some said after BYU. Square peg meet round hole........ We will be average until this experiment is ended. Maybe Riley can turn things around, but not with this staff and its current configuration. Perhaps Tommy Armstrong is the square peg and the experiment 1 Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The press is realizing what some said after BYU. Square peg meet round hole........ We will be average until this experiment is ended. Maybe Riley can turn things around, but not with this staff and its current configuration. Perhaps Tommy Armstrong is the square peg and the experiment And yet he was 17-5 as a starter coming into this season... so it's not like he was incapable of leading a team to victory on a consistent basis. 1 Quote Link to comment
lo country Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The press is realizing what some said after BYU. Square peg meet round hole........ We will be average until this experiment is ended. Maybe Riley can turn things around, but not with this staff and its current configuration. Perhaps Tommy Armstrong is the square peg and the experiment And TA called his own plays? This staff had 2 years of game film, spring and fall ball as well as 11 previous games to review his abilities. Anyone who thought, hmm lets get this kid to chuck the rock 40+ times a game so we can win is an idiot. Every person on this board would agree throwing from the pocket isn't his strong suit. Running is. Everyone on this board always said the hardest thing for any DC to defend is a mobile QB. What did Langs do? Hobbled our returning leader rusher. Made no team worry about his legs on designed runs. TA is a baller. This year, he got Langsed. Quote Link to comment
InOmaha Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 TA won't have to worry about it much longer. Hope he gets a good education, because pro football isn't in his future. If he can't figure out this dumbed down college system, he'll not adjust to the rigors of pro ball. The coaches may not be here long either, but probably for years after TA'S last. Quote Link to comment
cm husker Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Interesting that you bring up "dumbed down" One issue I've always had with the WCO at Nebraska or any other college is that it inherently must be dumbed down and that's why it tends to be so mediocre in its effectiveness. Don't think changing QBs will change that. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 They need to teach TA to throw the ball away when the play isn't there. How many INT's would have been eliminated by that one coachable aspect? You would think that would be one of the first things covered when you're coaching a QB that's prone to INTs...right?... Well you can lead a horse to water....... ... or sit him on the bench. Quote Link to comment
Elf Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The press is realizing what some said after BYU. Square peg meet round hole........ We will be average until this experiment is ended. Maybe Riley can turn things around, but not with this staff and its current configuration. Perhaps Tommy Armstrong is the square peg and the experiment And TA called his own plays? This staff had 2 years of game film, spring and fall ball as well as 11 previous games to review his abilities. Anyone who thought, hmm lets get this kid to chuck the rock 40+ times a game so we can win is an idiot. Every person on this board would agree throwing from the pocket isn't his strong suit. Running is. Everyone on this board always said the hardest thing for any DC to defend is a mobile QB. What did Langs do? Hobbled our returning leader rusher. Made no team worry about his legs on designed runs. TA is a baller. This year, he got Langsed. At what point do you begin to teach your system? At what point is it ok to do that? When Patrick O'Brien gets here? We hold up all that for one player? Or do we teach the system and hope the QB learns quickly? Why would we run Tommy all over the field on designed runs when our best back up is Ryker Fyfe? Does Tommy fit in this offense? No, but he's the best we have. At some point you have to teach your system, it's inevitable. So doesn't it make sense to teach it from the very beginning? Next year Patrick O'Brien could very well end up starting if he is the real deal. If that's the case, we're going to be glad that the rest of the offense already knows what they're doing and can help him out. If O'Brien doesn't pan out, we could be in for another long season. Quote Link to comment
Mavric Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 The press is realizing what some said after BYU. Square peg meet round hole........ We will be average until this experiment is ended. Maybe Riley can turn things around, but not with this staff and its current configuration.Perhaps Tommy Armstrong is the square peg and the experiment And TA called his own plays? This staff had 2 years of game film, spring and fall ball as well as 11 previous games to review his abilities. Anyone who thought, hmm lets get this kid to chuck the rock 40+ times a game so we can win is an idiot. Every person on this board would agree throwing from the pocket isn't his strong suit. Running is. Everyone on this board always said the hardest thing for any DC to defend is a mobile QB. What did Langs do? Hobbled our returning leader rusher. Made no team worry about his legs on designed runs. TA is a baller. This year, he got Langsed. At what point do you begin to teach your system? At what point is it ok to do that? When Patrick O'Brien gets here? We hold up all that for one player? Or do we teach the system and hope the QB learns quickly? Why would we run Tommy all over the field on designed runs when our best back up is Ryker Fyfe? Does Tommy fit in this offense? No, but he's the best we have. At some point you have to teach your system, it's inevitable. So doesn't it make sense to teach it from the very beginning? Next year Patrick O'Brien could very well end up starting if he is the real deal. If that's the case, we're going to be glad that the rest of the offense already knows what they're doing and can help him out. If O'Brien doesn't pan out, we could be in for another long season. There is nothing wrong with teaching the system. I don't even have a particular problem with any of the plays that we ran this year. I don't think there's any one play that I'd say we should never run. What I do have a problem with is how often we run certain plays and what situation we choose to run them in. You don't have to change the system for any QB we have or POB. Just make better use of it. Quote Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted December 2, 2015 Author Share Posted December 2, 2015 They need to teach TA to throw the ball away when the play isn't there. How many INT's would have been eliminated by that one coachable aspect? You would think that would be one of the first things covered when you're coaching a QB that's prone to INTs...right?... Well you can lead a horse to water....... Problem is, I don't think this horse was led to any sort of water. Nor do I think Langsdorf was qualified to jockey what he had in the stable. bullsh#t You can cling to your bull excrement, but in reality, the results on the field speak for themselves. Langsdorf doesn't know how to call an offense with the kids he has in his charge, nor does it appear he was willing (or capable?) of learning to do so effectively. Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 They need to teach TA to throw the ball away when the play isn't there. How many INT's would have been eliminated by that one coachable aspect? You would think that would be one of the first things covered when you're coaching a QB that's prone to INTs...right?... Well you can lead a horse to water....... ... or sit him on the bench. Well we saw what our second option looked like this year vs Purdue. Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 They need to teach TA to throw the ball away when the play isn't there. How many INT's would have been eliminated by that one coachable aspect? You would think that would be one of the first things covered when you're coaching a QB that's prone to INTs...right?... Well you can lead a horse to water....... Problem is, I don't think this horse was led to any sort of water. Nor do I think Langsdorf was qualified to jockey what he had in the stable. bullsh#t You can cling to your bull excrement, but in reality, the results on the field speak for themselves. Langsdorf doesn't know how to call an offense with the kids he has in his charge, nor does it appear he was willing (or capable?) of learning to do so effectively. Funny how you place everything at the feet of Langsdorf when there has already been talk that Armstrong has walked out of practice pissed off because he doesn't like the way things are going. Or the obvious tension between the 2. But of course, TA carries zero responsibility. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.