Recent Recruiting Success & Failure

[cm husker]

 

 

 

P.s. Every player would/should always say they need to and can improve. That's a given. The question when assessing performance is not to decide whether improvement is desired but where the existing performance ranks against other benchmarks.

Fine....

 

I'll use the bench mark as comparing him to himself in the last staff along with TM.

 

Both amazing athletes that have the ability to do great things. But....both needed or still need to improve their decision making.

 

Nothing about that is disrespectful. I'm a big fan of both players.

Martinez improved every year. His junior year was quite good and he was off to a great start his senior year.

 

It's unfair to expect Tom Brady level decision making out of a college QB. Or even college level Andrew Luck. If that's what we need to make this system tick, we are in deep trouble regarding hitting the stated championship goals.

 

Who has said we need that level?

 

 

What QB do we need, if Armstrong hasn't been good enough?

[Swiv3D]

 

So what about Ryan Katz' 18 to 11 TD/INT ratio on 355 attempts his first year starting under Riley?

 

 

Sure seems better than Tommy's 22 to 16 TD/INT ratio on 402 attempts his first year under Riley, and also sure seems to disagree with your claim several times made that Tommy has performed better than all of Riley's first year starting QBs.

As I've noted over and over, including in that original post, he performed as well, and in most cases better, than other Riley QBs.

 

Katz was the guy who was a redshirt sophomore his first year starting, had a QB rating just slightly below Armstrongs and ended up transferring as a SR (was benched as a JR for Manion, if I recall).

 

Maybe I should just repost the original post.

you should because it sure seems like you're moving the goal posts

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

P.s. Every player would/should always say they need to and can improve. That's a given. The question when assessing performance is not to decide whether improvement is desired but where the existing performance ranks against other benchmarks.

Fine....

 

I'll use the bench mark as comparing him to himself in the last staff along with TM.

 

Both amazing athletes that have the ability to do great things. But....both needed or still need to improve their decision making.

 

Nothing about that is disrespectful. I'm a big fan of both players.

Martinez improved every year. His junior year was quite good and he was off to a great start his senior year.

 

It's unfair to expect Tom Brady level decision making out of a college QB. Or even college level Andrew Luck. If that's what we need to make this system tick, we are in deep trouble regarding hitting the stated championship goals.

 

Who has said we need that level?

 

 

What QB do we need, if Armstrong hasn't been good enough?

 

No...I asked you who has said they need that level of play?

 

I'll wait for your answer.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

I've never said players are beyond critique. But critiques should be accurate and also respectful in tone.

 

 

So...let me ask you this....

 

What players do you think need to improve for us to be as successful as we want to me?

 

Of course....put it in a respectful tone.

Why are you being so disingenuous?

 

Many people on this board say, in effect, this offense was limited by poor decision making and lack of execution by the quarterback (and often the OL).

 

What they ignore is the fundamental questions of: (1) is this system suited to be productive in NE, and (2) did the coaches do a good job of teaching and then calling the system in a way that would put the players in a position to be successful?

 

My only point is, our struggles last year may be a reflection of fundamental flaws in underlying system and people teaching it than the failures of a player or group of players. Based on history, NU's player (and players) performed consistently with all other players in a Riley system.

 

We see the coaching thing maybe more on the defensive side, where coaches didn't have consistent terminology for players.

 

Why won't you answer my question? In a respectful tone of course.

 

You said:

I've never said players are beyond critique. But critiques should be accurate and also respectful in tone.

 

 

However, every time someone even mentions a player needs to improve in a certain way, you jump down their throat claiming they are trashing players and being very disrespectful.

 

So...if you are perfectly fine critiquing players....what players do you think need to improve and how?

 

 

 

It's not jumping down someone's throat to say: hey, I know we all want TA to perform better, but maybe it's not because he's got "an awful football IQ (code for, "he's stupid")" but rather he's performed damn well within the system that he's been dealt and we need to think about ways to fix the system rather than worrying about the next hyped up recruit who will come in and solve the problems.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

I've never said players are beyond critique. But critiques should be accurate and also respectful in tone.

 

 

So...let me ask you this....

 

What players do you think need to improve for us to be as successful as we want to me?

 

Of course....put it in a respectful tone.

Why are you being so disingenuous?

 

Many people on this board say, in effect, this offense was limited by poor decision making and lack of execution by the quarterback (and often the OL).

 

What they ignore is the fundamental questions of: (1) is this system suited to be productive in NE, and (2) did the coaches do a good job of teaching and then calling the system in a way that would put the players in a position to be successful?

 

My only point is, our struggles last year may be a reflection of fundamental flaws in underlying system and people teaching it than the failures of a player or group of players. Based on history, NU's player (and players) performed consistently with all other players in a Riley system.

 

We see the coaching thing maybe more on the defensive side, where coaches didn't have consistent terminology for players.

 

Why won't you answer my question? In a respectful tone of course.

 

You said:

I've never said players are beyond critique. But critiques should be accurate and also respectful in tone.

 

 

However, every time someone even mentions a player needs to improve in a certain way, you jump down their throat claiming they are trashing players and being very disrespectful.

 

So...if you are perfectly fine critiquing players....what players do you think need to improve and how?

 

 

 

It's not jumping down someone's throat to say: hey, I know we all want TA to perform better, but maybe it's not because he's got "an awful football IQ (code for, "he's stupid")" but rather he's performed damn well within the system that he's been dealt and we need to think about ways to fix the system rather than worrying about the next hyped up recruit who will come in and solve the problems.

 

You constantly come on here and preach to people like you are holier than thou every time someone even brings up that a certain player needs to improve in a certain area. You constantly act like that person is a horrible fan and obviously doesn't know anything.....well....obviously because he didn't play college football.

 

Then you come up with the gem of.....

I've never said players are beyond critique.

 

So....I'll ask you again a 3rd time....What players do you think need to improve and how so that we can be successful?

[Landlord]

I've posted numbers showing that statistically Armstrong outperformed his peer group among first year starters in Riley's system, including on a td to int ratio int per attempt basis.

 

 

 

As I've noted over and over, including in that original post, he performed as well, and in most cases better, than other Riley QBs.

 

Katz was the guy who was a redshirt sophomore his first year starting, had a QB rating just slightly below Armstrongs and ended up transferring as a SR (was benched as a JR for Manion, if I recall).

 

Maybe I should just repost the original post.

 

 

 

I've just proven to you, with the numbers you ask for, that the first quoted assertion is incorrect. Here you go reframing your assertions, again.

[commando]

 

I've posted numbers showing that statistically Armstrong outperformed his peer group among first year starters in Riley's system, including on a td to int ratio int per attempt basis.

 

 

 

As I've noted over and over, including in that original post, he performed as well, and in most cases better, than other Riley QBs.

 

Katz was the guy who was a redshirt sophomore his first year starting, had a QB rating just slightly below Armstrongs and ended up transferring as a SR (was benched as a JR for Manion, if I recall).

 

Maybe I should just repost the original post.

 

 

 

I've just proven to you, with the numbers you ask for, that the first quoted assertion is incorrect. Here you go reframing your assertions, again.

 

it's what trolls do.

[cm husker]

 

 

I've posted numbers showing that statistically Armstrong outperformed his peer group among first year starters in Riley's system, including on a td to int ratio int per attempt basis.

 

As I've noted over and over, including in that original post, he performed as well, and in most cases better, than other Riley QBs.

 

Katz was the guy who was a redshirt sophomore his first year starting, had a QB rating just slightly below Armstrongs and ended up transferring as a SR (was benched as a JR for Manion, if I recall).

 

Maybe I should just repost the original post.

 

 

I've just proven to you, with the numbers you ask for, that the first quoted assertion is incorrect. Here you go reframing your assertions, again.

Would you say the salutatorian outperformed his/her peer group?

[Redux]

"Bottomline, I still think NU will consistently recruit in that "top of tier 2" range (20 to 35) with some times where we bounce up and sometimes where we fall back a bit. That's why I don't get panicky about recruiting. I want a coach who can take our "standard" classes and win at least 9/10 games a year with a chance at a division and conference title. Then, if we get a string of special classes by hard work, luck or circumstance, we end up with a real special run."

I swear this has to be taken directly from a "why Bo shouldn't have been fired" thread.

[commando]

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

P.s. Every player would/should always say they need to and can improve. That's a given. The question when assessing performance is not to decide whether improvement is desired but where the existing performance ranks against other benchmarks.

Fine....

 

I'll use the bench mark as comparing him to himself in the last staff along with TM.

 

Both amazing athletes that have the ability to do great things. But....both needed or still need to improve their decision making.

 

Nothing about that is disrespectful. I'm a big fan of both players.

Martinez improved every year. His junior year was quite good and he was off to a great start his senior year.

 

It's unfair to expect Tom Brady level decision making out of a college QB. Or even college level Andrew Luck. If that's what we need to make this system tick, we are in deep trouble regarding hitting the stated championship goals.

 

Who has said we need that level?

 

 

What QB do we need, if Armstrong hasn't been good enough?

 

No...I asked you who has said they need that level of play?

 

I'll wait for your answer.

 

 

 

 

So what about Ryan Katz' 18 to 11 TD/INT ratio on 355 attempts his first year starting under Riley?

 

 

Sure seems better than Tommy's 22 to 16 TD/INT ratio on 402 attempts his first year under Riley, and also sure seems to disagree with your claim several times made that Tommy has performed better than all of Riley's first year starting QBs.

As I've noted over and over, including in that original post, he performed as well, and in most cases better, than other Riley QBs.

 

Katz was the guy who was a redshirt sophomore his first year starting, had a QB rating just slightly below Armstrongs and ended up transferring as a SR (was benched as a JR for Manion, if I recall).

 

Maybe I should just repost the original post.

you should because it sure seems like you're moving the goal posts

 

 

Not moving them at all. In each measurable category except one, Armstrong was first or second among something like 11 different first year starters under Riley. In the exception, he was 3rd (TD to INT ratio).

 

Original post is here: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/78876-change-scheme-or-change-qb/page-2

 

In relevant part:

 

As you'll see, Riley has started 11 QBs during his different first year starters during his 15 years as a CFB head coach. A first year starter defined as the first year a player registers at least 150 pass attempts under Riley). Two of his first year starters were a result of the regular starters absence or a position battle (i.e., 1998 and 2012).

 

Tommys number stack up quite favorably against the other first year starters in Rileys system, including some NFL QBs. He ranked at:

• 2nd most TDs
• 3rd best TD to INT ratio. He was 1 of only 6 first years starters to have more TDs than INTs and ahead of at least two NFL draftees.
• 2nd best QB rating. The only one who ranked ahead was a part time one-year starter (see below), though several were in the same proximity.
• He also posted a 6-6 record, which would be average among the first year starters, even though his whole team was new to the system. In similar situations of 1998 and 2003, first year starters went 11-13

This despite being asked to sling the ball as much or more than QBs recruited to Rileys type of system.

 

 

 

 

 

The guy who people are implying was better was benched by Riley (during a loss to a DIAA team) and eventually transferred. FYI: http://www.oregonlive.com/pac-12/index.ssf/2012/08/for_former_oregon_state_quarterback_ryan_katz_the.html

 

He's the only one who had a statistically better start under Riley than Armstrong, and even his QB rating was lower (had he played against Oregon that year, it might have been worse).

 

What's even more odd is that the two guys who outperformed him both were vying for time with Mannion, but eventually lost out, despite Mannion posting worst seasons statistically speaking (in fairness, he may have been playing the harder parts of the schedule... for example, Vaz posted most of his numbers in fill-in duty against DIAA and other poor non-P5 opponents).

[BigRedBuster]

 

"Bottomline, I still think NU will consistently recruit in that "top of tier 2" range (20 to 35) with some times where we bounce up and sometimes where we fall back a bit. That's why I don't get panicky about recruiting. I want a coach who can take our "standard" classes and win at least 9/10 games a year with a chance at a division and conference title. Then, if we get a string of special classes by hard work, luck or circumstance, we end up with a real special run."

I swear this has to be taken directly from a "why Bo shouldn't have been fired" thread.

 

Oh....but when we get excited because we are getting some really good players to commit, the thread needs to be dragged down into a quagmire of crap because we shouldn't be hanging our hat on trying to get these types of players.

 

Well...gee....how do we string together special classes if we don't go after those types of players? And, when a group of them want to commit, shouldn't we be excited with the fact that maybe we are starting to see a string of those classes?

 

I guess we could always refer to post #191.

[cm husker]

Do you even know how this thread started?

[GBRFAN]

 

 

Armstrong's decision making this past year was consistent with (or, arguably, better than) all other first year QBs in a Coach Riley system.

 

Take from that what you will about Armstrong and/or the system.

 

P.s. Every player would/should always say they need to and can improve. That's a given. The question when assessing performance is not to decide whether improvement is desired but where the existing performance ranks against other benchmarks.

 

Are you telling us after your playing days that you have sat down and watched every game that OSU played (past 14 years) and have evaluated the QB decision making compared to TA last year? Impressive!!!!!

 

 

Didn't watch the games; just looking at the stats.

 

But you raise a good point: I think the reason people are so hard on Armstrong is that they lack perspective on what a "good" versus a "bad" quarterback is at the college level because they assume their guy is making mistakes at a higher rate than other teams.

 

 

How do you determine decision making from stats?????

 

Also, I made no such point. You came up with that on your own, so that you could make it look like it came from others.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Armstrong's decision making this past year was consistent with (or, arguably, better than) all other first year QBs in a Coach Riley system.

 

Take from that what you will about Armstrong and/or the system.

 

P.s. Every player would/should always say they need to and can improve. That's a given. The question when assessing performance is not to decide whether improvement is desired but where the existing performance ranks against other benchmarks.

Are you telling us after your playing days that you have sat down and watched every game that OSU played (past 14 years) and have evaluated the QB decision making compared to TA last year? Impressive!!!!!

Didn't watch the games; just looking at the stats.

 

But you raise a good point: I think the reason people are so hard on Armstrong is that they lack perspective on what a "good" versus a "bad" quarterback is at the college level because they assume their guy is making mistakes at a higher rate than other teams.

How do you determine decision making from stats?????

Applying the methodology used by those who argue that armstrong is a particularly poor decision maker and below average overall all performer.