Can a bad QB make a good team average?

[LAblackshirt]

My conclusion after watching and re-watching this year's games is that despite his gutsy moments and athletic breakout plays TA had a truly terrible year. It is definitely due in part to his injuries I understand, but that is part of the game. I have said on this board recently I think we are looking too hard and deep for why we lost the games we did in the fashion we did. We had terrible QB play in each of those games, and it is my opinion that all things the same if we have an above average QB we beat Wisconsin and Iowa and lose by only a touchdown or two to OSU.

 

To elaborate, the common theme in the two blowout losses this year was a completely inept offense. Sure our defense was punished and the score was run up, but re-watching the game and reviewing the team stats of those two games and you will notice something: the other teams offense was always on the field. OSU ended up with a ridiculous 37+ minutes of possession, and Iowa got 14 possessions for their offense. Why? our QB hurt or not failed to keep drives moving time and time again. I actually really thought there were some great routes called with wide open receivers in both of these games but Tommy continuously failed to notice or put the ball on target. This resulted in too many chances for the other team that eventually lead to a blowout. Iowa scored on less than half of their possessions and put up 40 on us. We stopped them 8 times and they scored 40 points on us, crazy.

 

In short I think if the QB position was nullified across the entire B1G, the huskers end up in the top 4. With a bad QB under center we are 6th or maybe even 7th. What do you guys think, is a bad QB capable of making an otherwise good team into an average one?

[cg_8]

Yes.

 

Look at the Dallas Cowboys last year.

 

The 2011 Indianapolis Colts without Manning.

 

Those are 2 teams that were supposed to compete. Their good QB goes down, and it makes 2 pretty good teams bad...

[broganreynik]

Zac Lee says "hello"

[knapplc]

Conversely, Eric Crouch says "hello" as well. Good quarterback on a bad team made 2001 a better year than it should have been.

[NUance]

Tommy was not a bad QB for this team. Our O-line this year had a couple bright spots, but in general had a real tough time keeping people out of the backfield. Time and again Tommy's feet kept us from getting killed with drive stopping TFLs. How many times did he scramble around and turn a 7 yard loss into positive yardage? We would have gotten killed all year long on offense if we had a less mobile QB back there. Look what happened when Ryker took over for a game: three sacks. By Maryland. (Maryland!) Tommy took just eight sacks in the other 11 games. Say what you will about his lack of touch on short passes and YOLO bombs, but Tommy's feet were a huge game saver for us this year. /jmho

[84HuskerLaw]

I believe it would depend on what you mean by 'bad QB' play really. You suggest Tommy A was a bad QB. Was he 'bad' in all the games and some worse than others or were there some where he was 'good' or 'average' or what? I thought Tommy played OK and well at times and then not so well. Blame it on the injuries. Not having a back up QB ready to go is on the coaches. They had to play it safe vs. Iowa because of this. This made us 'no dimentional' on offense almost. Ugh. Yes, poor QB play will make a good team not so good.

 

The question then goes back to what type of QB play you are seeking. Eric Crouch was not a 'great QB' by any means, although he was a great football player and he won the heisman for just that reason. He was extremely entertaining and his running was very very exciting and he made many 'great plays' although dam few were passing.

 

The interesting question might be asked: What would this year's offense have done with Eric Crouch as the QB? Or Brooke Berrigner? Or David Humm? Or Vince Ferragamo? Or Jamaal Lord?

Or Bobby Newcomb or Turner Gill (my two all time favorites!) --- I think this team wins vs Wisconsin by 2 TDs in regulation and we battle down to the wire and beat Iowa in OT. Ohio State would still pound us but maybe by 35 instead of 59.

[BIG ERN]

It's all about having an effective quarterback that fits your offense. Tommy clearly didn't have the attributes that fit anything Langsdorf wanted to do. He was an above average runner and a BAD passer. Lets not sugar coat his career here. He always played awful against any good teams besides two times in 4 years.

 

Newton, Manziel, Mariota, Lynch, Doughty, Winston, and Prescott to name a few took their teams to a new level which wouldn't have happened if they weren't there.

[LAblackshirt]

NUance I don't disagree that he had great legs and was a great athlete. I disagree with the fact the oline caused his poor play. In watching the games even OSU and Iowa Tommy has time most plays. The plays he doesn't have time are in part because he has no concept of pocket presence and his only move is to roll out. Were he to have the presence of mind to step up in the pocket he could have much more success evadin over pursuing defenders.

 

Tommy was rated by PFF as the 2nd to worst Qb in the B1G, and let's be honest the B1G is not a good QB conference this year.

[ColoradoHusk]

I know he didn't play well against Iowa, but I'm not going to hold that performance against Tommy. The guy was playing on one leg and he couldn't do any running, which is his strength. The fact that his hamstring is still so bad that he probably won't play in the bowl game is an indication how bad he was actually injured.

[JJ Husker]

Can't say that I disagree with the OP's premise that bad QB play was a huge factor in our losses, particularly the 2 ugly ones. But I will stop short of vilifying TA for that. As NUANCE said, his legs kept us in and helped win many games and I don't think there is any questioning his heart and effort. I find a lot more fault with Langsdorf and Riley in those blowouts by trying to pound an injured round peg into a square hole. Change the game plan or change the QB. That is on the coaches to correct. Tommy only did what he was capable of to the best of his ability. Unfortunately he wasn't healthy enough to do what he does best and the coaches were too stubborn or stupid to adjust.

[grandpasknee]

How many records does TA hold now? What ever the count, I'd suggest it is above average. That doesn't exclude some real head scratching plays. But to hold a number of performance records, even at Nebraska, means you did a lot of good things IMO

[HuskerNation1]

I do agree with parts of the argument in this thread. If I were to pick out one statistic for the entire 2016 season that jumps out at me, it is this:

 

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/individual/755/p1

 

Tommy Armstrong finished 110 out of 112 total QBs when it comes to completion percentage. When you have a QB that cannot make throws consistently, it stalls the entire offense, and when you are up against good teams, you cannot have too many stalled drives where you come away without any points. In order to compensate for such poor accuracy, a team would have to have one of the best rushing attacks in the country, and NU did not have that either. We should see an improvement in accuracy next year as all 3 of the top QBs seem to have natural throwing motions and are passers first, runners second.

[MyBloodIsRed16]

Even in TA's "good" games or games we won if you look at the overall qb play he is not good. Footwork, pocket presence, decision making are all bad pretty much every game. He gets bailed out a lot by people making plays so people discount the decision he made. He's also not the only player that disappears against good competition

[LAblackshirt]

Yeah I guess to be more clear Tommy was a great athlete and leader and I respect him a great deal. He made great plays with his feet, and even some with his arm. He has a cannon for an arm and there is no denying that talent. I currently display a large poster of him in my bedroom and will leave it on my wall for a long time. Unfortunately leadership and athletic ability are only part of being a QB. There is also accuracy, pocket presence, release speed, touch, and decision making.

 

Tommy had poor accuracy which is obvious, no need to argue that point. Poor pocket presence was also an issue of his, not sure if anyone noticed but he almost never stepped up in the pocket. His only real move when under pressure was a roll out of the pocket which yes worked sometimes due to his athleticism but much more often did not work. He had an average release speed. Very poor touch, Tommy had one ball velocity only- very fast. It doesn't matter if hes throwing a 10 yard out route or a 50 yard bomb, he throws it the same velocity. Decision making again I think doesn't call for much explanation we all saw he wasn't good at it. Overall as a QB he was poor this year, the numbers say it, the experts say it.

 

I don't say that to demonize an outstanding young man who lead this team they way Tommy did. He will find plenty of success outside of football, and he has his place in the record books. I say it to make clear where I think this team is in its goal of reaching a championship. We won 9 (hopefully 10?) games with what was a bad quarterback in many areas. I think we are a good QB away from having only lost one game or at-least played close with the big boys.

[Vince R.]

I have been saying it, teams will now have to play nebraska straight up. No more stacking the box 90% of the time, Wr's will be led, and the open receiver will be rewarded for getting open (which happened all the time). Teams can no longer scheme "to wait for Tommy/Taylor to make a mistake". Nebraska needs to stay healthy but they do have capable players on the Oline that can make room with Rb's who can cause serious damage. One of the three Qb's are going to be really good, at least. Nebraska's future on Offense is bright.