What did we learn-Game 4 Rutgers

[Mavric]

2 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

There ya go Mav...so you don't have to go back and read.

 

Yeah, those aren't the same thing.  Despite how much you may want them to be or think they are.

[Mavric]

Just now, BlitzFirst said:

He quoted the QBR...what was I supposed to 'want them to be'?

 

Do you think I'm some kind of moron that has no clue?  You're treating me like I am.

 

I'm treating you like someone who likes to make a big show of pointing out the "logical fallacies" of others while committing his share himself.

 

No one is necessarily arguing that TA regressed.  They were rebutting your assertion that it's obvious that TA improved as a QB under Langsdorf by pointing out other stats that show mixed results as opposed to you simply saying "he passed for more yards therefore he improved."

[Guy Chamberlin]

Tommy Armstrong didn't really progress or regress. Either two different coaches and OCs didn't know how to coach him up or use him properly, or Tommy simply came in with his own skillset and operated to the ceiling of his abilities. 

 

Now that I think about it, both could be true at the same time.

 

The problem with your thinking Blitz, is that stats don't always tell the story. Tommy Armstrong finished his career as the Total Offense Leader at Nebraska, but virtually no one would pick him as our best quarterback. Just as nobody is going to remember his 3,000 yard passing season as a high point in anything.

[Ulty]

34 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

Do you think I'm some kind of moron that has no clue?  

[Mavric]

34 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Tommy Armstrong didn't really progress or regress. Either two different coaches and OCs didn't know how to coach him up or use him properly, or Tommy simply came in with his own skillset and operated to the ceiling of his abilities. 

 

Now that I think about it, both could be true at the same time.

 

The problem with your thinking Blitz, is that stats don't always tell the story. Tommy Armstrong finished his career as the Total Offense Leader at Nebraska, but virtually no one would pick him as our best quarterback. Just as nobody is going to remember his 3,000 yard passing season as a high point in anything.

 

This is exactly right.  I don't think TA tells anything about any OC - either Beck or Langs.  People thought it was Beck holding TA back and that he'd get better under a "real QB coach."  That obviously didn't turn out to be the case.  But the fact that he was basically the same guy all along doesn't necessarily say anything about how good or bad either OC was.  That was probably just all the better he was going to be.

 

To some extent the same thing can be said about Tanner Lee. The fact that he doesn't seem to be any better than he was at Tulane could mean that he just is what he is.  However, the fact that he's purported to be the exact type of QB that Langs wants (which TA wasn't) but he is still a well-below-average QB after working with Langs for a year and a half would seem to lead to one of two conclusions.  Either Langs isn't a very good QB coach - not only has he been unable to get a servicable passer out of either of the QBs that have played but also neither four-star QB currently on our bench is apparently any better.  Or it's not so much a problem with Langs as a QB coach but Langs as an OC that can't put these guys in a position to succeed.

 

Neither one bodes well for our offense going forward.

[Mavric]

Incidentally, this discussion made me think of a different comparison to make.

 

Tanner Lee under Langsdorf: 76/146, 52.1%, 898 yards, 6.2 ypa, 7 TDs, 9 INTs

Ryker Fyfe under Langsdorf: 82/154, 53.2%, 998 yards, 6.5 ypa, 9 TDs, 6 INTs

 

So apparently our current QB is statistically worse than the guy who everyone insisted wasn't good enough to play ahead of an injured Tommy Armstrong last year.

 

Let that play into the "POB must not be good enough to play" conversation however you like.

[ColoradoHusk]

38 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

You gotta be kidding me.  You're accusing me of making a big show out of pointing out how people's dead horse arguments don't have legs with logic?

 

I just don't get it man...and if that's what you think I'm doing, you don't get it either.

 

 

There were posts saying Tommy regressed...might not have been yours but they were there.

 

I said Tommy had his best year ever. His output was higher than other years.  That's a fact.  Langs was his coach when this happened.

 

Anything else you guys are arguing semantics, trying to catch me in logical fallacies since I "make a show" of posting about them, and purely badgering me.

Armstrong's passing yards per game increased under Langsdorf, mainly because he passed the ball more. His yards per completion and yards per attempt declined in 2015, and he threw 4 more interceptions. Taking all those factors into account, he was pretty much the same QB he was under Langsdorf that he was under Beck. I'm not trying to say that Beck or Langsdorf was better, I'm just saying that there wasn't significant improvement under Langsdorf, which many thought would happen, given the fact that Langsdorf would be TA's dedicated QB coach, and based on Langsdorf's resume. 

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

I can understand that argument.

 

Just the same, I think kids are not equal to NFL QB's.  So expecting a vast improvement in 1 year is probably not plausible for college QB's.

I agree that there are definitely challenges to improving guys in college, especially given the limits that coaches can spend with players.

[Stumpy1]

6 hours ago, MichiganDad3 said:

We all knows Langs is a QB coach. We also know Langs is a BAD QB coach.

Tom Herman will gladly disagree with you along with a lot of other coaches in the buisness.

[Enhance]

11 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

I can understand that argument.

 

Just the same, I think kids are not equal to NFL QB's.  So expecting a vast improvement in 1 year is probably not plausible for college QB's.

I don't think anybody expects college kids to be NFL QB's. I think people expect to see reasonable growth in important metrics and, when those things don't happen, there's certainly reason to question the players and coaches.

 

This part isn't really directed at you Blitz, but, I don't think there's any way to sugarcoat the truth that the coaches have thus far failed (significantly) to develop a quarterback for their offense. And by their offense, I mean the one they've been wanting to run for years now. The one they needed 'their guy' to operate. The one that was supposed to prove lackluster QB play was just an Armstrong thing. The one that they've been working towards for three seasons. We could spend all day levying blame how we see fit but it won't change the results.

[teachercd]

I liked when Langs said they would not be getting rid of the QB run game...I bet that cat ripped those pages out of the playbook the second the clock his zero vs Tennessee 

[Igetbored216]

It's pretty depressing that Lee is doing this horrible, but none of the backups are any better. As stated above, this leads to two conclusions: 1) Langsdorf is a bad QB coach, and/or 2) Langsdorf does not know how to put his players in position to be effective. 

[MichiganDad3]

15 hours ago, Mavric said:

Incidentally, this discussion made me think of a different comparison to make.

 

Tanner Lee under Langsdorf: 76/146, 52.1%, 898 yards, 6.2 ypa, 7 TDs, 9 INTs

Ryker Fyfe under Langsdorf: 82/154, 53.2%, 998 yards, 6.5 ypa, 9 TDs, 6 INTs

 

So apparently our current QB is statistically worse than the guy who everyone insisted wasn't good enough to play ahead of an injured Tommy Armstrong last year.

 

Let that play into the "POB must not be good enough to play" conversation however you like.

And Fyfe played against BIG teams. Lee has only faced scrubs so far. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Here's where things get totally subjective:

 

Watching the Spring Game it seemed clear to me that Tristan Gebbia had better instincts and baller attitude than the two QBs ahead of him. 

 

That's the stuff you can't coach, and it's the stuff that wins games regardless of the stat line.

 

If my job was on the line I'd throw him into the fire and get the Tristan Gebbia era started. 

[ColoradoHusk]

Just now, Guy Chamberlin said:

Here's where things get totally subjective:

 

Watching the Spring Game it seemed clear to me that Tristan Gebbia had better instincts and baller attitude than the two QBs ahead of him. 

 

That's the stuff you can't coach, and it's the stuff that wins games regardless of the stat line.

 

If my job was on the line I'd throw him into the fire and get the Tristan Gebbia era started. 

I agree with you.  I think Gebbia is a gamer and has intangibles you can't teach or see on film.