What did we learn? (The NW edition, sponsored by the MASH 4077)

[olddominionhusker]

10 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Also TFLs

Yep. I think this defense is moving in the right direction and has been a bright spot this year. They are not at the point where they are gonna take over a game against a talented offensive opponent, but for the first time in a long time I don’t dread the defense being on the field. I like the aggressive nature of the scheme. 

 

And before anyone comes comes back with Ohio St. stats I still say the offense killed them that game. They were on the field way too much and watching your offense piss down it’s leg series after series has got to take a toll. Oh yeah and OSU is really good. 

[teachercd]

If the thought process is that you sit a starting QB when he is playing poorly so that he can see the field for a series and then come back in and he will be awesome...shouldn't that mean that when the second string QB comes in that he should basically be Tom Brady Montana Unitis?  

 

You know, since he was standing there watching from the sidelines?

 

I better let Frost know!  Is his email the same as Coach Fitz?  #IDon'tCare or is it different?

[RedSavage]

9 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Wow. You are talking about 2 totally different things. Just because Vedral did was he was supposed to doesn’t mean that Martinez would have lost the game if he had been QB. Your thoughts are pure speculation and conjecture. 

Yes, you’re right, I don’t know if we would have actually lost the game with Martinez in bc this whole conversation is speculative but I feel like we would have.  Obviously it’s all what ifs.  Vedral looked much more decisive and the offense looked much more crisp.  Martinez hasn’t been decisive aside from about a game and a half all season.  And he especially didn’t look decisive this game.  
 

Maybe it’s just me but I thought the offense looked a hell of a lot better As a whole when Vedral was in than Martinez.  

[PaulCrewe]

2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

If the thought process is that you sit a starting QB when he is playing poorly so that he can see the field for a series and then come back in and he will be awesome...shouldn't that mean that when the second string QB comes in that he should basically be Tom Brady Montana Unitis?  

 

You know, since he was standing there watching from the sidelines?

 

I better let Frost know!  Is his email the same as Coach Fitz?  #IDon'tCare or is it different?

Besides other reasons which is pointless discussing with you, I’ll just point out the big one.

 A precedence of accountability is being shown.  When your team sees that their captain and leader can be sat for a bit due to poor performance a message is sent to the rest of them.  And accountability still seems to be lacking on this team.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, RedSavage said:

Yes, you’re right, I don’t know if we would have actually lost the game with Martinez in bc this whole conversation is speculative but I feel like we would have.  Obviously it’s all what ifs.  Vedral looked much more decisive and the offense looked much more crisp.  Martinez hasn’t been decisive aside from about a game and a half all season.  And he especially didn’t look decisive this game.  
 

Maybe it’s just me but I thought the offense looked a hell of a lot better As a whole when Vedral was in than Martinez.  

You keep saying “looked better” but the offense didn’t actually perform better.  Your perception is that the offense is doing better but the results show otherwise. 

[teachercd]

1 minute ago, PaulCrewe said:

Besides other reasons which is pointless discussing with you, I’ll just point out the big one.

 A precedence of accountability is being shown.  When your team sees that their captain and leader can be sat for a bit due to poor performance a message is sent to the rest of them.  And accountability still seems to be lacking on this team.

I know I know...I am just making a funny!

[Mavric]

2 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

You keep saying “looked better” but the offense didn’t actually perform better.  Your perception is that the offense is doing better but the results show otherwise. 

 

Look at these things that confirm what I'm saying!!!

 

Ignore all those other things that point the other direction!!!

[RedSavage]

18 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

You keep saying “looked better” but the offense didn’t actually perform better.  Your perception is that the offense is doing better but the results show otherwise. 

You ever heard of this thing called the eye test?  Sorry that having our offense look like some semblance of what our offense should probably look like is attractive.  

 

Again, it’s obviously pure speculation but I think the offense would have done worse with Martinez in there.  Martinez has been and was struggling and if you can’t see that then idk what else to say.  

[PaulCrewe]

10 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

True, but if a false start penalty happens against Adrian, he doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt from NU fans.

 

”I will take Double Standard for $200, Alex”. 

Unfortunately fans have seen that play out this year and have seen glimpses of 2018 AM, but mostly find a guy that looks more like a freshman this year.

 

Your post about Vedral not doing anything on offense pretty much mirrors what the offense was doing with AM From pretty much the 2nd quarter up until the injury.

[DrinkinwitTerrellFarley]

On 10/5/2019 at 7:11 PM, olddominionhusker said:

I learned that Big10 officials don’t hate Nebraska. They are just completely inept and playing a game that they officiate is like trying to stop terrorism. You never know when, how or who they will strike next

Last I knew the NFL was not willing to pay market value for full-time refs so I doubt the college game is going to go in that direction either.  Subjective calls like targeting, which seems to evolve every seaons IMO also play a role in adding more on their plate to try and get correct.

[Hayseed]

It may turn out that Vedral flat sucks, but this 'coach knows best' crap is getting old and the idea that I want the guy to play because he's a small town Nebraska guy is exactly the opposite of what I've ever thought or said. I assume that the coach tries to play the most capable guy and doesn't play a bunch of politics to make a point, whether it's talking up his chosen starter or hamstringing the backup to make himself look smart. I get a kick out of the sage advice when 'coach knows best'  comes from a guy who coaches the middle school team and always lets you know that. Let's ask Michael Jordan.

[Mavric]

20 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

You ever heard of this thing called the eye test?  Sorry that having our offense look like some semblance of what our offense should probably look like is attractive.  

 

Again, it’s obviously pure speculation but I think the offense would have done worse with Martinez in there.  Martinez has been and was struggling and if you can’t see that then idk what else to say.  

 

That's his point.  A lot of people are claiming that it "looked better".  But that doesn't make it true.  And the stats really don't back it up.

 

And your last comment has nothing to do with the previous discussion and isn't anything he was saying.

[CapoValley]

20 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Look at these things that confirm what I'm saying!!!

 

Ignore all those other things that point the other direction!!!

I mean, you spend a lot of time on here digging up tweets and obscure stats to justify that things maybe aren’t as bad as they seem. 

 

You posted a tweet about how Nebraska scoring against Ohio st kept a “not been shutout” streak alive. As if that’s any kind of silver lining. What if someone did that about Callahan after the 04 beatings in Oklahoma and Lubbock?

 

I agree with you that it’s madness people think Vedral is somehow better than Martinez but to taunt another persons opinions on here does nothing to further discussion, of which there are tons we can talk about here. Good and bad. 

[ColoradoHusk]

22 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

You ever heard of this thing called the eye test?  Sorry that having our offense look like some semblance of what our offense should probably look like is attractive.  

 

Again, it’s obviously pure speculation but I think the offense would have done worse with Martinez in there.  Martinez has been and was struggling and if you can’t see that then idk what else to say.  

But that’s your eye test and not the coach’s eye test and grading each play. Martinez did struggle yesterday (and at multiple times this season) but so did the whole offense. IMO, there was nothing warranting a benching of Adrian or the thought that him playing would have been the difference between a win and a loss.

 

Crap, if they call PI on Honas, that overturns the INT and Northwestern has a great chance at winning the game. And, today’s talk is “wow, the offense is really struggling, no matter who the QB is”. 

[Mavric]

2 minutes ago, CapoValley said:

I mean, you spend a lot of time on here digging up tweets and obscure stats to justify that things maybe aren’t as bad as they seem. 

 

Someone has to be the yin to your yang.

 

2 minutes ago, CapoValley said:

You posted a tweet about how Nebraska scoring against Ohio st kept a “not been shutout” streak alive. As if that’s any kind of silver lining. What if someone did that about Callahan after the 04 beatings in Oklahoma and Lubbock?

 

Now you're inventing things to blame on me.

 

2 minutes ago, CapoValley said:

I agree with you that it’s madness people think Vedral is somehow better than Martinez but to taunt another persons opinions on here does nothing to further discussion, of which there are tons we can talk about here. Good and bad. 

 

My post that you quoted above also applies to this statement.