Adrian Martinez

[ColoradoHusk]

53 minutes ago, krc1995 said:

What is Toure? He’s a Senior, but Montana did not play last year. 

Toure would have had a senior season at Montana last year, but didn't play as he looked for a transfer to a FBS school. He's done after this year. 

[twofittyonred]

11 hours ago, krc1995 said:

What is Toure? He’s a Senior, but Montana did not play last year. 

2020 would have been Toure's senior year so he is a senior here this year..

[Husker74]

18 hours ago, jamesbond said:

Don't know why it's so hard for some people to see/admit the truth. No one is saying Martinez isn't doing great things. He does do great things. I admit it. But he also does really bad things at bad times in games. Three games this year he has hurt the team tremendously with his turnovers. Illinois: Would have had a halftime lead, nope. Michigan State, nope. Michigan, nope.

I don’t understand why people can’t see that he isn’t on the team by himself. Illinois if the line protects better he don’t fumble the ball 99% of QB that get like that is going to fumble the ball. A lot of the times when we need to score in the final minutes our line plays bad.

[Nebraska55fan]

Had a kid like this once. Adrian is the guy you want your daughter to marry, hard working, talented, great team mate, considerate etc- so was my guy. Great athlete, loved the game, amazing practice player- had transferred in because his other team was loaded at his spot and would only play defense. 

 

In games we were much better than opp- he would crush it, play like a Heisman winner- put up great numbers. Against teams much better than us, he wouldnt play so great- nervous, not confident- even come off the field some early with the fake injury limp. When we got way behind he would come back in and play really well again until the game got close, then he would fumble or make a weak play- go back into his shell. 

 

Against average teams- if we got off to a good start, he would play well, enough to take a game that should have been close to a very comfortable, sometimes blowout win. If we faltered a bit coming out of the gate, he wouldn't play well.

 

He would do the very same thing when it came to baseball. Again amazing, great kid. But when it came down to the clutch against really good competition- he just wasnt the guy that was going to ever be able to take the team over the top. Confidence issue, nerves? Don't know- but that is how this kid always played and heard that from his previous coaching staff. Martinez, bless his heart- love that kid, felt so bad for him- but this has happened far too many times for it to be just a string of bad luck Im afraid.  WHen you play baseball in the bottom of the ninth and up a run- youre in the field. There are players who are praying the ball is NOT coming to them and others that want the ball and are visioning and confident in themselves making the great play to end the game. Which of those players is Martinez? He STILL is our best chance to win- but we need to be up by enough NOT to have to rely on him to help us win a game late. Martinez could have cut to his left and maybe even scored a TD on the play he fumbled. 

[Undone]

All of this bull**** about the fumble; the whistle should have blown.

 

But more importantly, our defense shouldn't have let them come back once we were up 29-26. This was our defense's worst game of the year. Do people realize this?

 

29 points absolutely should have been enough to win the game if Rutgers held them to 20.

[Mavric]

22 minutes ago, Undone said:

All of this bull**** about the fumble; the whistle should have blown.

 

But more importantly, our defense shouldn't have let them come back once we were up 29-26. This was our defense's worst game of the year. Do people realize this?

 

29 points absolutely should have been enough to win the game if Rutgers held them to 20.

 

It's always interesting to see the narratives that come out.  How many people have lauded our defense and complained about the offense?

 

We are currently #41 in total defense.  Which isn't bad but not exactly stellar.  We are #14 in total offense.

 

Granted, we are #22 in scoring defense.  And I'd rather be higher in that category.  And we're #48 in scoring offense.  But the defense has also been pretty healthy while the offense has battled a lot of injuries.

 

So the narrative isn't completely wrong.  But we probably haven't been quite as good on defense as it seems like we have.  We sure could have used to get them off the field several different times Saturday and couldn't get it done.

[Undone]

5 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

It's always interesting to see the narratives that come out.  How many people have lauded our defense and complained about the offense?

 

We are currently #41 in total defense.  Which isn't bad but not exactly stellar.  We are #14 in total offense.

 

Granted, we are #22 in scoring defense.  And I'd rather be higher in that category.  And we're #48 in scoring offense.  But the defense has also been pretty healthy while the offense has battled a lot of injuries.

 

So the narrative isn't completely wrong.  But we probably haven't been quite as good on defense as it seems like we have.  We sure could have used to get them off the field several different times Saturday and couldn't get it done.

 

I just posted this in the 'What did we learn' thread, but to me what happened in this game is that our defense just got beaten by their TE delay in the second half.

 

And I don't want to be a little b**** and whine about reffing but they also basically got gifted a touchdown late in the 2nd quarter.

 

Blaming Martinez for this loss is just not an intelligent take at all. No team has put up more than 17 points on Michigan this year. And how many of them will put up more than 29 down the back half of the season?

 

I will also say that Frost & Lubick maybe should have opened up the playbook a bit earlier when the game plan went a bit stagnant after the first drive. But holy crap, how awesome was that first counter bubble screen?!?!

[Nebraska55fan]

30 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

It's always interesting to see the narratives that come out.  How many people have lauded our defense and complained about the offense?

 

We are currently #41 in total defense.  Which isn't bad but not exactly stellar.  We are #14 in total offense.

 

Granted, we are #22 in scoring defense.  And I'd rather be higher in that category.  And we're #48 in scoring offense.  But the defense has also been pretty healthy while the offense has battled a lot of injuries.

 

So the narrative isn't completely wrong.  But we probably haven't been quite as good on defense as it seems like we have.  We sure could have used to get them off the field several different times Saturday and couldn't get it done.

  

We rank 106th in Red ZOne offense. We rank 84th in Offensive Efficiency.

 

Love that we move the ball etc- but at the end of the day what matters most is scoring points and winning games. They dont award points and wins on yards gained. Offense is doing some nice things- but they have to score in the red zone and close out games. 

 

We just have issues scoring, closing games out and putting it away in the red zone.  We just aren't clutch- when it matters on offense. 

 

 

 https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/fei/overalloff/2020

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct

 

Defensively we would rank in the top 10-15 scoring wise if you take away the points the offense has given up, the terrible spots they put the defense in and the special teams nonsense. Yes, they need to get the job done in the clutch also- but where it counts- scoring, they are ahead of the offense. 

 

[Mavric]

3 minutes ago, Undone said:

I will also say that Frost & Lubick maybe should have opened up the playbook a bit earlier when the game plan went a bit stagnant after the first drive. But holy crap, how awesome was that first counter bubble screen?!?!

 

Yeah, I think it's a fair criticism that we were too conservative in the first half.  For sure after the first drive.

 

Also, I'm usually a big fan of going for the TD inside the five and living with bad field position for them if you don't make it.  But in this case, it was kind of a game where you would expect it to be low scoring.  So I probably would have taken the points and the momentum that time.

[Cdog923]

1 minute ago, Mavric said:

 

Yeah, I think it's a fair criticism that we were too conservative in the first half.  For sure after the first drive.

 

Also, I'm usually a big fan of going for the TD inside the five and living with bad field position for them if you don't make it.  But in this case, it was kind of a game where you would expect it to be low scoring.  So I probably would have taken the points and the momentum that time.

 

I didn't mind going for it, but the playcall left a lot to be desired. 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Nebraska55fan said:

  

 

Love that we move the ball etc- but at the end of the day what matters most is scoring points and winning games. They dont award points and wins on yards gained. 

 

We just have issues scoring, closing games out and putting it away in the red zone. We rank 106th in Red ZOne offense. We rank 84th in Offensive Efficiency. We just aren't clutch- when it matters on offense. 

 

 

 https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaa/fei/overalloff/2020

 

https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/red-zone-scoring-pct

 

Defensively we would rank in the top 10-15 scoring wise if you take away the points the offense has given up, the terrible spots they put the defense in and the special teams nonsense. Yes, they need to get the job done in the clutch also- but where it counts- scoring, they are ahead of the offense. 

 

Losing this game wasn't because we couldn't score points.  We scored 29 points.  No defensive points.  That was all offense.  That should be enough to win the game, especially when you are ahead with 3 minutes left in the game.  That is way more points than anyone has scored on that defense.

[ndobney]

1 hour ago, Nebraska55fan said:

Had a kid like this once. Adrian is the guy you want your daughter to marry, hard working, talented, great team mate, considerate etc- so was my guy. Great athlete, loved the game, amazing practice player- had transferred in because his other team was loaded at his spot and would only play defense. 

 

In games we were much better than opp- he would crush it, play like a Heisman winner- put up great numbers. Against teams much better than us, he wouldnt play so great- nervous, not confident- even come off the field some early with the fake injury limp. When we got way behind he would come back in and play really well again until the game got close, then he would fumble or make a weak play- go back into his shell. 

 

Against average teams- if we got off to a good start, he would play well, enough to take a game that should have been close to a very comfortable, sometimes blowout win. If we faltered a bit coming out of the gate, he wouldn't play well.

 

He would do the very same thing when it came to baseball. Again amazing, great kid. But when it came down to the clutch against really good competition- he just wasnt the guy that was going to ever be able to take the team over the top. Confidence issue, nerves? Don't know- but that is how this kid always played and heard that from his previous coaching staff. Martinez, bless his heart- love that kid, felt so bad for him- but this has happened far too many times for it to be just a string of bad luck Im afraid.  WHen you play baseball in the bottom of the ninth and up a run- youre in the field. There are players who are praying the ball is NOT coming to them and others that want the ball and are visioning and confident in themselves making the great play to end the game. Which of those players is Martinez? He STILL is our best chance to win- but we need to be up by enough NOT to have to rely on him to help us win a game late. Martinez could have cut to his left and maybe even scored a TD on the play he fumbled. 

Yeah a choke artist

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Yeah, I think it's a fair criticism that we were too conservative in the first half.  For sure after the first drive.

 

Also, I'm usually a big fan of going for the TD inside the five and living with bad field position for them if you don't make it.  But in this case, it was kind of a game where you would expect it to be low scoring.  So I probably would have taken the points and the momentum that time.

I'm not upset with the decision.  However, when they lined up to run a play, I was really wishing they would kick and put points on the board.  If it works, the entire narrative around the decision is different.  He was being aggressive and I liked that part.

[Mavric]

1 minute ago, Cdog923 said:

I didn't mind going for it, but the playcall left a lot to be desired. 

 

I heard it noted that we seem to be averse to throwing the ball into the end zone.

 

I'd have to watch it again but I really think it should have been there.  We just completely whiffed on the down block from the outside.

[Undone]

13 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Yeah, I think it's a fair criticism that we were too conservative in the first half.  For sure after the first drive.

 

Also, I'm usually a big fan of going for the TD inside the five and living with bad field position for them if you don't make it.  But in this case, it was kind of a game where you would expect it to be low scoring.  So I probably would have taken the points and the momentum that time.

 

Totally agree. Now the other side of the coin is that just because we make that FG doesn't necessarily make all events that followed it play out exactly the same way; it could have changed their aggressiveness in the second half also. It's not as if everything else would have absolutely been identical and then they're having to go for a TD on their last drive instead of having a FG tie it up, etc.

 

Frost's "commitment" to the power run game in the first half is now almost bordering more on stubbornness. Which is another thing that is interesting, because when he first got here he didn't have that exact drive. He wanted to run, but after three years in the B1G he really wants to run hard inside.

When it works, he's got the best offense in the West because what he'll do in the second half is break team's backs with plays like the one to Allen over the middle, or a post route bomb to Betts, or a deep slant to Toure.

 

When it doesn't work, he's playing from behind in the second half.

 

But bottom line IMO is the score should have probably been more like 9-3 at the half; they shouldn't have been gifted the penalties late in the 2nd quarter.