Armstrong update

[knapplc]

I think that's likely just because the defense has been bad for the past couple of years. It's old news. Now they're still struggling, but there seem to be some signs of hope. So the predominant sentiment is low expectations based on a couple of years of struggles combined with hope that things seem to be getting somewhat better and that there's hope that as the youngsters get more experience they could actually be pretty good.

With Martinez, I think people hoped he would develop into a better and more consistent player than he has. As a fourth year starter, I think people hoped that he would have outgrown the mental errors and figured out a way to reduce his turnovers. We have a ton of weapons on offense now and just need someone to get them the ball consistently. I think Armstrong is better at that than Martinez. I see Martinez as a sort of boom or bust sandlot player. He's wired like Brett Favre, to be a high risk/high reward kind of player. When your offense is struggling and lacks playmakers, there's a value to having a guy like that. As you have more weapons, the risks start to outweigh the rewards. Then you're better off with a consistent game manager who can find ways to get the ball in the hands of your playmakers. So I think the offense has outgrown Martinez and that we're better off with Armstrong running the show.

But regardless, the topic is far more current and interesting than dissecting for the 300th time why the defense is still struggling.

You are struggling to find reasons to justify continuing on about Martinez. Read what you wrote here.

The defense has been bad for the past couple of years so it's old news. Is that to imply that Martinez' struggles are new? Or that Martinez hasn't struggled for the last couple of years? Because neither is true, and neither makes any sense.

Armstrong should play because he's a better game manager than Taylor. What's that based on? Games against a D1AA opponent and a team that hasn't won a conference game since 2011? Is that really enough to base a decision that affects the rest of this season on?

Is there some reason to think it's more likely that Armstrong is going to lead us to a conference title game? Because Martinez has led us to two in the last three years. And if you're going to tell me it's different this year because Taylor's injured 2010 has something to say about that.

So we need a game manager rather than a Martinez-esque risk-taker? I'd like to introduce you to Ron Kellogg III, then.

And the offense has outgrown Taylor Martinez. The same offense that was built around him, with him as the basis. That makes as much sense as blaming Tommy Armstrong for allowing SDSU's running back to gain 200 yards. Which makes sense if we're blaming our defense's struggles on Taylor.

 

[Enhance]

Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Martinez isn't the reason we've been losing, but he's one of the biggest reasons we've been winning the past three years?

The guy fumbles and everyone wants to bench him. The guy puts the team on his back and defeats Ohio State, Michigan State (twice), Penn State (twice), Michigan, Wisconsin, and a host of weaker opponents and his detractors brush those wins aside. He has not cost us one game, not one time, in his career.

The old saying in politics was "It's the economy, stupid." Remember that? It has a cousin that applies here - "It's the defense, stupid."

People who claim to be fans of this team but harp on and on about our quarterback need to give up being a football fan. Clearly the game is too complicated for them.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

On top of that, tfree32, I've seen that article linked several times on this board, and I will continue to vehemently oppose it's use as anything more than a fun read with no statistical relevance. Read how they calculated their data - it's extremely, extremely, skewed. The article itself questions the validity and says something along the lines of this should article should not be used to draw any real conclusions from.

What specific issues do you have with the data?

Read their data collection rundown page. They tracked certain teams more than others, but judged each one the same way. For example, IIRC, they tracked every single pass/game for Alabama, and all the games or either all but one for LSU. But, for a team like Nebraska, and a few dozen other teams, they only tracked two games. They then fluctuated the data to extend over 12 games so that all teams were "tracked" for a 12 game stretch.

Even more simply, they used TM's passing stats from two games as averages to critique his entire season. And like I said, they did that for the VAST majority of teams. It's not fair to use 12 games worth of data for one team and only two games worth of data for others, but then compare them on the same scale.

 

[Ric Flair]

I think that's likely just because the defense has been bad for the past couple of years. It's old news. Now they're still struggling, but there seem to be some signs of hope. So the predominant sentiment is low expectations based on a couple of years of struggles combined with hope that things seem to be getting somewhat better and that there's hope that as the youngsters get more experience they could actually be pretty good.

With Martinez, I think people hoped he would develop into a better and more consistent player than he has. As a fourth year starter, I think people hoped that he would have outgrown the mental errors and figured out a way to reduce his turnovers. We have a ton of weapons on offense now and just need someone to get them the ball consistently. I think Armstrong is better at that than Martinez. I see Martinez as a sort of boom or bust sandlot player. He's wired like Brett Favre, to be a high risk/high reward kind of player. When your offense is struggling and lacks playmakers, there's a value to having a guy like that. As you have more weapons, the risks start to outweigh the rewards. Then you're better off with a consistent game manager who can find ways to get the ball in the hands of your playmakers. So I think the offense has outgrown Martinez and that we're better off with Armstrong running the show.

But regardless, the topic is far more current and interesting than dissecting for the 300th time why the defense is still struggling.

You are struggling to find reasons to justify continuing on about Martinez. Read what you wrote here.

The defense has been bad for the past couple of years so it's old news. Is that to imply that Martinez' struggles are new? Or that Martinez hasn't struggled for the last couple of years? Because neither is true, and neither makes any sense.

Armstrong should play because he's a better game manager than Taylor. What's that based on? Games against a D1AA opponent and a team that hasn't won a conference game since 2011? Is that really enough to base a decision that affects the rest of this season on?

Is there some reason to think it's more likely that Armstrong is going to lead us to a conference title game? Because Martinez has led us to two in the last three years. And if you're going to tell me it's different this year because Taylor's injured 2010 has something to say about that.

So we need a game manager rather than a Martinez-esque risk-taker? I'd like to introduce you to Ron Kellogg III, then.

And the offense has outgrown Taylor Martinez. The same offense that was built around him, with him as the basis. That makes as much sense as blaming Tommy Armstrong for allowing SDSU's running back to gain 200 yards. Which makes sense if we're blaming our defense's struggles on Taylor.

I was helping to explain why I think more recent posts have been focused on Martinez's struggles rather than those of the defense. We have a viable replacement for Martinez with Armstrong. We don't have a viable replacement for the entire defense. We have 3+ years of game film on Martinez. He's a known quantity. And despite his significant edge in experience, I like our chances better with Armstrong at this point. A large part of that is intangible, just based on the feel that I get from the offense when each is playing. They seem far more comfortable and confident with Armstrong at the helm than with Martinez. That's kind of shocking given that Martinez is a four year starter and Armstrong is a redshirt freshman who just made his second start. But it's the sense that I get from watching the team. The offense just seems to run better with Armstrong at QB.

I think you're having difficulties explaining why you seem to think that turnovers and time of possession are irrelevant to the defense's performance and the team's struggles. Because that's really what you're saying. You seem to think that the fact that Martinez simply hands the other team the ball 2-3 times a game and can't keep the offense on the field is irrelevant to those struggles. I couldn't disagree more.

 

[Mavric]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

I'm not so sure about that. Especially with our defense, you have to know a lot about the defense. For instance, it could look like a linebacker or safety is taking a poor angle, when they are actually in the position that they are designed to be in, but a DL could've hedged improperly or didn't catch the edge like he was supposed to. Typing that out, I guess it is "lazy" to pick on Martinez, but is also more obvious when Martinez is at fault. Martinez also plays a much larger and more critical role on the team.

Not to mention, if someone messes up on defense, they are replaced. If T-Magic messes up as a QB, he doesn't get pulled out of the game.

I've seen countless posts recently saying how bad Thad is, but I think it is harder to make a post complaining about Thad because there aren't really any statistics to back up that claim. I'd also add that I think the other cause is that everyone knows the defense needs work, and opinions are pretty split regarding Taylor. Love, hate, or indifferent. On defense, no one loves it.

But most of the complaints about the defense aren't about the players. They're about the coaches. Which is only "fruit" easier to pick at than the QB.

 

[EZ-E]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

I've done a lot to educate myself on defensive schemes and philosophy. Not just ours, but other teams. I've been ridiculed and told that I am wrong by the people that clearly don't know anything.

 

[zoogs]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

Nailed it.

 

[EZ-E]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

Nailed it.

I remember someone on GameDay saying that the most maligned job in the nation was the QB position at ND. I remember saying to everyone I was watching with that (I believe it was Herbstreit) they clearly have never been to Lincoln, Nebraska.

 

[KJ.]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

The quarterback is also low-hanging fruit for people like you to give way too much credit when something good happens.

Martinez did not win a single game by himself in the last four years. He also didn't lose a single game. Of course games come down to far more than a few plays, and if you really want to make an argument for "if this play doesn't happen then the outcome of the game changes" you can name several more players who have "won" or "lost" games.

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

The quarterback is also low-hanging fruit for people like you to give way too much credit when something good happens.

Martinez did not win a single game by himself in the last four years. He also didn't lose a single game. Of course games come down to far more than a few plays, and if you really want to make an argument for "if this play doesn't happen then the outcome of the game changes" you can name several more players who have "won" or "lost" games.

Martinez may not have been the only reason for those comeback wins last year, but without him we don't win any of those games....

 

[knapplc]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

The quarterback is also low-hanging fruit for people like you to give way too much credit when something good happens.

Martinez did not win a single game by himself in the last four years. He also didn't lose a single game. Of course games come down to far more than a few plays, and if you really want to make an argument for "if this play doesn't happen then the outcome of the game changes" you can name several more players who have "won" or "lost" games.

Who made the throws to win the Northwestern and Michigan State games last year? Did Rex sneak in when nobody was looking?

 

[Count 'Bility]

With all due respect Knapp, when youre down two possessions with minutes left-as we experienced a few occasions last year and won-, that horrible defense has to make a stop or three for Martinez to lead us to that victory. It's a team game. Everyone has to do their part.

I'm back on the fence on this Martinez-Armstrong situation. I was firmly for Armstrong, but I'm starting to wonder what we could see from Taylor when (an even bigger IF) he's 100%. Is this new spark on offense possibly a direct result of Beck and offensive staff's approach? Because it's blatanly obvious that starting with the first play of the SDSU game there was an extra spark. A new air of confidence within the offense. The oline has been tremendous in back to back games now. I have not seen an Oline impose their will and do it consistently in Pelini era.

Not gonna speculate that the players have anything against Taylor whatsoever, but as a player and/or lineman, you know when you have someone better back there. Someone that just exudes that confidence a bit more. I just cant help but notice there's an extra spark with Armstrong in the game. He displays incredible confidence in the receivers downfield. Everyone talks about the catch by Kenny Bell, but what about the throw. That was an incredible throw by Tommy. To show that kind of confidence in your receiver to drop that ball into literally quadruple coverage, and to do it on a rope, is something I honestly cant picture Taylor doing.

I hope Taylor gets healthy. I hope he's extremely motivated to get out and prove folks wrong and go out like he deserves. But he has to do it the right way and not try to do too much. Though I'm on the fence right now, it's still a slight lean to Armstrong becuase there just seems to be a little extra from the guys since he's checked in.

 

[jmfb]

No one on this board has ever said the 1 piece missing from this team is a QB, thats like Knap said for 12 year old boys and 25 year old ex sorority flag football players- a criticism of someones lack of knowledge

However at this point- TA may be part of the solution and is a better choice than TM,. TA hasnt done anything to hurt his chances of starting and thanks for making sure everyone is lined up, no motion, no illegal formation, no delay of game and no QB fumbles.

In fact he should have 3 more TD passes, 2 were dropped and that route Foster ran was awful- there is NO WAY that was the correct route. You dont put yourself at that angle- the worst angle to catch the ball, its either an out or corner, not that sick thing he ran, that angle gave him and the QB no chance to make that play. What a shame- geat call, by Beck.

If you really think TM is going to be 100% after a turf toe injury, then youve never had turf toe or dont understand the injury

If you dont know what TM is without a legit run threat- then like Knap said "the game is too complicated for them"

For those that dont understand our offense:

Most of those sweeps you see are "sweep reads" they are designed as a read with the QB keeping to hold one of the unblocked LBs, when the defense knows the QB either cant run or wont run, those plays dont work

A lot of the Powers you see with pulling guards are "powe reads" again a read with the QB keeping to hold one of the unblocked LBs, when the defense knows the QB either cant run or wont run, those plays dont work

It also limits our playbook in a bad way, limits what this team does best and doesnt allow the OC to put the defense in conflict. Some of these "sweep reads" and "power reads" are also called plays to the QB which are blocked a little bit differently to maximize the Opp for the QB to keep. You dont see those plays when TM is in there, because he cant/wont run

You also got to see a Jet Sweep, read this last week. Something you didnt see TM run much of.

Same goes for the Speed Option- you cant run it with TM in there- he just cant master the play, he doesnt press the DE and he gets too deep in the backfield and makes poor decisions with the ball, often times not pitching until the RB is already on the sidelines- which is just awful from a tech standpoint, Only time you pitch late is downfield- second level.

The only mistakes I saw him make were on that one Pistol Handoff to Cross, he turned the wrong way, Cross would have been in.

On some of those "keep" zone reads- werent zone reads, those were keeps off of 'speed reads" and "power reads" and they were precalled and blocked to give the QB the advantage- a called keep.

He also threw into some pretty nasty wind.

 

[HUSKER FREAK]

Tommy Armstrong looks natural when playing QB to Where T-Mart looks to be forced. I think T-Mart needs to get his chance to prove he can still win here in big games especially, but if he chokes then it is time to make a change

 

[jmfb]

I'd say that is because we (think) we know the cause of our offensive issues (Taylor) while on defense it is harder to pinpoint (excluding Wiscy CCG last year, where it was brutally obvious that Stafford was getting dominated).

No, it's because "the quarterback" is low-hanging fruit, and people are too lazy to learn the game enough to know how to properly gripe about the defense. People gripe about Martinez because it's easy.

I've done a lot to educate myself on defensive schemes and philosophy. Not just ours, but other teams. I've been ridiculed and told that I am wrong by the people that clearly don't know anything.

Where is your post on our defense and zone read out of spread?

I looked at theory some on Sat and you were spot on

Show me where that post is and I can give a much fuller report.

 

[knapplc]

With all due respect Knapp, when youre down two possessions with minutes left-as we experienced a few occasions last year and won-, that horrible defense has to make a stop or three for Martinez to lead us to that victory. It's a team game. Everyone has to do their part.

Why were we in those deficits to begin with?