Chatelain's column - 2003 all over again

[BigRedBuster]

First off, I'm not supporting Bo. If you read post #210 you will see my feelings on that.

It appeared your comment was supporting that so if I was wrong, then my mistake.

I am not and don't support Bo. However, I think there have been some extremely frustrated people after this game making some knee jerk reactions and comments.

Fact is, this offense has been decimated with injuries. We have extremely young kids playing out there with not much upper class leadership around them. I can point to at least four of those turnovers that might not have happened if we were healthy and experienced like we were at the beginning of the year. Would the game have been different? I don't know but it may have been.

I'm interested in knowing how people claim this team doesn't want to win, is undisciplined....Etc.

I watched a team on Saturday fighting like hell but making Freshman mistakes. All that, and we only had 3 penalties the entire game. That team wants to win and I think it's an insult to those guys to think otherwise. Now, maybe the comment actually meant something else.

 

[Enhance]

Couple of things - first, I like Sipple a lot, but he makes more excuses for the program than anyone. I don't know if that's because he works for the Journal and it's in the same city as the big program of the state. There may be some pressures there. It's not like Omaha where you're an hour away and the whole city doesn't eat, live and breathe Husker football like Lincoln does. Then again, it could just be Sip's writing and love for the program. Not sure.

My brief two cents on the program. Recruiting has been average to above average here, with a really good group coming in this last year. When your recruiting doesn't wow anybody, though, you have to make up for those deficiencies in coaching. I think it's obvious now more than ever that where this staff is right now, including where Pelini is right now, is average to above average. That doesn't mean they can't get better, but this team has produced roughly the same season results since 2011. Crushing defeats, big blowouts and the excuse train chugging along through Memorial Stadium.

We knew this was a possibility when we hired Pelini - growing pains. I'm sure we thought he would be over it by now, but he's not. How the team finishes this season will go a long way towards Pelini's future. If they can win out (including bowl game) or win 2/3, I think he keeps his job another year. Any more blowout losses, any crushing performances, or any sign that this team has given up, and he's out.

 

[Ric Flair]

The argument that Armstrong is only playing because Martinez is injured and Armstrong turned the ball over when Martinez would not have ignores the fact that Martinez led the NCAA each of the past three years in turnovers.

So while Armstrong's turnover woes are hopefully caused by youth and inexperience, it's likely that had Martinez been playing he would have committed turnovers as well. Impossible to know for sure, but we can look to history for some guidance as to how that might have played out.

 

[QMany]

The argument that Armstrong is only playing because Martinez is injured and Armstrong turned the ball over when Martinez would not have ignores the fact that Martinez led the NCAA each of the past three years in turnovers.

So while Armstrong's turnover woes are hopefully caused by youth and inexperience, it's likely that had Martinez been playing he would have committed turnovers as well. Impossible to know for sure, but we can look to history for some guidance as to how that might have played out.

I don't know fumbles off the top of my head, but Taylor had 7 interceptions in his 12 starts freshman year. TA already has that in 6 starts.

 

[grandpasknee]

I think we should hire recruit bigger, stronger and faster athletes and then make them bigger, stronger and faster after they get here. And I think we need to win more games.

 

[Enhance]

The argument that Armstrong is only playing because Martinez is injured and Armstrong turned the ball over when Martinez would not have ignores the fact that Martinez led the NCAA each of the past three years in turnovers.

So while Armstrong's turnover woes are hopefully caused by youth and inexperience, it's likely that had Martinez been playing he would have committed turnovers as well. Impossible to know for sure, but we can look to history for some guidance as to how that might have played out.

I don't know fumbles off the top of my head, but Taylor had 7 interceptions in his 12 starts freshman year. TA already has that in 6 starts.

But, but, but.... mechanics man!!!! He just "looks" the part, remember?

I like TA so nobody bite my head off. Jokes aside, I think TM's running ability certainly helped in the passing game and TA obviously doesn't have the same running ability TM did in terms of speed. I think TA has the potential to be a better passer than TM too, but, it definitely looks like he's trying to do too much or isn't seeing the field completely.

 

[Junior]

The argument that Armstrong is only playing because Martinez is injured and Armstrong turned the ball over when Martinez would not have ignores the fact that Martinez led the NCAA each of the past three years in turnovers.

So while Armstrong's turnover woes are hopefully caused by youth and inexperience, it's likely that had Martinez been playing he would have committed turnovers as well. Impossible to know for sure, but we can look to history for some guidance as to how that might have played out.

I don't know fumbles off the top of my head, but Taylor had 7 interceptions in his 12 starts freshman year. TA already has that in 6 starts.

But, but, but.... mechanics man!!!! He just "looks" the part, remember?

I like TA so nobody bite my head off. Jokes aside, I think TM's running ability certainly helped in the passing game and TA obviously doesn't have the same running ability TM did in terms of speed. I think TA has the potential to be a better passer than TM too, but, it definitely looks like he's trying to do too much or isn't seeing the field completely.

The question I have is, will the coaching staff develop Armstrong as a passer, or will he also have to seek outside coaching to improve?

 

[QMany]

The argument that Armstrong is only playing because Martinez is injured and Armstrong turned the ball over when Martinez would not have ignores the fact that Martinez led the NCAA each of the past three years in turnovers.

So while Armstrong's turnover woes are hopefully caused by youth and inexperience, it's likely that had Martinez been playing he would have committed turnovers as well. Impossible to know for sure, but we can look to history for some guidance as to how that might have played out.

I don't know fumbles off the top of my head, but Taylor had 7 interceptions in his 12 starts freshman year. TA already has that in 6 starts.

But, but, but.... mechanics man!!!! He just "looks" the part, remember?

I like TA so nobody bite my head off. Jokes aside, I think TM's running ability certainly helped in the passing game and TA obviously doesn't have the same running ability TM did in terms of speed. I think TA has the potential to be a better passer than TM too, but, it definitely looks like he's trying to do too much or isn't seeing the field completely.

The question I have is, will the coaching staff develop Armstrong as a passer, or will he also have to seek outside coaching to improve?

Do not discount all the work Beck and Ganz did with TM. He didn't improve every year only because of a week of camp with another guy.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

How is our recruiting broken....well the majority of our 2 deep is Fr because of complete failure in recruiting for practically 3 years. But yeah, sure we are doing awesome at recruiting! Look at all of our wins against teams that finished the season top 10

Two things:

1) Yes, the majority of our 2 deep is freshman because we didn't recruit well for the last 3 years. But that stuff is in the past; sure, we can point that fact out and place blame and all that stuff. What good does that do us now? The class we brought in last year and the year before were good classes. We have talent on the field and that talent is only going to get more experienced. The ceiling on these players is much higher than the ceiling from our last two defenses. More like 2009 and less like 2011. We've seen it manifest itself in the last 3 games and at other points and time this season (i.e. first half UCLA). The biggest factor hampering this coaching staff and the team in the last four seasons, in my opinion, is not having an experienced and athletic enough offense and defense on the field at the same time. 2009 and 2010 saw the defense dominate and the offense falter. 2011 and 2012 saw the offense dominate and the defense falter. It's been all across the board this year; some games the offense plays and the defense doesn't, other games the defense plays and the offense doesn't.

Color me a little too optimistic, but I think that we'll be okay. Despite the youth and inexperience on the defensive and now offensive side of the ball, we've had teams, good teams, on the ropes. UCLA, who is now #14, was down 21-3. Michigan State, who is now #13, was struggling to pull away from a Nebraska team who had committed 5 turnovers. We gone into the Big House, a place where no team had won in the last 2 1/2-3 years, and walked out victors.

2) The question, "How many teams have we beaten that have finished the season in the Top 10?" is kind of loaded, because it doesn't consider how many teams we've played that have finished in the Top 10. We could have 0 wins against teams who have finished in the Top 10 and that number couldn't be a result of the players we have on the field or the coaches we have calling the plays.

Dating back to 2010, Nebraska has played 4 teams that finished the year inside the Top 10. Our record? 0-4. It's not very good, and it doesn't do anything to quell the swell of anti-Bo-ness, but it is what it is. Facts are facts, and the fact is that Nebraska hasn't beaten a "quality" team in the past few seasons.

But that kind of ties back into the first point. Top 10 teams generally have an experienced and athletic enough offense and defense on the field at the same time. Nebraska hasn't had that, but we could very well have that soon. Is it just a matter of time? That's a hard question to answer.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The argument that Armstrong is only playing because Martinez is injured and Armstrong turned the ball over when Martinez would not have ignores the fact that Martinez led the NCAA each of the past three years in turnovers.

So while Armstrong's turnover woes are hopefully caused by youth and inexperience, it's likely that had Martinez been playing he would have committed turnovers as well. Impossible to know for sure, but we can look to history for some guidance as to how that might have played out.

PASSING GP-GS Effic Cmp-Att-Int Pct Yds TD Lng Avg/G

Armstrong Jr., Tommy 7-6 119.54 61-115-7 53.0 802 7 38 114.6

Martinez, Taylor 4-4 140.03 69-110-2 62.7 667 10 42 166.8

Read more at http://www.huskermax...EMo0rYXT7bKo.99

Last year

Martinez, Taylor 14-14 141.59 228-368-12 62.0 2871 23 74 205.1

Rushing

GP-GS Att Gain Loss Net Avg TD Long Avg/G

Martinez last year 14-14 195 1317 298 1019 5.2 10 92 72.8

Armstrong this year 7-6 56 237 62 175 3.1 2 15 25.0

Read more at http://www.huskermax...EMo0rYXT7bKo.99

If Martinez was healthy, he would be playing. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not paying attention and has a skewed view of Martinez as our QB.

And, it would make a huge difference in this offense. I'm excited about Armstrong. He can be a fantastic QB for us. However, there is no way he was going to play better than Martinez as a redshirt senior if he was healthy.

 

[Saunders]

The argument that Armstrong is only playing because Martinez is injured and Armstrong turned the ball over when Martinez would not have ignores the fact that Martinez led the NCAA each of the past three years in turnovers.

Can we stop trotting this out now?

Because it's a damned lie.

 

[carlfense]

The argument that Armstrong is only playing because Martinez is injured and Armstrong turned the ball over when Martinez would not have ignores the fact that Martinez led the NCAA each of the past three years in turnovers.

Can we stop trotting this out now?

Because it's a damned lie.

Where did he rank? Also . . . even if he didn't lead the NCAA it would be pretty tough to argue with the core of the argument: Taylor Martinez turned the ball over a lot.

 

[ZRod]

The argument that Armstrong is only playing because Martinez is injured and Armstrong turned the ball over when Martinez would not have ignores the fact that Martinez led the NCAA each of the past three years in turnovers.

Can we stop trotting this out now?

Because it's a damned lie.

Where did he rank? Also . . . even if he didn't lead the NCAA it would be pretty tough to argue with the core of the argument: Taylor Martinez turned the ball over a lot.

So did Brett Favre!

 

[Saunders]

The argument that Armstrong is only playing because Martinez is injured and Armstrong turned the ball over when Martinez would not have ignores the fact that Martinez led the NCAA each of the past three years in turnovers.

Can we stop trotting this out now?

Because it's a damned lie.

Where did he rank? Also . . . even if he didn't lead the NCAA it would be pretty tough to argue with the core of the argument: Taylor Martinez turned the ball over a lot.

I can't tell his ranking because I can't find an accurate list that lists total turnovers by player. You have to add up interceptions and fumbles separately.

What I was able to find (with 2 minutes of googling) is that he has never led the nation in turnovers.

What the original stat was supposed to be was that he led the nation in fumbles 3 years in a row, and that's not true either.

Of course, none of this excuses Nebraska's lack of emphasis on holding onto the football. It's just a knock people use on Taylor to prop up Tommy... even though he's on pace to beat Taylor's turnovers as a frosh.

 

[ZRod]

What the original stat was supposed to be was that he led the nation in fumbles 3 years in a row, and that's not true either.

Why isn't this one true, I know from past research that it was indeed true for last year but I guess I can't recall looking for the previous 2 years.