Could this be Bo's TO moment?

[Hercules]

Taylor is by far the best QB this team has. One bad game (where the offense still managed 38 points) doesn't change that. Stop with the incessant QB talk and pay attention to the thing that's ACTUALLY killing the team - the defense.

 

[skersfan]

Still this fan base can not see the forest for the trees, I think robsker is the only one that really sees the problem.

Taylor played bad, Oline played bad, OC not to the level of where he should be, but did put up 38 points, Dline is and has been a joke since Suh left, three years now I think, devensive scheme seemed to be working until Braxton made the TD, sh#t your pants change everything, sink the boat, all rats drown.

Who is responsible for this, at 20 year old kid, getting beat half to death, and Oline that is physically beaten against anything but a Sun Belt conference team, BCS freshman beat them to death, A above average Ohio State team and only above average destroy our defensive genius.

Who is responsible, if you do not know, if you do not have an idea this is going to continue to until the AD says enough.

Quit blaming kids that are put in unwinnable situations, against far better talent and Worlds better coaching.

 

[Danny Bateman]

That's not quite what you said. You said his backup had to be able to start for any NFL team

What's going to be called into question the next few weeks is if Taylor does give us the best chance of winning over any of our other QBs, both in the short and long-term. He may be a veteran starter, but the number of rookie mistakes he makes is really troubling. Make no mistake, it should be prove-it time for Taylor, which can go in either direction.

I'm not calling for his benching, but I can't really get on board with the "There's nothing wrong, Taylor has NOTHING to worry about" camp, not after this latest debacle.

And also, let Pap, Els, Raymond, Kaz, and Bo worry about the defense. That they have work to do on that side of the ball doesn't mean the offensive coaches just sit around and coast.

I agree 100% Zoogies. The bolded should be your response to the "Taylor is set in stone as the starter" camp.

It's not about whether Taylor gives us the best chance to win next week. What we're discussing is whether he can get us over the hump as the pilot of the offense and win this team a BCS-bowl type game or one that's even bigger.

Taylor is NOT the biggest problem. That is, quite glaringly, the defense. The OL also got mashed by OSU. But he is A problem at this point. He seems to regress every time the team achieves some clout (i.e., near the top 20 or so rankwise) and chokes in the ensuing big game.

Now, say next season, the defense has miraculously turned around under Pelini, and is 1000x better. Perhaps a notch below what we saw in 09 or 10, or even on par with those defense (a guy can hope, right? :lol: ). Then you have a situation where your defense keeps you in the big games that you desperately need to win, but you still have a senior quarterback who loses their composure and just can't get it done in said games.

Is it THAT inconceivable to think that we could trot Armstrong or Kellogg out there and still win most or all of our games this season, given good adapted offensive gameplan (i.e., to cover for TA's lesser knowledge of the offense compared to Taylor or Kellogg's immobility) from Coach Beck? And what if those guys turn out to be better QB's overall or better game managers than Taylor? What if they are better with ball security or don't try to force throws in big games that turn into picks? Then benching Taylor is actually a good thing.

Yes, it's hypothetical, but if you don't see Taylor reverting to "deer in the headlights" mode in big games, you haven't been watching our big games. He has had several big wins for us... OSU last year, Wisconsin was a great comeback this year... but his lack of ability to play mistake-free (or close to it) ball in our biggest games is unnerving.

If we bench TMart and start TA or Kellogg and they turn out to be better, then we enter the glorified 2013 season when we're supposed to make all this noise with a better QB than we MAY have with Taylor a senior and still making the same mistakes. I personally think it is worth finding out and wouldn't be opposed to yanking Taylor. Who knows, maybe that'd light a fire under his butt and he'd re-earn the starting spot and play much better from here on out.

Sorry, but Taylor Martinez is no Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Even listing those guys in comparison to Taylor is asinine. Those guys don't get benched after big turnover games because: A) They're clutch as hell and actually lead their teams to multiple big wins and B) They're in the NFL, where they have a much longer career window than the 4 year college window. You stick with those guys because they're great and going to lead their teams for a LONG time. Taylor, on the other hand, is here for a max of a year and half more, and has NOT been clutch in our biggest games. He has, on the other hand, been a turnover machine and not gotten it done when we needed it most.

Looking in another direction at QB isn't as ridiculous as some of you make it out to be. Think long-term NU success here. Sure, QB isn't the biggest problem at this time, but a good fraction of us see that it is a concern, and still one that will need to be addressed before this team takes the next step. Whether we stick with Taylor or bench him remains to be determined.

 

[flatwaterfan]

I think Tom's moments were not in playing certain players but rather in adjusting his philosophy. The first major change was going from a pocket passer to a dual threat QB. The 2nd major change was scraping the 5-2 and going with a 4-3. Tom's overall philosophy was run the ball and play great D with an emphasis of stopping the run.

 

[AFhusker]

I think Tom's moments were not in playing certain players but rather in adjusting his philosophy. The first major change was going from a pocket passer to a dual threat QB. The 2nd major change was scraping the 5-2 and going with a 4-3. Tom's overall philosophy was run the ball and play great D with an emphasis of stopping the run.

That was changed when they invited FSU's coaches up to Lincoln in the off season in 1992. Then we started to used guys we recruited as safety's and CB's as LB's to get more speed on the field....and we used it to almost beat FSU in the 1993 MNC game and if we would have had replay back then, would have won it. And that is the main reason as to why the 60-3 streak started.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I think Tom's moments were not in playing certain players but rather in adjusting his philosophy. The first major change was going from a pocket passer to a dual threat QB. The 2nd major change was scraping the 5-2 and going with a 4-3. Tom's overall philosophy was run the ball and play great D with an emphasis of stopping the run.

That was changed when they invited FSU's coaches up to Lincoln in the off season in 1992. Then we started to used guys we recruited as safety's and CB's as LB's to get more speed on the field....and we used it to almost beat FSU in the 1993 MNC game and if we would have had replay back then, would have won it. And that is the main reason as to why the 60-3 streak started.

I'll never forget the game we "unveiled" the 43 against Colorado in 92. Though we used it some prior to that game, but that is when it was fully unleashed. They had no answer for it. In fact they had no answer for it or about 6-7 years or so.

 

[4skers89]

You can't blame the offense or Taylor for this loss. You can blame them for Ohio State getting 63 points, as opposed to, say, 49. But here's the thing: the offense had a bad game, against Ohio State, in Columbus. When that happens, and you still score 38 points, you have a very good offense. A bad game against Ohio State on the road should result in somewhere between 0-14 points. We had a bad night, and put up 38. Remember three years ago, when the offense would go scoreless in the second half and we'd lose by a field goal? Or when the defense would hold the team to 9 points and we'd still lose? That's when the offense was the problem. When we score 38 points and lose by 25 - I'm sorry, but stop talking about the QB. Why is it that we hear so many people wanting to bench Taylor after a game like that compared to Joe Ganz in 2007. He put up 36 and 51 points against Kansas and Colorado, lost by multiple touchdowns and threw 4 and 3 interceptions in those games respectively. I don't recall everyone calling for him to be benched after those performances.

I often think about our defense from a few years ago and see how productive of an offense we have now. Combine the two and you have a top 15 team-even with the problems on offense. We still have the same head coach, and we were playing against spread offenses in B12. What's changed? Is it that the B12 teams were more focused on passing and less mobile quarterback centric like OSU and Michigan? Our defense is trending downward year over year but is the fact that we didn't give up more than 600 yards a good sign?

 

[Count 'Bility]

You can't blame the offense or Taylor for this loss. You can blame them for Ohio State getting 63 points, as opposed to, say, 49. But here's the thing: the offense had a bad game, against Ohio State, in Columbus. When that happens, and you still score 38 points, you have a very good offense. A bad game against Ohio State on the road should result in somewhere between 0-14 points. We had a bad night, and put up 38. Remember three years ago, when the offense would go scoreless in the second half and we'd lose by a field goal? Or when the defense would hold the team to 9 points and we'd still lose? That's when the offense was the problem. When we score 38 points and lose by 25 - I'm sorry, but stop talking about the QB. Why is it that we hear so many people wanting to bench Taylor after a game like that compared to Joe Ganz in 2007. He put up 36 and 51 points against Kansas and Colorado, lost by multiple touchdowns and threw 4 and 3 interceptions in those games respectively. I don't recall everyone calling for him to be benched after those performances.

I often think about our defense from a few years ago and see how productive of an offense we have now. Combine the two and you have a top 15 team-even with the problems on offense. We still have the same head coach, and we were playing against spread offenses in B12. What's changed? Is it that the B12 teams were more focused on passing and less mobile quarterback centric like OSU and Michigan? Our defense is trending downward year over year but is the fact that we didn't give up more than 600 yards a good sign?

The combination of this year's offense and the '09 defense would be National Title worthy. That D gave up over 20 points twice the whole year, and Colorado's 20+ was not legitimate.

 

[Stickney]

EXCELLENT post. Running QB's are a nightmare for anyone.

Except, it seems, for opponents of Nebraska's running QBs.

:sarcasm

 

[Stickney]

The combination of this year's offense and the '09 defense would be National Title worthy. That D gave up over 20 points twice the whole year, and Colorado's 20+ was not legitimate.

This post is direct to the point -- Football is a TEAM sport. A great D rarely can overcome a bad O, and vice versa.

Bo has chosen to run a bend but don't break Defense that gives up yards instead of points (in theory). And he has chosen to run an offense that I dare say no one would describe as "ball controlling." To me this is hugely problematic.

One of the HUGE problems on D under Bo has been the inability to get off the field (even that '09 D suffered from that). Hence they get tired. And the O has done little in the name of long grind it out time killing ball control to give the D a rest.

The 90s Defenses were great. But they were great because they played with leads and the O protected them with long drives and time killing.

2.5 seasons of T-Mart has shown, pretty much what you are gonna get with him at the helm. Could it be better with someone else? Could it be worse?

 

[Count 'Bility]

The combination of this year's offense and the '09 defense would be National Title worthy. That D gave up over 20 points twice the whole year, and Colorado's 20+ was not legitimate.

This post is direct to the point -- Football is a TEAM sport. A great D rarely can overcome a bad O, and vice versa.

Bo has chosen to run a bend but don't break Defense that gives up yards instead of points (in theory). And he has chosen to run an offense that I dare say no one would describe as "ball controlling." To me this is hugely problematic.

One of the HUGE problems on D under Bo has been the inability to get off the field (even that '09 D suffered from that). Hence they get tired. And the O has done little in the name of long grind it out time killing ball control to give the D a rest.

The 90s Defenses were great. But they were great because they played with leads and the O protected them with long drives and time killing.

2.5 seasons of T-Mart has shown, pretty much what you are gonna get with him at the helm. Could it be better with someone else? Could it be worse?

Yes. Which leads to my next thought. We say the offense pack it in in '09 after the Iowa St. debacle to, as McKewon said, to protect itself from itself. Do we see the same thing this year now maybe? Our offense, not necassarily gets vanilla, but slows down the tempo and controls the clock. The D is a liability, so to keep them off the field as much as possible is a plus. But the downside could be that we take ourselves out of rhythm offensively, out of our element, and wind up not scoring enough points anyway.