Fall Camp Position Battles - Quarterback

[84HuskerLaw]

I think Armstrong could run Osborne's offense quite well and he is just as athletic as Frazier (bigger, stronger and faster really). Stronger arm but Tommy F seemed to avoid some of the bad plays in the passing game, although in fairness to Armstrong, he was not ever put in the difficult situations as much.

I think Frazier could run about any offense but he was very well suited to the "Osbone". I would love to see Armstrong run the good old wishbone. He'd be scary good in that too.

 

[swmohusker]

Benning discussed the Pick 6 play on his radio show this morning. He said there were 3 things that caused the INT return for the TD, which was a comeback route on the sideline.

1. The WR made a bad break out of his cut, and didn't come back to the ball very aggressively/downhill. Coach Williams immediately ripped into him.

2. Armstrong didn't make a great throw, as his throw was to the inside, rather than the sideline.

3. Chris Jones made a great cut on the ball and great play.

So, Armstrong appears to have not made an accurate throw on a sideline comeback route, but that is a long throw, and we know that Armstrong's struggles with accuracy at times. However, the pick 6 wasn't entirely Armstrong's fault, and there also should be credit given to Chris Jones. If the WR fights to the ball more, the pass is probably just broken up and the offense moves on.

#1 and 3 don't matter. If #2 doesn't happen the ball is not intercepted. Period. The DB play and wr have no bearing on if through qb puts the ball where it should it will not be intercepted. It will just be incomplete which is what we can live with.

#1 matters just as much as #2 does. If the WR gives the QB no help on the ball, then it can lead to an INT. I understand accuracy matters for the QB, but the WR needs to make a better break attack the ball in the air.
Not all INT's are the 100% fault of the QB.

A comeback is an outside breaking route. If the qb throws the ball on time and to the outside the ball will not get picked. The ball was picked bc you can't miss inside. If you miss inside then the WR slipping matters.

If the WR makes a bad break and isn't to his spot on time, it doesn't matter where the QB throws it.

If it's a bad throw outside, it's an incomplete pass.
If it's a bad throw inside, it's a pick 6.

On an outside breaking route, it absolutely matters where the QB throws it.

If the receiver's "bad break" leaves him towards the inside, the QB has a split second to try to complete the pass.
The point is, the INT (in practice) isn't completely Tommy's fault.

A comeback should be thrown before the WR is breaking down or at least simultaneously. The qb doesn't read the WR break. And I don't think it is the end of the world that he threw a pick in practice. You can't take the accountability away from the qb for throwing picks unless it is a dropped ball the gets tipped In the air

So, if a receiver breaks wrong and the pass goes through the area where he was supposed to be and is picked off by a background player, that's on the QB?
No.

Same way as in the Iowa game, that pick by the DE wasn't really on Armstrong, because that guy shouldn't have even been a factor in the play (and therefore wasn't a read for TA) - but Lewis whiffed his block.

There are a bunch of reasons why an int may not be on a QB.

On a comeback it doesn't matter if the WR falls. You are throwing to an area. On a hitch or other routes it does matter what the WR does to an extent. If my qb throws a picks on a comeback bc he missed inside then I don't care what the WR did the qb is getting the blame. A comeback is a race from the top of the route to the sideline at a 45 degree angle. If you get that picked you put the ball in the wrong spot. A qb has to control what they can control. You can't do anything about how the WR plays. You throw on time to the right place you will live to play another down.

I wasn't addressing the TA situation specifically. I was responding to the poster who said the QB is accountable unless it's a tipped pass.

That's not the case.

But I'm not following the distinction you're trying to draw. If a WR is supposed to run a comeback and fails to, then a QB could absolutely throw a pick because he made the correct throw to an area that should have been occupied by his receiver (which would allow the ball to fly through that area and be intercepted).

If the QB makes the right read and right throw, but the WR fails to make the correct route, then how is the interception on the QB?

We have different expectations on the timing and execution of a comeback. If you are throwing the ball on time and to the right area and you are throwing a pick then you made the wrong read on where to throw the ball.

 

[Count 'Bility]

No arguement on Armstrong's ability to run 90's offense. Another dynamic for Frazier's ability to run today's is the guys' propensity to succeed at absolutely anything he does. That's just the way he was. That's what makes me believe he'd not only find a way to be as good, but possiblly better. Straight up intangibles.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Armstrong is better in this offense than Frazier would have been - take that for that it is.

Probably an accurate assessment. But it is debateable. 1. Decision making. While Frazier didnt throw a lot of passes, and didnt appear to be the most fluent passer, his TD to Int ratios were astounding. So even though his passing skill might not be as good as Armstrong, It would take some convincing to put Frazier behind Armstrong in this offense even. Not to mention, tendancy to run. Armstrong has shown pretty glaring tentativeness in simply running the ball on scramble situations.

But in the end, it all boils down to how a coach would use each. I personally think Armstrong should be used more like Frazier. A thumper. The guy is 6-1, 220. That's LP/Green size. Run him more. Hell, as of right now, he could be the best running back on the team for all we know.

We were such a rushing powerhouse in the 90s and our play action was so good that the 15 times a game we decided to pass, we could usually get a running back, tight end or wide receiver wide open in a low-risk zone. Decision making and accuracy weren't at such a high premium. Nebraska QBs almost never looked off a receiver (except on those designed screens in the flat) or checked through progressions or threw timing patterns in the end zone, and rarely had to thread the needle on crossing patterns.

The play was designed to hit one wide-open receiver -- or tuck and run.

Tommie was better at it than Scott Frost, who could hit wide open receivers but not always in stride.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Armstrong is better in this offense than Frazier would have been - take that for that it is.

Probably an accurate assessment. But it is debateable. 1. Decision making. While Frazier didnt throw a lot of passes, and didnt appear to be the most fluent passer, his TD to Int ratios were astounding. So even though his passing skill might not be as good as Armstrong, It would take some convincing to put Frazier behind Armstrong in this offense even. Not to mention, tendancy to run. Armstrong has shown pretty glaring tentativeness in simply running the ball on scramble situations.

But in the end, it all boils down to how a coach would use each. I personally think Armstrong should be used more like Frazier. A thumper. The guy is 6-1, 220. That's LP/Green size. Run him more. Hell, as of right now, he could be the best running back on the team for all we know.

We were such a rushing powerhouse in the 90s and our play action was so good that the 15 times a game we decided to pass, we could usually get a running back, tight end or wide receiver wide open in a low-risk zone. Decision making and accuracy weren't at such a high premium. Nebraska QBs almost never looked off a receiver (except on those designed screens in the flat) or checked through progressions or threw timing patterns in the end zone, and rarely had to thread the needle on crossing patterns.

The play was designed to hit one wide-open receiver -- or tuck and run.

Tommie was better at it than Scott Frost, who could hit wide open receivers but not always in stride.

agreed. I covered this dynamic in a post above. it's definitely debateable.

 

[cm husker]

I think that oversimplifies things. There were definitely progressions/reads in TO's passing offense. But I agree that the option required teams to roll a DB down and out of coverage to support in the run, which made most pass plays two reads. It's the same thing we see in Hermans and briles offenses, too.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Although Nebraska ran the ball plenty the past six years, and Martinez and Armstrong were both legit dual threats, neither QB really excelled in the play action fake. They just go through the motions.

Gill and Frazier and especially Scott Frost were masters at selling the play action. Stick the ball in the gut of the running back (except you're actually cradling it next to your leg) then standing almost straight up, relaxed, flat-footed, watching the running back hit the line...except you're really watching your receiver break open, at which point you reveal you still have the ball, to a defense that is nowhere near touching you.

Those were always pretty cool.

We should do that more. Current play action isn't fooling anyone.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Although Nebraska ran the ball plenty the past six years, and Martinez and Armstrong were both legit dual threats, neither QB really excelled in the play action fake. They just go through the motions.

Gill and Frazier and especially Scott Frost were masters at selling the play action. Stick the ball in the gut of the running back (except you're actually cradling it next to your leg) then standing almost straight up, relaxed, flat-footed, watching the running back hit the line...except you're really watching your receiver break open, at which point you reveal you still have the ball, to a defense that is nowhere near touching you.

Those were always pretty cool.

We should do that more. Current play action isn't fooling anyone.

excellent take

I read and here all the time how the art of the play fake has just gone away. Like a good shot fake in basketball, it's one of those highly effective if done right, yet totally overlooked facets of ball handling. it's just not paid attention to anymore. Good ball handling has been replaced by mesh points and reads. I remember the playactions and stretch runs Indy used to do with Manning and James. The way Manning would selll them, sprinting out as fast as he could whether it be fake or give, you didnt know what it was until it was too late. That's the kind of consistent execution that's missing.

 

[Husker Psycho]

Armstrong is better in this offense than Frazier would have been - take that for that it is.

Probably an accurate assessment. But it is debateable. 1. Decision making. While Frazier didnt throw a lot of passes, and didnt appear to be the most fluent passer, his TD to Int ratios were astounding. So even though his passing skill might not be as good as Armstrong, It would take some convincing to put Frazier behind Armstrong in this offense even. Not to mention, tendancy to run. Armstrong has shown pretty glaring tentativeness in simply running the ball on scramble situations.

But in the end, it all boils down to how a coach would use each. I personally think Armstrong should be used more like Frazier. A thumper. The guy is 6-1, 220. That's LP/Green size. Run him more. Hell, as of right now, he could be the best running back on the team for all we know.

We were such a rushing powerhouse in the 90s and our play action was so good that the 15 times a game we decided to pass, we could usually get a running back, tight end or wide receiver wide open in a low-risk zone. Decision making and accuracy weren't at such a high premium. Nebraska QBs almost never looked off a receiver (except on those designed screens in the flat) or checked through progressions or threw timing patterns in the end zone, and rarely had to thread the needle on crossing patterns.

The play was designed to hit one wide-open receiver -- or tuck and run.

Tommie was better at it than Scott Frost, who could hit wide open receivers but not always in stride.

I agree with that.

Our receivers would be so wide open it was unreal.

 

[Landlord]

Taylor wasn't some master at selling it, but I always thought Tim Beck did a pretty good job with the option pass game catching defenses off guard.

 

[Mavric]

Taylor wasn't some master at selling it, but I always thought Tim Beck did a pretty good job with the option pass game catching defenses off guard.

Agree with this. Not the greatest but he sold it pretty well. And some combination of play design and when it was called seemed to work well. Kyler Reed against KState, Enunwa against tOSU (I think) are a few that come to mind.

 

[Landlord]

That Kyler K-State play was one of two/three that Watson drew up that were essentially automatic touchdowns every time we called them. Kyler scored off the exact same pistol play-action look against Missouri and Oklahoma State as well. So fun to watch.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Play action also meant selling the handoff to the RB when you've actually slipped it to the FB.

I think we won a national championship on one of those.

 

[Swiv3D]

Friend of mine who does camera work during practice said POB was the only QB to score during the minute drill yesterday and looked pretty good doing it. Also said it wasn't against just 3s and 4s but a mixture of everyone.

 

[Mavric]