Martinez and the NFL

[Guy Chamberlin]

Still...in most games played during the Martinez era, I didn't feel envious of the opposing team's quarterback.

I wanted our guy to make fewer mistakes. I wanted our defense to stop making marginal quarterbacks look better.

You pretty much said it yourself. We played a lot of marginal quarterbacks.

Right. A lot of marginal Division 1 quarterbacks

But Taylor Martinez could certainly hang with everyone else playing in Division 1.

What do you mean "hang with"? Are you saying he was as talented as any other division 1 QB's at the time? Just curious.

No. I'm just disputing any post suggesting Taylor Martinez wasn't a Division 1 worthy quarterback. He played in Division 1, he defeated a lot of Division 1 teams, and set every major QB career record at a storied Division 1 program. And sometimes the Division 1 quarterback on the other team didn't look much better. Somewhere between "best quarterback in the NCAA" and "not worthy of playing Division 1 QB" there's a place for Taylor Martinez, right?

It sure didn't hurt Frazier, Frost and Crouch to have outstanding defenses, along with offensive schemes that allowed them to complete only 50% of their passes without much criticism.

I think that's a strange way to put it. No offensive scheme is designed to "allow" a 50% or less completion percentage.

Hold on. You're going to contradict yourself in the next paragraph.

The goal of the offense is to score more points than the opponent and to be able to do so in whichever manner is required, whether that's through the air or on the ground. Tommie Frazier threw the ball 469 times in his career. Taylor threw almost 1000 times. Frazier, Frost or Crouch wasn't criticized as much because the offense was scoring points and winning games without being forced to utilize the passing game as much.

Right. They ran an offense where you could complete 50% of your passes and still be remembered as a legend.

Nebraska didn't stray away from the run game when it wasn't working. Eventually, the run game always gained steam.

We passed enough to keep the defense honest, generally high-percentage play-action passes tailored to our less-than-precise QBs. It wasn't called "straying" it was just called "passing.' The run game always gained steam in the mid-90s, when we had an incredible defense and a huge offensive line recruited for a lateral shifting option game. An offense can afford to be patient when a defense isn't bleeding yard, points and minutes ala the Bo Pelini years. And in fairness, there were many seasons where Tom Osborne teams got shut down cold by teams that knew exactly what we were going to do, and were strong and fast enough to respond. There are more of those teams these days.

Beck used the passing game in a different way much of Martinez's career. Beck would go awy from the run game when it wasn't working. Somtimes even when it was. He seemed to be forcing the passing game instead of using it smartly to supplement drives and maintain balance.

Well even when he declared he wanted more "balance" Beck typically called a 60/40 run/pass split, putting Nebraska in line with most teams, so it wasn't that different in the scheme of things. It seemed to me that most Beck critics thought we could impose our will via a rushing game, and virtually any pass was "forcing" the passing game. Statistically Nebraska averaged a couple more yards per pass attempt than rushing attempt, suggesting it was rarely foolish to call a run OR a pass. Our offense was actually a lot of fun in many games. Passing the ball was hardly our downfall.

Also, we have to believe the passing game was focused on much more in practice during Taylors time here than it was when Frazier, Frost, and Crouch were here. The option game was our identitiy and it was our goal to perfect the execution of that part of the offene and we did. What did Beck and Martinez perfect? What was the identity?

We ran a spread option offense in which Taylor Martinez became the most prolific passing and rushing QB in Nebraska history, while supporting a running game that generated career numbers for Roy Helu, Rex Burkhead and Ameer Abdullah. By focusing more on the passing game in practice (?) Martinez had a higher completion percentage than Frazier, Frost and Crouch. I mean, that's the basic idea, right? Lord knows we didn't "perfect" anything. Way too many turnovers, penalties and big game meltdowns. But I'd be hard-pressed to ascribe Nebraska's problems to the decision to pass the ball a bit more often.

Taylor Martinez had his issues, and they paralleled our growing disenchantment with Bo Pelini, but I'd hate for his multiple career records at the University of Nebraska to be overlooked just because we wanted so much more.

Let's face the facts. Those records are nice and well-deserved. There are reasons that records are being set all over college football right now though. The other fact is, Taylor would be remembered far more fondly than he is if Nebraska had just pulled off one of those big wins or won a conference championship. Nebraska fell apart at all the wrong times and usually in a spotlight. That only magnified the mistakes but they wern't just Taylors mistakes. As we've all talked about, there were plenty of issues on those teams.

So it turns out that we're in total agreement after all.

Ignore previous post.

 

[True2tRA]

We agree on the first part. Yes, Taylor does belong in there somewhere.

I didn't contradict myself.

Those guys are remembered as legends because they won a sh#t ton of games, some National Championships, and they ran the option very well. The passing game had nothing to do with it. Just ask the WR's.

No, we did not pass the ball enough to keep defenses honest. No defenses ever defended Nebraska's option in any sort of "balanced commitment" to the run or the pass. They played to stop the run. They couldn't stop the run. Nebraska executed at a very high level. Balance or "keeping the defense honest" was not an issue with those teams. We ran the ball, period. 492 pass attempts over a four year career, what is that, 10 pass attempts a game roughly? That's hardly showing a commitment to any balance or attempting to keep a defense honest.

No, as a Beck critic I never felt we could impose our will in any aspect. That was the problem. As I said, the option was Nebraska's identity. They executed their run game at a very high level year after year. I don't care what Beck's run/pass splits were. I never did. I was more bothered by the incapability to sustain drives or look like they were executing any aspect of their offense at a high level. It appeared to be a mixed bag of a lot of mediocre execution. Not just by Martinez, but by all involved, especially up front. This wasn't just a fluke thing one season this was a yearly occurence. It never appeared to improve over time. Execution was the downfall.

As I said, we were mediocre at many things and nobody can deny the records set by many different players here recently. All of this would be remembered a bit more brilliantly had these players and this team shined through in the biggest spotight. Unfortunatey that's where our biggest failures came, much unlike those teams led by Frazier, Crouch, and Frost.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I didn't contradict myself.

Those guys are remembered as legends because they won a sh#t ton of games, some National Championships, and they ran the option very well. The passing game had nothing to do with it. Just ask the WR's.

No, we did not pass the ball enough to keep defenses honest. No defenses ever defended Nebraska's option in any sort of "balanced commitment" to the run or the pass. They played to stop the run. They couldn't stop the run. Nebraska executed at a very high level. Balance or "keeping the defense honest" was not an issue with those teams. We ran the ball, period. 492 pass attempts over a four year career, what is that, 10 pass attempts a game roughly? That's hardly showing a commitment to any balance or attempting to keep a defense honest.

No, as a Beck critic I never felt we could impose our will in any aspect. That was the problem. As I said, the option was Nebraska's identity. They executed their run game at a very high level year after year. I don't care what Beck's run/pass splits were. I never did. I was more bothered by the incapability to sustain drives or look like they were executing any aspect of their offense at a high level. It appeared to be a mixed bag of a lot of mediocre execution. Not just by Martinez, but by all involved, especially up front. This wasn't just a fluke thing one season this was a yearly occurence. It never appeared to improve over time. Execution was the downfall.

All of this would be remembered a bit more brilliantly had these players and this team shined through in the biggest spotight. Unfortunatey that's where our biggest failures came, much unlike those teams led by Frazier, Crouch, and Frost.

Well, yeah.

So now imagine Frazier, Crouch and Frost behind a below-average offensive line, supported by a defense ranked in the Bottom 50.

Does that exact same offensive scheme impose its will and win the same number of games? Does that triple-option "offensive identity" buy you anything?

Would a coach be on the verge of getting fired if his offense was so predictable that it lost big games badly against ranked teams that matched up physically? Cause that was Tom Osborne's first 8 seasons .

Not sure where you get your stats, but our National Championship teams in the '90s averaged between 137 and 156 passing yards a game, and between 14 and 20 attempts per game. Not exactly nothing. We tended to pass a little more in some of the bigger games, including 27 attempts against OU and 23 against CU while we were a rushing powerhouse in '95, 25 attempts against FSU in the '94 Orange Bowl, 20 against Miami in the '95 OB.

The passing game helped the running game. Tom Osborne would never argue with that.

 

[Savage Husker]

I didn't contradict myself.

Those guys are remembered as legends because they won a sh#t ton of games, some National Championships, and they ran the option very well. The passing game had nothing to do with it. Just ask the WR's.

No, we did not pass the ball enough to keep defenses honest. No defenses ever defended Nebraska's option in any sort of "balanced commitment" to the run or the pass. They played to stop the run. They couldn't stop the run. Nebraska executed at a very high level. Balance or "keeping the defense honest" was not an issue with those teams. We ran the ball, period. 492 pass attempts over a four year career, what is that, 10 pass attempts a game roughly? That's hardly showing a commitment to any balance or attempting to keep a defense honest.

No, as a Beck critic I never felt we could impose our will in any aspect. That was the problem. As I said, the option was Nebraska's identity. They executed their run game at a very high level year after year. I don't care what Beck's run/pass splits were. I never did. I was more bothered by the incapability to sustain drives or look like they were executing any aspect of their offense at a high level. It appeared to be a mixed bag of a lot of mediocre execution. Not just by Martinez, but by all involved, especially up front. This wasn't just a fluke thing one season this was a yearly occurence. It never appeared to improve over time. Execution was the downfall.

All of this would be remembered a bit more brilliantly had these players and this team shined through in the biggest spotight. Unfortunatey that's where our biggest failures came, much unlike those teams led by Frazier, Crouch, and Frost.

Well, yeah.

So now imagine Frazier, Crouch and Frost behind a below-average offensive line, supported by a defense ranked in the Bottom 50.

Does that exact same offensive scheme impose its will and win the same number of games? Does that triple-option "offensive identity" buy you anything?

Would a coach be on the verge of getting fired if his offense was so predictable that it lost big games badly against ranked teams that matched up physically? Cause that was Tom Osborne's first 8 seasons .

Not sure where you get your stats, but our National Championship teams in the '90s averaged between 137 and 156 passing yards a game, and between 14 and 20 attempts per game. Not exactly nothing. We tended to pass a little more in some of the bigger games, including 27 attempts against OU and 23 against CU while we were a rushing powerhouse in '95, 25 attempts against FSU in the '94 Orange Bowl, 20 against Miami in the '95 OB.

The passing game helped the running game. Tom Osborne would never argue with that.

The option pass hitting the TE was a thing of beauty outta that option formation.

 

[Mavric]

I didn't contradict myself.

Those guys are remembered as legends because they won a sh#t ton of games, some National Championships, and they ran the option very well. The passing game had nothing to do with it. Just ask the WR's.

No, we did not pass the ball enough to keep defenses honest. No defenses ever defended Nebraska's option in any sort of "balanced commitment" to the run or the pass. They played to stop the run. They couldn't stop the run. Nebraska executed at a very high level. Balance or "keeping the defense honest" was not an issue with those teams. We ran the ball, period. 492 pass attempts over a four year career, what is that, 10 pass attempts a game roughly? That's hardly showing a commitment to any balance or attempting to keep a defense honest.

No, as a Beck critic I never felt we could impose our will in any aspect. That was the problem. As I said, the option was Nebraska's identity. They executed their run game at a very high level year after year. I don't care what Beck's run/pass splits were. I never did. I was more bothered by the incapability to sustain drives or look like they were executing any aspect of their offense at a high level. It appeared to be a mixed bag of a lot of mediocre execution. Not just by Martinez, but by all involved, especially up front. This wasn't just a fluke thing one season this was a yearly occurence. It never appeared to improve over time. Execution was the downfall.

All of this would be remembered a bit more brilliantly had these players and this team shined through in the biggest spotight. Unfortunatey that's where our biggest failures came, much unlike those teams led by Frazier, Crouch, and Frost.

Well, yeah.

So now imagine Frazier, Crouch and Frost behind a below-average offensive line, supported by a defense ranked in the Bottom 50.

Does that exact same offensive scheme impose its will and win the same number of games? Does that triple-option "offensive identity" buy you anything?

Would a coach be on the verge of getting fired if his offense was so predictable that it lost big games badly against ranked teams that matched up physically? Cause that was Tom Osborne's first 8 seasons .

Not sure where you get your stats, but our National Championship teams in the '90s averaged between 137 and 156 passing yards a game, and between 14 and 20 attempts per game. Not exactly nothing. We tended to pass a little more in some of the bigger games, including 27 attempts against OU and 23 against CU while we were a rushing powerhouse in '95, 25 attempts against FSU in the '94 Orange Bowl, 20 against Miami in the '95 OB.

The passing game helped the running game. Tom Osborne would never argue with that.

The option pass hitting the TE was a thing of beauty outta that option formation.

Or hitting the RB...

 

[lo country]

IMO, Martinez was a good QB. Great QB's have the big wins. Martinez, at fault or not, didn't get any. As mentioned above, under Bo we were slightly above average against average competition. Against teams with a pulse, we were less than average. I think we had he talent to win as evidenced against OU for the Big XII, beating Sparty and OSU... The biggest problem was inept coaching at every level. Our ST sucked until last year, Beck was a mad scientist who couldn't stick with anything or EVER ADJUST to teams stacking the box. Not to mention the O play calling never seemed to support the D. The D went down hill after 2010 and TO's became an anomaly. Our "scheme or identity" was undisciplined, mistake riddled, horrible technique football. Throw in a side of collapsing with the "gut punch" mistake and that's who we were under Bo......

Now had Crouch, Frost, Frazier etc had the same issues what would TO have done? He would have coached and developed talent to the best of his, the staff and players abilities. He would have found a few plays the team could execute in their sleep. He would have been able to adjust in game and find something that worked. Yes, TO lost, but he was never beaten. Bo's team flat out got road killed. With the previous staff, with the team of the 90's, IMO you still don't win the MNC.... The staff just couldn't get it done. That's not Martinez' fault.......

 

[Enhance]

I've seen a few people refer to TO's offense as 'triple option' which I believe is inaccurate. We utilized the triple option, but, we were not a triple option team and that was not the prevailing 'identity.' A triple-option team is Georgia Tech.

Regardless, I think there's a good chance a guy like Martinez may have flourished under different circumstances. It's tough to compare eras, but had he been under TO, perhaps he fixes the turnover problems and his passing issues matter less. Maybe they don't. Same thing goes for putting Frazier/Gill with worse teams - they may end up not being as successful. Crouch, I think, was so good it didn't matter. That '01 team wasn't a title contender without him - he carried that team.

But, I think we can all agree Nebraska has been good enough at times in the last seven years to win conference titles and just couldn't. I mean we've played a ton of teams close, and then mistakes happened followed by the flood gates opening and people being unable to recover. That's almost entirely coaching and sports psychology.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Yes, TO lost, but he was never beaten. Bo's team flat out got road killed.

Osborne teams were flat out road killed on a fairly regular basis by Oklahoma and our ranked opponent in the bowl game. In one OU game, the Nebraska offense never crossed the 50 yard line. In other big games we were held to under 200 yards total offense, our bread and butter running game sniffed out and shut down, and the in-game adjustments -- more passing and a few trick plays -- were panicky failures. Defense got gashed pretty well too, if not quite at the Wisconsin levels.

I honestly wish I didn't remember this. But I do. And a painful visit to the statistical record confirms it.

 

[NUinID]

Yes, TO lost, but he was never beaten. Bo's team flat out got road killed.

Osborne teams were flat out road killed on a fairly regular basis by Oklahoma and our ranked opponent in the bowl game. In one OU game, the Nebraska offense never crossed the 50 yard line. In other big games we were held to under 200 yards total offense, our bread and butter running game sniffed out and shut down, and the in-game adjustments -- more passing and a few trick plays -- were panicky failures. Defense got gashed pretty well too, if not quite at the Wisconsin levels.

I honestly wish I didn't remember this. But I do. And a painful visit to the statistical record confirms it.

Absolutely TO teams got beat badly at times. It was a different era, teams didn't intentionally run up the score on other teams just to see how many points they could score. NU lost to Miami in the the 1989 Orange bowl 24-3 I believe, I was at the game but have tried to block it out. That was as bad a beat down as anything Wisconsin did against NU lately. They completely shut down the offense. They had something like 160 yards of total offense.

Up until the middle to late 90's it was more about imposing your will on teams and beating the crap physically out of an opponent. Now it is about scoring as many points as you can. Nobody would ever say Oregon, ASU, Baylor, or even OSU physically dominates a team. It is just a different game. Even teams that play good defense don't do it like it was done back in the day. A lot of that has do do with the high powered offenses of today.

 

[papersun87]

Nobody would ever say Oregon, ASU, Baylor, or even OSU physically dominates a team. It is just a different game. Even teams that play good defense don't do it like it was done back in the day. A lot of that has do do with the high powered offenses of today.

guessing their opponents would say differently.

 

[NUinID]

Nobody would ever say Oregon, ASU, Baylor, or even OSU physically dominates a team. It is just a different game. Even teams that play good defense don't do it like it was done back in the day. A lot of that has do do with the high powered offenses of today.

guessing their opponents would say differently.

I am not saying they didn't beat teams by a lot of points, I am saying that they turn games into track meets. Nebraska/OU/ Michigan/ OSU of old/ Alabama under Bryant physically beat the crap out of teams on the offense and defensive side of the ball. There have been many things written about how Nebraska would physically beat up lesser teams to the point that it effected the rest of the teams season.

 

[Enhance]

The Alabama's and Stanford's of the world are very physical and aggressive in their style of play still, same with Wisconsin.

But yeah, Oregon, ASU, Baylor and similar teams don't often outmatch you from a physicality standpoint. tOSU I believe does to a degree. That's why Oregon routinely loses when they get matched up in title games - their opponents are sometimes very physical, very punch-you-in-the-mouth teams that disrupt Oregon's pace.

Pace is huge to a team like Oregon, just like pace is huge for Golden State. The Cavs were wearing down the Warriors and playing the full shot clock in their victories, removing what the Warriors like to do. They've been unable to do that consistently, but, that's one formula for beating high scoring perimeter basketball teams or high scoring fast-paced football teams - punch them in the mouth and get physical with them and see how they hold up. The Cavs problem is just they just don't have any other scorers to go with the physicality.

 

[papersun87]

Nobody would ever say Oregon, ASU, Baylor, or even OSU physically dominates a team. It is just a different game. Even teams that play good defense don't do it like it was done back in the day. A lot of that has do do with the high powered offenses of today.

guessing their opponents would say differently.

I am not saying they didn't beat teams by a lot of points, I am saying that they turn games into track meets. Nebraska/OU/ Michigan/ OSU of old/ Alabama under Bryant physically beat the crap out of teams on the offense and defensive side of the ball. There have been many things written about how Nebraska would physically beat up lesser teams to the point that it effected the rest of the teams season.

no, I'm saying Oregon and Ohio State beat teams up AND score lots of points.

 

[jmfb]

Yes, TO lost, but he was never beaten. Bo's team flat out got road killed.

Osborne teams were flat out road killed on a fairly regular basis by Oklahoma and our ranked opponent in the bowl game. In one OU game, the Nebraska offense never crossed the 50 yard line. In other big games we were held to under 200 yards total offense, our bread and butter running game sniffed out and shut down, and the in-game adjustments -- more passing and a few trick plays -- were panicky failures. Defense got gashed pretty well too, if not quite at the Wisconsin levels.

I honestly wish I didn't remember this. But I do. And a painful visit to the statistical record confirms it.

NU in TOs day and of late- no comparison

TOs had MANY close calls against OU before he started dominating them regularly

TOs teams blew out inferior teams

A 25 year history is MANY more games than a 4 or 7 year gig, LOTS more opps to stumble, but the % was much less

AND in that span LOTS of wins over top 10 teams- Bo/Cally- not so much or not at all

Few last minute or last play heroics needed to beat inferior teams

His teams werent getting taken into the 4th quarter or last play by DIAA teams or bottom of the barrel- obviously weaker teams

Against evenly matched teams- TOs teams usually won- rarely if ever got blown out by them

That wasnt the case with the last 2 head coaches

 

[NUinID]

Nobody would ever say Oregon, ASU, Baylor, or even OSU physically dominates a team. It is just a different game. Even teams that play good defense don't do it like it was done back in the day. A lot of that has do do with the high powered offenses of today.

guessing their opponents would say differently.

I am not saying they didn't beat teams by a lot of points, I am saying that they turn games into track meets. Nebraska/OU/ Michigan/ OSU of old/ Alabama under Bryant physically beat the crap out of teams on the offense and defensive side of the ball. There have been many things written about how Nebraska would physically beat up lesser teams to the point that it effected the rest of the teams season.

no, I'm saying Oregon and Ohio State beat teams up AND score lots of points.

OSU is more physical than Oregon by a long ways and they still arn't nearly as physical as they used to be.