McKewon: QB Play Won (and Lost) the West

Remember a few years ago when we were net positive in turnovers? Pepperidge farm remembers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BYU - TA went 3-15 (20%) in the 2Q. BYU outscored us 17-0 in the 2Q.

Miami - TA went 10-24 (42%) with 2 INT in the first 3 quarters. Make a couple better throws and we may be down 10 or 13 instead of 20 going into the 4Q.

 
Mavric said:
There is A LOT of difference between say "player x lost this game for us" and "if player x played better, we could have won". You seem to think I'm saying the former. I'm not.

And the only reason Iowa may have seemed to be in control is because of the four INTs. We COMPLETELY dominated them in every other area.
Click to expand...
Respectively, Mav, I don't think there's as much difference there as you do. It's minimal. You're still placing blame on the player by altering the intensity of your words. "You suck" and "You should play better" are essentially the same thing. One is just nicer.

It's hard to take your words any other way than saying Armstrong is the biggest reason we lost games this year, and while better QB play would've obviously helped, I don't think it would've meant undefeated.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance89 said:
Mavric said:
There is A LOT of difference between say "player x lost this game for us" and "if player x played better, we could have won". You seem to think I'm saying the former. I'm not.

And the only reason Iowa may have seemed to be in control is because of the four INTs. We COMPLETELY dominated them in every other area.
Click to expand...
Respectively, Mav, I don't think there's as much difference there as you do. It's minimal. You're still placing blame on the player by altering the intensity of your words. "You suck" and "You should play better" are essentially the same thing. One is just nicer.

It's hard to take your words any other way than saying Armstrong is the biggest reason we lost games this year, and while better QB play would've obviously helped, I don't think it would've meant undefeated.
Click to expand...
There is definitely a difference. Any player could always play better. Even if TA had gone 22/25 for 355 yards and 4 TDs but missed a wide open receiver in the end zone at the end you could say he could have done something better. That's not the same as saying he was the reason we lost a game.

Football is a team sport of the highest order. Even as badly as TA played against Iowa he's not the ONLY reason we lost the game. Other players could have made other plays that would still have allowed us to win. Coaches could have made other calls that would have allowed us to win.

But the quarterback has the most direct influence on a game out of any player. Thus, it's the position that often gets more credit than they deserve and more blame than they deserve. And it's the easiest to see where they could have done something different to affect the outcome of the game.

The Iowa and Illinois games are the closest to being able to say that TA lost the game for us. It's still not totally accurate as - again - other players could have made other plays that would have won us the game. But TA made several particularly bad plays in both games that we otherwise should have won.

I wouldn't say the same thing about the BYU game. TA played a relatively good game. You can't say that we lost that game because of him. But he fumbled once that led to a BYU TD. He threw an INT that might have cost us a FG. And he missed some passes that could have kept a drive alive. He didn't lose the game - but he could have played better and that might have helped us win the game.

 
Mavric said:
Enhance89 said:
Mavric said:
There is A LOT of difference between say "player x lost this game for us" and "if player x played better, we could have won". You seem to think I'm saying the former. I'm not.

And the only reason Iowa may have seemed to be in control is because of the four INTs. We COMPLETELY dominated them in every other area.
Click to expand...
Respectively, Mav, I don't think there's as much difference there as you do. It's minimal. You're still placing blame on the player by altering the intensity of your words. "You suck" and "You should play better" are essentially the same thing. One is just nicer.

It's hard to take your words any other way than saying Armstrong is the biggest reason we lost games this year, and while better QB play would've obviously helped, I don't think it would've meant undefeated.
Click to expand...
There is definitely a difference. Any player could always play better. Even if TA had gone 22/25 for 355 yards and 4 TDs but missed a wide open receiver in the end zone at the end you could say he could have done something better. That's not the same as saying he was the reason we lost a game.

Football is a team sport of the highest order. Even as badly as TA played against Iowa he's not the ONLY reason we lost the game. Other players could have made other plays that would still have allowed us to win. Coaches could have made other calls that would have allowed us to win.

But the quarterback has the most direct influence on a game out of any player. Thus, it's the position that often gets more credit than they deserve and more blame than they deserve. And it's the easiest to see where they could have done something different to affect the outcome of the game.

The Iowa and Illinois games are the closest to being able to say that TA lost the game for us. It's still not totally accurate as - again - other players could have made other plays that would have won us the game. But TA made several particularly bad plays in both games that we otherwise should have won.

I wouldn't say the same thing about the BYU game. TA played a relatively good game. You can't say that we lost that game because of him. But he fumbled once that led to a BYU TD. He threw an INT that might have cost us a FG. And he missed some passes that could have kept a drive alive. He didn't lose the game - but he could have played better and that might have helped us win the game.
Click to expand...
In the Iowa game he definitely made it very hard to not blame him for the loss no matter how your tout it. 2 separate first downs, come out and throw a pick and the defense right back on the field after forcing Iowa to punt. He in no way helped the Huskers win that game and the defense played their hearts out. I'm amazed Iowa didn't get up on us by a lot more after those terrible throws directly to Iowa DB's.

 
Coach Power'T said:
Red Five said:
Mavric said:
Red Five said:
Give us CJ Beathard this year and we lose 2 games max.
Click to expand...
Not sure we lose any.
Click to expand...
Not sure our D was good enough for that.
Click to expand...
NU's defense is no worse than Iowa's
Click to expand...
default_bs.gif


 
Mavric said:
Enhance89 said:
Mavric said:
There is A LOT of difference between say "player x lost this game for us" and "if player x played better, we could have won". You seem to think I'm saying the former. I'm not.

And the only reason Iowa may have seemed to be in control is because of the four INTs. We COMPLETELY dominated them in every other area.
Click to expand...
Respectively, Mav, I don't think there's as much difference there as you do. It's minimal. You're still placing blame on the player by altering the intensity of your words. "You suck" and "You should play better" are essentially the same thing. One is just nicer.

It's hard to take your words any other way than saying Armstrong is the biggest reason we lost games this year, and while better QB play would've obviously helped, I don't think it would've meant undefeated.
Click to expand...
There is definitely a difference. Any player could always play better. Even if TA had gone 22/25 for 355 yards and 4 TDs but missed a wide open receiver in the end zone at the end you could say he could have done something better. That's not the same as saying he was the reason we lost a game.

Football is a team sport of the highest order. Even as badly as TA played against Iowa he's not the ONLY reason we lost the game. Other players could have made other plays that would still have allowed us to win. Coaches could have made other calls that would have allowed us to win.

But the quarterback has the most direct influence on a game out of any player. Thus, it's the position that often gets more credit than they deserve and more blame than they deserve. And it's the easiest to see where they could have done something different to affect the outcome of the game.

The Iowa and Illinois games are the closest to being able to say that TA lost the game for us. It's still not totally accurate as - again - other players could have made other plays that would have won us the game. But TA made several particularly bad plays in both games that we otherwise should have won.

I wouldn't say the same thing about the BYU game. TA played a relatively good game. You can't say that we lost that game because of him. But he fumbled once that led to a BYU TD. He threw an INT that might have cost us a FG. And he missed some passes that could have kept a drive alive. He didn't lose the game - but he could have played better and that might have helped us win the game.
Click to expand...
I understand the point you're getting at now that you've better explained it, but your initial statement without any context/explanation made it pretty clear you believe Armstrong is the biggest reason we lost seven games. And, personally, it still seems a little contradictory to suggest we replace one player and we may go undefeated, but then say that one player is not the only reason we lost games.

Regardless, the reason Iowa is undefeated, for example, is for more than just quarterback play. Beathard has done a good job taking care of the ball but his stats are pedestrian. Their success has hinged on complete team efforts. I still think Nebraska has too many problems and would've still lost 2-4 games even with improved QB play.

 
Red Five said:
Coach Power'T said:
Red Five said:
Mavric said:
Red Five said:
Give us CJ Beathard this year and we lose 2 games max.
Click to expand...
Not sure we lose any.
Click to expand...
Not sure our D was good enough for that.
Click to expand...
NU's defense is no worse than Iowa's
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the reasoning here. According to stats, they were 70 yards/game and 10 points/game better than us.
Click to expand...
I would say the points argument you could look at the Purdue game and 5 turnovers result in like 35 points would inflate that stat. Also, when you figure in 2 pick six's and all the possessions we lost due to TO's then are defense wasnt much different than Iowa. The last few games Iowa has been giving up alot. Us on the other hand got better as the year went along. Once we got our CB position figured out and went with Jones and Kalu instead of Davie and Rose our pass defense got much better.

 
swmohusker said:
I would say the points argument you could look at the Purdue game and 5 turnovers result in like 35 points would inflate that stat. Also, when you figure in 2 pick six's and all the possessions we lost due to TO's then are defense wasnt much different than Iowa. The last few games Iowa has been giving up alot. Us on the other hand got better as the year went along. Once we got our CB position figured out and went with Jones and Kalu instead of Davie and Rose our pass defense got much better.
Click to expand...
Iowa in the 1st half was miles ahead of Nebraska. Drew Ott going down changed things for them. I'd say by the last couple of games, while we were improving and they were declining - things ended up evening out. But Iowa's D was pretty solid the first half of the season - better than where we ended up. That won't help them much going into this weekend though.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top