excellent response......the mid 90s is proof of that.Yeah, maybe it is better if we just pick out the guy who has the most talent and hand the reigns to him. Kind of like we did when we recruited Josh Freeman, promising him that he would be the man and we would not recruit any other QBs.
//sarcasm warning.
Of course competition is good—especially at QB. As far as I am concerned, anyone who can’t handle the pressure of competition can transfer to, say, NC State.
Thank you for the clarification. :sarcasm It was in response to a variance in the conversation by Junior.
oh, i thought the convo was about the equal time QBs in lincoln are spending with the first unit. my bad.
Calahan's offense looks more ball control than explosive. I liked the running game, but the plays were predictable. When they shift, 90% chance it is a running play. The secondary lost the game vs OSU. They looked outclassed vs the OSU wideouts and QB in the 2nd quarter on. ASU has more team speed than the Big 10 Huskers. The Huskers look like Wisconsin, with a passing attack and minus the secondary. They do not have the speed of the Big 12 South teams like OSU, Texas, ATM or Tech. The Huskers need to mix in some no-huddle into their offense to keep the defense off balance. They can keep mixing in the RBs because Lucky, Glenn and crew can show out like Bush and White if that OL is for real in 2007.
I'm sorry captain D bag didnt you just post the exact same thing already? It wasnt that insightful the first time what made you think it was gonna get better the second time?rkhufu7 said:
I'm looking at the mid 90's as I was a student in college at NU at the time. There was never NOT a named starting QB. Look at the bowl game in 1994. Even though TF had missed most of the games that led up to the bowl game, he was the starter. In 1995, TF was named the starter from the word go. Explain to me how looking at the mid 90's supports your argument that its okay we haven't named a starter yet?NIRVANA said:excellent response......the mid 90s is proof of that.Necava Husker said:Yeah, maybe it is better if we just pick out the guy who has the most talent and hand the reigns to him. Kind of like we did when we recruited Josh Freeman, promising him that he would be the man and we would not recruit any other QBs.
//sarcasm warning.
Of course competition is good—especially at QB. As far as I am concerned, anyone who can’t handle the pressure of competition can transfer to, say, NC State.
Callahan has said that he is going to name a starter in the second or third week of practice, so that should give the starter 2-3 weeks time with the majority of the snaps.I'm looking at the mid 90's as I was a student in college at NU at the time. There was never NOT a named starting QB. Look at the bowl game in 1994. Even though TF had missed most of the games that led up to the bowl game, he was the starter. In 1995, TF was named the starter from the word go. Explain to me how looking at the mid 90's supports your argument that its okay we haven't named a starter yet?NIRVANA said:excellent response......the mid 90s is proof of that.Necava Husker said:Yeah, maybe it is better if we just pick out the guy who has the most talent and hand the reigns to him. Kind of like we did when we recruited Josh Freeman, promising him that he would be the man and we would not recruit any other QBs.
//sarcasm warning.
Of course competition is good—especially at QB. As far as I am concerned, anyone who can’t handle the pressure of competition can transfer to, say, NC State.
Basically, I'm saying that Keller will start. Keller needs to be taking 85-90% of the snaps with the starting offense rather than splitting time 50/50 with Ganz. If we wait until the season begins before we have a starter and have them taking a majority of the snaps with the starting unit, then I feel we're way behind having to play USC so early in the season.
This is quite untrue, I just reread "One Final Pass" The Brook Berringer book and according to that book (chapter 9, pg. 69) the starter for the '95 season was not announced until after the final fall pre-season scrimmage on August 24th. TO had told all reporters that in the qb race " Each play is graded on a point system. 2 points are awarded for simply running the play correctly. If a qb turns the wrong way, calls the wrong audible or is the reason the play breaks down, that's one point. And int's and fumbles are 0 points."I'm looking at the mid 90's as I was a student in college at NU at the time. There was never NOT a named starting QB. Look at the bowl game in 1994. Even though TF had missed most of the games that led up to the bowl game, he was the starter. In 1995, TF was named the starter from the word go. Explain to me how looking at the mid 90's supports your argument that its okay we haven't named a starter yet?NIRVANA said:excellent response......the mid 90s is proof of that.Necava Husker said:Yeah, maybe it is better if we just pick out the guy who has the most talent and hand the reigns to him. Kind of like we did when we recruited Josh Freeman, promising him that he would be the man and we would not recruit any other QBs.
//sarcasm warning.
Of course competition is good—especially at QB. As far as I am concerned, anyone who can’t handle the pressure of competition can transfer to, say, NC State.
Basically, I'm saying that Keller will start. Keller needs to be taking 85-90% of the snaps with the starting offense rather than splitting time 50/50 with Ganz. If we wait until the season begins before we have a starter and have them taking a majority of the snaps with the starting unit, then I feel we're way behind having to play USC so early in the season.
