Armstrong Leading the QB Race

Army_Allen said:
The reason I don't have supreme faith in the kid is that he never showed to be a consistent game manager or a highlight reel type player. Other than the Michigan drive, You could have had RK3 in there the whole game and we'd still have won. With fewer picks to boot. Purdue getting 3 picks against him? Purdue? Freshman make mistakes yes, but that's crazy. We won in spite of him that game. I will support whoever starts but to ask me to have blind faith in an unseen qb OR a qb with nearly a 1:1 TD to Pick ratio is a bit beyond what I think is feasible. Could he be the next great Husker qb? Maybe. Was his freshman year a good implication? Not in my eyes.
Click to expand...
I don't think we need our quarterback to be a gamechanger. If Taylor Martinez taught us anything, it's that gamechanging ability can sometimes come with a price tag. TM's were injuries and a knack for turning the ball over. We really just need a quarterback that run the offense well, make a big play here or there and take care of that football.

I agree that TA didn't jump off the page last year. But, and this will likely sound like excuses, consider the challenges against him - 1) took over for an incumbent a few games in the season 2) is a RSF and 3) played with a very banged up offensive line. Throw on that we had receivers dropping balls like they were chunks of molten lava and yeah... thinks don't look great.

Some players might be more apt to overcome those challenges, and others may not be. Personally, I'm taking very little of what I saw last year as indicative of what we'll get this year. That includes the good and bad.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Good Lord....the kid just finished his freshman year of football and people are already writing him off and wishing someone else was the QB.
Click to expand...
Basketball is over, the baseball team looks below average...nothing left but to rip apart the upcoming football team.

 
bhamHusker said:
clyde40 said:
Is there someplace to look to see just how many other than googling every FBS school? I would just be curious to know the percentages that have them and their level of success at the QB position.
Click to expand...
I googled just the teams in the Big Ten and SEC and 20 out of 28 teams have an OC/QB coach combination. Mizzou and Texas A&M have assistant coaches in charge of QB's, Minn and Penn State have passing game coordinators coach QB's, Michigan State has their recruiting coordinator coach QB's, South Carolina and Vandy have coaches fully focused on QB's, and Rutgers does not have a coach listed in charge or QB's.
Click to expand...
A different sample yields similar results. Of the teams that finished in the BCS Top 25, three had dedicated QB coaches (FSU, MSU, South Carolina), Missouri's QB coach also held the Associate HC title which effectively brings the total to 4. Twenty had OC/Co-OCs coaching QBs, and one, Stanford, had one coach dividing time between QB, WR and RC duties.
Click to expand...

So, in other words, having a dedicated quarterback coach really doesn't seem to have any kind of direct variation on quarterback play at all.

 
True2tRA said:
NUpolo8 said:
Mavric said:
NUpolo8 said:
Am I to believe a lot of people honestly thought Stanton was going to be the Nebraska Jameis Winston here?

Wow.
Click to expand...
I guess you can believe that if you want but I've seen no one say that.
Click to expand...
The semantics game is fun isn't it?

Yes I'm sure no one here actually said verbatim what I said-- but you know just as well as I do that a lot of people here just got hit right in the feels because Stanton didn't just come in and miraculously out perform a more experienced player who's plenty talented in his own right.
Click to expand...
Haha, this is funny to me because I think that feeling has been expressed multiple times here on Huskerboard in very obvious ways. It couldn't have been more clear from many, many different posters here that they were hoping and fully expecting Stanton to overtake Armstrong as the starting QB. It's amusing now that we are deep into spring ball and the race has been declared not even close, well now we want to back off and pretend we weren't tooting Stanton's horn a bit too loudly now were we?

Well I'll sit on my high horse on this one and say NOT ME FOLKS. Not oly did I declare Armstrong would be the starter a long time ago, but I will also remind you of the many times I've said he's going to be the next great Nebraska QB. I'll stand by that prediction and I think in a couple Saturdays some of you who were praying for this unseen freshmen to overtake the spot somehow, will learn that there's nobody but Armstong going to be leading this team for the next three years, and he's gonna do a hell of a job of it. Write that down...( or copy and paste it someday).

What's best about it is Martinez lovers would skewer your a$$ and barbecue you if you once mentioned you would like to see this unproven freshmen named Armstrong get a chance at starting over Taylor. If you said you felt Armstrong was a better QB than Taylor, these people would have said "based on what"!? A high school highlight tape?! Now I can sit here and pick out possibly 3 -4 of those same people in this exact forum who have outright stated that they believe Stanton will win the job because he is a better QB. Based on what?! A high school highlight film. Give Armstrong some respect, the guy is 7-1 as a freshmen starter thrown into the mix after Martinez was unfortunately injured. 7-1 folks. If you won't respect that, trust me, you'll respect him after this season.
Click to expand...
Hey. Yeah. The "I told you so" card. I think I'll play mine too.

 
True2tRA said:
Haha, this is funny to me because I think that feeling has been expressed multiple times here on Huskerboard in very obvious ways. It couldn't have been more clear from many, many different posters here that they were hoping and fully expecting Stanton to overtake Armstrong as the starting QB. It's amusing now that we are deep into spring ball and the race has been declared not even close, well now we want to back off and pretend we weren't tooting Stanton's horn a bit too loudly now were we?

Well I'll sit on my high horse on this one and say NOT ME FOLKS. Not oly did I declare Armstrong would be the starter a long time ago, but I will also remind you of the many times I've said he's going to be the next great Nebraska QB. I'll stand by that prediction and I think in a couple Saturdays some of you who were praying for this unseen freshmen to overtake the spot somehow, will learn that there's nobody but Armstong going to be leading this team for the next three years, and he's gonna do a hell of a job of it. Write that down...( or copy and paste it someday).

What's best about it is Martinez lovers would skewer your a$$ and barbecue you if you once mentioned you would like to see this unproven freshmen named Armstrong get a chance at starting over Taylor. If you said you felt Armstrong was a better QB than Taylor, these people would have said "based on what"!? A high school highlight tape?! Now I can sit here and pick out possibly 3 -4 of those same people in this exact forum who have outright stated that they believe Stanton will win the job because he is a better QB. Based on what?! A high school highlight film. Give Armstrong some respect, the guy is 7-1 as a freshmen starter thrown into the mix after Martinez was unfortunately injured. 7-1 folks. If you won't respect that, trust me, you'll respect him after this season.
Click to expand...

Even if your scenario were true, there's just a humongous difference between thinking an unknown and inexperienced freshman quarterback could better than an all-time record-setting and all-conference senior quarterback, and thinking that an unknown and inexperienced freshman quarterback could be better than an average-to-decent sophomore that played in about 1/3 of the team's games.

You see how those gaps are not even remotely the same size?

But as a separate point, I really need to ask, who actually wanted thought Tommy Armstrong was a better quarterback than a healthy Martinez? Whoever that person is shouldn't be allowed a keyboard to embarrass themselves.

 
NUpolo8 said:
74Hunter said:
I am I said:
NUpolo8 said:
StPaulHusker said:
This is interesting.I am disappointed that Stanton didn't come in and out perform or at least make it close to Armstrong. Not because I don't like TA, but because it would show that we have some good QB's that we couldn't go wrong with either way.

Now, if Armstrong were to play terribly for some reason this coming season, and Stanton isn't even close to the level as TA, where does that leave us?
Click to expand...
Hopefully with a new coach for 2015 for letting his depth and roster management be that poor seven years into his tenure.
Click to expand...
Awesome.
Click to expand...
Didn't you know the every thread must turn into a Bo sucks he needs to be fired #9wins thread?
Click to expand...

I'm not the two guys who picked a post out from 30 some odd posts ago and rehashed it.
Click to expand...
Sorry I don't spend every waking second on this message board. I have things to do.

 
NUpolo8 said:
They also could have ran off tackle for every play and beaten Purdue. It's like they were trying to teach the kid or something.
Click to expand...
If I recall, Purdue came out with a different defensive alignment that managed to throw Tommy off. Previously they had not shown a 3-4 before. It did lead to more mistakes by Tommy, but we still kicked their butts anyway.

Tommy's individual stats don't jump off the page, but you couldn't have watched a game he was in last year (the one loss excepted...we were pretty cold in that one) and not seen a lot of promise shown by the offense he led. It looked cohesive and Tommy looked unflappable. We took more risks but that also meant stressing the defense in different areas more. There was this sense that the offense was always in the fight, any given drive.

 
zoogies said:
NUpolo8 said:
They also could have ran off tackle for every play and beaten Purdue. It's like they were trying to teach the kid or something.
Click to expand...
If I recall, Purdue came out with a different defensive alignment that managed to throw Tommy off. Previously they had not shown a 3-4 before. It did lead to more mistakes by Tommy, but we still kicked their butts anyway.

Tommy's individual stats don't jump off the page, but you couldn't have watched a game he was in last year (the one loss excepted...we were pretty cold in that one) and not seen a lot of promise shown by the offense he led. It looked cohesive and Tommy looked unflappable. We took more risks but that also meant stressing the defense in different areas more. There was this sense that the offense was always in the fight, any given drive.
Click to expand...
I don't really agree with that at all. The offense took more risks with Tommy versus Taylor? I really don't think that is true.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of shots downfield. Maybe I shouldn't make a comparison - that always seems to spark some controversy.

In any case, we weren't really playing it safe the times we did go to the air with Tommy.

 
zoogies said:
A lot of shots downfield. Maybe I shouldn't make a comparison - that always seems to spark some controversy.

In any case, we weren't really playing it safe the times we did go to the air with Tommy.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting conclusion zoogs. I don't think I agree, but I guess I don't have enough of a recollection to actively disagree, either. I would hardly call more shots downfield risky, though. Especially when 2-3 of them per game were to nobody.

 
Uh, they're lower percentage throws. Maybe risky was the wrong word too?
default_laugh.png


 
Back
Top