The Tangent Thread

[74Hunter]

um... bo is responsible for personnel. and to say armstrong is an underachiever (at 7-1) is extremely unfair. he had a truncated season with all the problems of the team that made bo's 4 losses ok. i think it is hard to even say armstrong has had a chance to prove himself.

Ummm...I realize that Bo is responsible for personnel, didn't realize that it had to be stated.The 7-1 record was more of a reflection on the improvements in the defense.Bo's defense. They achieved that record in spite of the shortcomings behind center, not because of them. With hindsight being 20/20, we would have been better off with a 1 legged Taylor than we were with the TA/RKIII combo. Same running threat but at least we would have had a competent passer with Taylor.

The Minnesota game says "hello!"

Had TA or RKIII played,would they have stopped MNs run game better, or would they have covered their tight end better? Or is this where Taylor gets blamed for another one of Ameers game killing fumbles?

 

[Hoosker]

um... bo is responsible for personnel. and to say armstrong is an underachiever (at 7-1) is extremely unfair. he had a truncated season with all the problems of the team that made bo's 4 losses ok. i think it is hard to even say armstrong has had a chance to prove himself.

Ummm...I realize that Bo is responsible for personnel, didn't realize that it had to be stated.The 7-1 record was more of a reflection on the improvements in the defense.Bo's defense. They achieved that record in spite of the shortcomings behind center, not because of them. With hindsight being 20/20, we would have been better off with a 1 legged Taylor than we were with the TA/RKIII combo. Same running threat but at least we would have had a competent passer with Taylor.

The Minnesota game says "hello!"

Had TA or RKIII played,would they have stopped MAn run game better, or would they have covered their tight end better? Or is this where Taylor gets blamed for another one of Ameers game killing fumbles?

 

[knapplc]

With hindsight being 20/20, we would have been better off with a 1 legged Taylor than we were with the TA/RKIII combo. Same running threat but at least we would have had a competent passer with Taylor.

The Minnesota game says "hello!"

Had TA or RKIII played,would they have stopped MAn run game better, or would they have covered their tight end better? Or is this where Taylor gets blamed for another one of Ameers game killing fumbles?

You're not arguing that the defense was better/worse with Martinez or Tommy/Ron at the helm, you're arguing "we would have been better off." Since none of them play defense, the goal-post moving with mention of the defense isn't relevant.

I'll give you that Taylor was a better passer than RKIII and/or Tommy. But they were able to pass effectively enough to win seven of the nine games we played without Taylor, including game-winning TDs on passes against Northwestern and Georgia. Three of our four TDs against Sparty were through the air, with Cross' TD the lone rushing TD of the day.

Regarding Ameer's fumbles, I'd like to see some explanation for how the QB affects his turnovers before that's remotely relevant. Ameer had one fumble against Minnesota, but I can't fathom whether he would have had more or fewer if Tommy/Ron had played.

 

[74Hunter]

With hindsight being 20/20, we would have been better off with a 1 legged Taylor than we were with the TA/RKIII combo. Same running threat but at least we would have had a competent passer with Taylor.

The Minnesota game says "hello!"

Had TA or RKIII played,would they have stopped MAn run game better, or would they have covered their tight end better? Or is this where Taylor gets blamed for another one of Ameers game killing fumbles?

You're not arguing that the defense was better/worse with Martinez or Tommy/Ron at the helm, you're arguing "we would have been better off." Since none of them play defense, the goal-post moving with mention of the defense isn't relevant.I'll give you that Taylor was a better passer than RKIII and/or Tommy. But they were able to pass effectively enough to win seven of the nine games we played without Taylor, including game-winning TDs on passes against Northwestern and Georgia. Three of our four TDs against Sparty were through the air, with Cross' TD the lone rushing TD of the day.Regarding Ameer's fumbles, I'd like to see some explanation for how the QB affects his turnovers before that's remotely relevant. Ameer had one fumble against Minnesota, but I can't fathom whether he would have had more or fewer if Tommy/Ron had played.

I'm not sure where you're missing the point, Knapp. I'm not moving goal posts at all. People are crediting wins to the QB position when not warranted, all the while ignoring the fact that the reason ww won those games was due to the improvements in the defense. I've been pretty clear about this.
The defense improved as the year wore on. The offense got worse. We lost the MN game not because of who was taking snaps, but because the DL was getting blown off the ball and we couldn't figure out a way to stop the TE over the middle, and because Ameer fumbled late in the game to seal the loss. I don't see how letting TA/RKIII play would have changed that, especially since TM had very Tommy-esque game that day. If the D would have held up its end, the offense did enough to easily win that game.

As for Ameers fumbles, I just remember reading somewhere (I though here) where someone was blaming TM for Ameers game killing fumble in the bowl game 2years ago. I thought maybe someone was doing the same here.

 

[knapplc]

I get it. I don't disagree with your first two paragraphs. I didn't see anyone talking about Ameer's fumbles in relation to Taylor. Taylor got inordinate amounts of blame during his career, so it wouldn't surprise me if some yahoo along the way blamed him for Ameer's woes. That would be a fringe wacko, though, not a mainstream thought.

 

[74Hunter]

Agreed.

 

[The Dude]

It's amazing that you're so defensive about Pelini and Martinez, but you're critical of Tommy Armstrong literally to the point of absurdity. Like, you realize he plays for your favorite team, too, right? I don't get it. Is it something he did to you personally?

Give the guy some time, good grief. Martinez wasn't exactly setting the world on fire with his arm as a freshmen, it took time for him to develop into the one-legged QB that won our hearts.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I've always been a Martinez defender, but looking objectively as possible at the last four seasons, the wins and losses in 2013 felt a lot like the wins and losses from the previous three seasons.

The Martinez who led Nebraska on three razor-sharp touchdown drives against UCLA in the first half wasn't one-legged. He wasn't one-legged in the second half, either. He was the same player on the same team that always had trouble playing four consistent quarters of football.

I wish Taylor Martinez could have played with a better defense, maybe even the defense Nebraska had in the second half of last season. A healthy Taylor might have won us one more game. But not two.

Tommy Armstrong kept Nebraska pretty much where it's been during the Pelini era. For a freshman thrown into the fire, that's not too bad. Which is why this isn't a rebuilding year. With everything that went wrong last year, we should expect to improve on 9-4.

 

[True2tRA]

I've always been a Martinez defender, but looking objectively as possible at the last four seasons, the wins and losses in 2013 felt a lot like the wins and losses from the previous three seasons.

The Martinez who led Nebraska on three razor-sharp touchdown drives against UCLA in the first half wasn't one-legged. He wasn't one-legged in the second half, either. He was the same player on the same team that always had trouble playing four consistent quarters of football.

I wish Taylor Martinez could have played with a better defense, maybe even the defense Nebraska had in the second half of last season. A healthy Taylor might have won us one more game. But not two.

Tommy Armstrong kept Nebraska pretty much where it's been during the Pelini era. For a freshman thrown into the fire, that's not too bad. Which is why this isn't a rebuilding year. With everything that went wrong last year, we should expect to improve on 9-4.

Excellent stuff.

 

[irafreak]

I don't understand. This is the tangent thread yet everyone wants to stay on topic...this thread gets a low score...

anyone who declares their distaste for ribs because they are "too messy" should get a one week ban.

Testing...

 

[irafreak]

Well we know who DOESN'T have any clout around here....

 

[The Dude]

That's the simple form of what I was getting at. I wish I could express myself in much shorter paragraphs.

I don't know if that's something to strive for. Concise writing seems to upset a lot of people around here for reasons they can't articulate.

 

[74Hunter]

It's amazing that you're so defensive about Pelini and Martinez, but you're critical of Tommy Armstrong literally to the point of absurdity. Like, you realize he plays for your favorite team, too, right? I don't get it. Is it something he did to you personally?

Give the guy some time, good grief. Martinez wasn't exactly setting the world on fire with his arm as a freshmen, it took time for him to develop into the one-legged QB that won our hearts.

You're right. I guess it's in response to the absurdity of those who were so critical of Taylor yet they praise Tommy for things they make up like his poise and leadership, all while ignoring the fact that he's not half the player that his predecessor was. There's one person on this board that stated that Tommy was a good passer.....not sure what team they've been watching the last 12 months but wasn't this one.
I also had a pretty heated exchange with a delusional fan who said that the reason the defense played better late in the year last season is because they liked TA better than TM.

W

T

F

?

So he accused the defense of sand bagging and jaking because he didn't like Taylor. I recall the 90s when there was a huge split in the team over whether Tommie or Brook should pay, but could you imagine anyone on those defenses jaking because the guy they liked better wasn't the starter?

Yeah, me neither.

 

[The Dude]

You're right. I guess it's in response to the absurdity of those who were so critical of Taylor yet they praise Tommy for things they make up like his poise and leadership, all while ignoring the fact that he's not half the player that his predecessor was. There's one person on this board that stated that Tommy was a good passer.....not sure what team they've been watching the last 12 months but wasn't this one.

Okay, that's pretty silly. You're upset that people were being critical of Taylor (after several years to shake off all those "rookie" mistakes), but you're not above being critical of Tommy (without even giving him a chance), and you just don't see the hypocrisy here? k

"I frown upon this behavior, so I'm going to behave in the same way".

That's a bold strategy, Cotton. Let's see if it pays off for you.

I also had a pretty heated exchange with a delusional fan who said that the reason the defense played better late in the year last season is because they liked TA better than TM.

W

T

F

?

What does that have to do with . . . anything?

So because somebody said something you disagreed with, you're going to actively cheer against Tommy Armstrong from here on out? WTF indeed.

So he accused the defense of sand bagging and jaking because he didn't like Taylor. I recall the 90s when there was a huge split in the team over whether Tommie or Brook should pay, but could you imagine anyone on those defenses jaking because the guy they liked better wasn't the starter?

Agreed. I believe the team was better unified to achieve a common goal under Tom Osborne in the 90s. I don't think too many people would accuse those teams of carrying that attitude. Or maybe they did to some degree, maybe it's just an consequence of being human. Who knows?

 

[74Hunter]

First, who said I was rooting against Tommy? He's just not very good,and I don't see anything in his game that leads be to believe that he'll be much better. I hope I'm wrong. I think that he's our best option right now but Stanton would be better in the future. We should be better next year than this, so if they give Johnny the ball, I'd be ok with that.

Second, it's called being consistent. It's funny how Taylor was crucified by some people for his faults, yet those same people give Tommy a total pass for having those same faults.