Armstrong Leading the QB Race

HUSKER FREAK said:
I didn't look but who ever wrote that article forgot to mention that RKIII often replaced him at the worst times and I think Bo when asked if he is planning packages for Fyfe in every game he quickly stated that they are not afraid of playing him at any time or Stanton for that matter, but they wont be making a change just to make a change.

I liked hearing this because the majority of the time it hurt us more than it helped us. And, I think this is what he indirectly was saying.
Click to expand...
I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.

 
That is true, but I really think it back fired for the most part. I mean the Penn St game, wasn't that the one that he got hurt in or was he just playing that badly I don't remember because I was deer hunting at the time.

 
Moiraine said:
I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.
Click to expand...

Not picking on you specifically with this, but this is such a funny example about how our fanbase goes back and forth.

For a long time we were overly frustrated with backups not having any "real" in-game experience, because Osborne used to get backups planned series in games before they were out of hand. Then when Taylor got the nod in 2010, the coaching staff started trying that with Cody Green; giving him a guaranteed drive or two in the first half, and when he sucked, everyone thought that it was the worst idea ever.

 
Personally, I thought the insertion of Kellog in the Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan, and Michigan St games all hurt the early rythm Tommy had built. if you remember, Tommy started off pretty well in all those games with maybe the exception of Mich St.-and even then, when they didnt turn the ball over, they were moving the ball and flew down the field for a TD on the third possession. And Tommy wound up not playin so hot the rest of the game.

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Moiraine said:
I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.
Click to expand...

Not picking on you specifically with this, but this is such a funny example about how our fanbase goes back and forth.

For a long time we were overly frustrated with backups not having any "real" in-game experience, because Osborne used to get backups planned series in games before they were out of hand. Then when Taylor got the nod in 2010, the coaching staff started trying that with Cody Green; giving him a guaranteed drive or two in the first half, and when he sucked, everyone thought that it was the worst idea ever.
Click to expand...
I don't remember Osborne putting backup QBs in games before they got out of hand. Back then, they got playing time late in the second quarter if we were way ahead, the starters would come out and start the third quarter again until we scored a few more TDs and then back ups would play the rest of the game.

I don't ever remember backup QBs being put in on a regular basis while games are tight and in question.

This entier..."we gotta get our backup QBs playing time in the first half no matter what" mantra is ridiculous. Name me the top teams in the country that do that.

The trick to get your backups playing time is to get way ahead to where there is no question we are going to win.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Count 'Bility said:
Personally, I thought the insertion of Kellog in the Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan, and Michigan St games all hurt the early rythm Tommy had built. if you remember, Tommy started off pretty well in all those games with maybe the exception of Mich St.-and even then, when they didnt turn the ball over, they were moving the ball and flew down the field for a TD on the third possession. And Tommy wound up not playin so hot the rest of the game.
Click to expand...
I agree with that. I had no problem with the 2-QB system itself, it just seemed like they would pull a guy as soon as he got into a rhythm. Kind of put us in a hole early against Northwestern.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Moiraine said:
I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.
Click to expand...

Not picking on you specifically with this, but this is such a funny example about how our fanbase goes back and forth.

For a long time we were overly frustrated with backups not having any "real" in-game experience, because Osborne used to get backups planned series in games before they were out of hand. Then when Taylor got the nod in 2010, the coaching staff started trying that with Cody Green; giving him a guaranteed drive or two in the first half, and when he sucked, everyone thought that it was the worst idea ever.
Click to expand...
I don't remember Osborne putting backup QBs in games before they got out of hand. Back then, they got playing time late in the second quarter if we were way ahead, the starters would come out and start the third quarter again until we scored a few more TDs and then back ups would play the rest of the game.

I don't ever remember backup QBs being put in on a regular basis while games are tight and in question.

This entier..."we gotta get our backup QBs playing time in the first half no matter what" mantra is ridiculous. Name me the top teams in the country that do that.

The trick to get your backups playing time is to get way ahead to where there is no question we are going to win.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ideally you want to get your back up experience during garbage time after you cruise to victory against teams like Wyoming, Northwestern, Iowa, and Minnesota. . .

. . . whoops.

 
The Dude said:
BigRedBuster said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Moiraine said:
I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.
Click to expand...

Not picking on you specifically with this, but this is such a funny example about how our fanbase goes back and forth.

For a long time we were overly frustrated with backups not having any "real" in-game experience, because Osborne used to get backups planned series in games before they were out of hand. Then when Taylor got the nod in 2010, the coaching staff started trying that with Cody Green; giving him a guaranteed drive or two in the first half, and when he sucked, everyone thought that it was the worst idea ever.
Click to expand...
I don't remember Osborne putting backup QBs in games before they got out of hand. Back then, they got playing time late in the second quarter if we were way ahead, the starters would come out and start the third quarter again until we scored a few more TDs and then back ups would play the rest of the game.

I don't ever remember backup QBs being put in on a regular basis while games are tight and in question.

This entier..."we gotta get our backup QBs playing time in the first half no matter what" mantra is ridiculous. Name me the top teams in the country that do that.

The trick to get your backups playing time is to get way ahead to where there is no question we are going to win.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ideally you want to get your back up experience during garbage time after you cruise to victory against teams like Wyoming, Northwestern, Iowa, and Minnesota. . .

. . . whoops.
Click to expand...
and Southern Miss, South dakota St, Illinois, Purdue...........

There. FIFY

 
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
Moiraine said:
I always hate it when there's a planned series to put the backup in, but I guess it could be for psychological reasons, so the starter doesn't think it's because they did badly.
Click to expand...
Not picking on you specifically with this, but this is such a funny example about how our fanbase goes back and forth.

For a long time we were overly frustrated with backups not having any "real" in-game experience, because Osborne used to get backups planned series in games before they were out of hand. Then when Taylor got the nod in 2010, the coaching staff started trying that with Cody Green; giving him a guaranteed drive or two in the first half, and when he sucked, everyone thought that it was the worst idea ever.
Click to expand...
I don't recall Osborne doing it that way. I remember him putting the back up in when we were up 28-0, and often times that was mid 2nd quarter so maybe it felt like it wasn't out of hand. It's possible I'm remembering wrong.
Anyhow, yea, it annoyed me when Green was put in. We were up 14-7 or whatever against Washington and Martinez was kicking butt and Green gets put in. Made no sense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought it was weird, what they did with Green. Right now we're talking about getting some guys' feet wet when they've never been out there before. That's a good coaching move, I think.

Green, at that point, had already started games in the previous season. They gave him starts and then pulled him. As a sophomore, they put him in more than once backed up on the 1-yard line, and then yank him immediately. I think the criticisms that this was odd and confidence-shattering were on point. But I'd be in full support of giving some time, garbage time or otherwise, in early games for both Ryker and Johnny.

 
Count 'Bility said:
Personally, I thought the insertion of Kellog in the Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan, and Michigan St games all hurt the early rythm Tommy had built. if you remember, Tommy started off pretty well in all those games with maybe the exception of Mich St.-and even then, when they didnt turn the ball over, they were moving the ball and flew down the field for a TD on the third possession. And Tommy wound up not playin so hot the rest of the game.
Click to expand...
Against Purdue, we scored a TD on the first possession then went three-and-out then he threw a pick before RKIII went in on the fourth possesion and we scored a TD.

Against Illinois, we scored TDs on the first two possessions, RKIII got a FG then TA lead another TD drive.

Against Northwestern, we scored a TD, went three-and-out, had a nice drive but missed a FG then RKIII went three-and-out before TA came back in and led a TD drive.

Against Michigan, we went punt, FG, TD then RKIII had a short drive but punted then TA went three-and-out.

Against Michigan State, we fumbled the fist possession then TA threw a pick.

I would say only against Michigan did it possibly disrupt our rythm. Against Purdue and Michigan State, TA wasn't getting a lot done and the other two he came right back out and led a TD drive so I don't see much disruption in any of the others.

 
Back
Top