Riley on What He's Looking for in QBs
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
cornographic
Banned
Enhance
Administrator
To what end do people value aesthetics over results, though? For example, in hockey, and much like in soccer, people who understand the game will often say they don't like shootouts. Certainly not because they lack excitement but because the better "team" may not necessarily mean they have best scorers. I can understand the aesthetics argument in this regard because you want the team that plays better throughout the game to also look the part and play the part.
And again, I've already stated I would prefer a team that looks good and produces results. But, valuing aesthetics over wins means, to me, people would prefer a team go 6-6 if they look good, rather than going maybe 10-2 but not necessarily looking the part.
Just kind of looking for further understanding here.
Hammerhead
New member
Our luck with supposed "dual threat" quarterbacks that are really only a threat on the ground has killed any interest I had in recruiting that kind of quarterback, but hopefully Langsdorf's offense will be versatile enough to use the run better than Beck/Watson did. We need a guy with a good arm AND good decision-making skills if we're ever going to contend for anything other than a mid-tier bowl game.
Last edited by a moderator:
TGHusker
New member
Looks like we have a clue now on the type of QB MR wants. 1st QB recruit has committed. Pass first, run second - mobile QB. We pulled him out of Sooner land. He is 6'3'' and just shy of 200. He had great stats as a jr.
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/oklahoma-prep-quarterback-terry-wilson-ends-wait-commits-to-huskers/article_b5c08c1e-bee2-5a7a-a2ec-03d79f747645.html
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/oklahoma-prep-quarterback-terry-wilson-ends-wait-commits-to-huskers/article_b5c08c1e-bee2-5a7a-a2ec-03d79f747645.html
BigRedBuster
Active member
Well, it definitely looks like he is extremely athletic and fast. His high light video shows him making a wide range of throws with a strong arm to get the ball down the field.
Now, let's hope that translates well to the college level.
cg_8
New member
The boxing reference is one that should be more similar to basketball pre-shot clock era, where teams would hold on to the ball for minutes on end. Where they'd only score like 4 pts total for the final quarter.
Also, if we won 14 games with a QB sneak offense, we're leaving out the part where our Defense is the best Defense college football has ever seen. That alone, would be a blast to watch.
There would still be sprinkles of PA sneak passing plays, and even a handoff would become a "PA" type play that would be exciting. I'm picturing quick pop passes to tight ends, or even laterals to RB's sprinkled in there to keep the Defense honest. I mean, wtf does the D think when we unexpectedly shift into shotgun...
This offense would be more exciting than you think it would...
Last edited by a moderator:
junior4949
New member
If we get the pipeline rebuilt, the QB jabber will become all but nonexistent. Taylor Martinez would be remembered quite differently by most fans had he been behind a dominant OL. The QB just needs to be a game manager with few mistakes. We have more than capable QB's on the roster already. We just need better OL play.
Enhance
Administrator
I'm 100% behind you that we need better OL play, but, I would also argue QB is still huge no matter what. Nebraska hasn't had a truly elite QB since Eric Crouch I think you could argue. You could say TM got close but his turnover problems held him back, and there were times when even his freak athletic ability couldn't make up for the team's poor play. It's also tough to characterize someone as 'elite' when they were responsible for helping put the team into a deep hole.
Anyways, aside from Martinez, I would say we still need to have more than a game manager. OL play is definitely a big concern and I would love for them to be one of the best in the country, but a really good QB would mean a ton to this program and could mean the difference between getting to a conference title game and actually winning a conference title game.
TITANIC VS LUSITANIA
New member
Yeah, fair point. I think you and I are actually in agreement.To what end do people value aesthetics over results, though? For example, in hockey, and much like in soccer, people who understand the game will often say they don't like shootouts. Certainly not because they lack excitement but because the better "team" may not necessarily mean they have best scorers. I can understand the aesthetics argument in this regard because you want the team that plays better throughout the game to also look the part and play the part.
And again, I've already stated I would prefer a team that looks good and produces results. But, valuing aesthetics over wins means, to me, people would prefer a team go 6-6 if they look good, rather than going maybe 10-2 but not necessarily looking the part.
Just kind of looking for further understanding here.
I have thought about it a bit, and I will try to organize mythoughts, hopefully while being concise.
I think the debate arises from a clash of ideal vs pragmatic philosophies on how to win at a given sport. And to be honest, I think football is a weird example because at its core it is a very pragmatic sport; do whatever you can to get the ball from A to B. However, I do think there is an aesthetic value to some parts of it. I particularly like a good run block, the way a QB steps up into the pocket to deliver a pass, the way an running back cuts back in between the tackles, the way a receiver gets open by finding a gap in the zone coverage,and others. But I recognize that aesthetics in sports are somewhat subjective. Someone who watched NU in the 80s and 90s may prefer a power running game, or an option scheme, while others may like a more passing approach. I think culture plays a big part.
In both philosophies, the win is the goal, but while the pragmatic approach gives a stronger emphasis on the win itself, the aesthetic approach gives more emphasis on the way the game is won ("Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory" comes to mind). In this latter philosophy attractive and entertaining play are the keys to victory. I subscribe to this philosophy, so when NU plays poorly, but wins, it gives me an empty feeling. You hear the phrase "a win's a win" but if the win is due to some luck, or the opponent played better football overall, or NU turned the ball over frequently, or the game was won due to the opponent suffering an injury to a key player, then it is not a fulfilling win. I often think about which team deserved to win.
In 1974 West Germany won the World Cup (soccer), but nobody cares because 1974 was the year of the Mechanical Orange Dutch team who lost in the final game, but they played better than any other team, showing off an attractive and dynamic style that changed the way the game was played thenceforward.
I wish I had a hockey example for you but I really don't
Anyway, thats how I view it, but I know I am a minority. Ideally, it is like you said, you have good aesthetics and wins. But I would rather have an undeserved loss than an undeserved win. (I think my last sentence makes sense...maybe...)
Last edited by a moderator:
River-runner
New member
Stumpy1
New member
A lot of people would like to have Stanford's offense and there is nothing exciting about it. Last year against Oregon, Stanford ran the same running play something like 60 times. I believe they only passed 8-10 times and that was it. Pretty damn boring but it won them the game. Alabama has had recent success being boring. The common thing with these teams is that they have had stellar defenses. I don't care if we are fancy or boring, as long as we get the job done and win.
teachercd
Active member
Exactly...at the end of the day we want NU's offense to have scored enough points to win that game.