QB Race

[bshirt]

We can see it as the coaches are moving to a style of offense that doesn't suit Zac (I don't think so, but it's what some have said)

This is exactly the reason. There's nothing wrong with it. It is what it is. Zac was recruited to be a pocket passer. Cody and Taylor was recruited as dual threat QBs to run a option read offense. At some point you have to make that transition. You saw some of that transition last year even though due to mostly injury, it was painful to watch.

Yep.

I think it's really that simple. You know zoogies, it's a great luxury to have an experienced senior qb ready when needed. Things are looking good for the Mudville boys. :corndance

 

[zoogs]

We can see it as the coaches are moving to a style of offense that doesn't suit Zac (I don't think so, but it's what some have said)

This is exactly the reason. There's nothing wrong with it. It is what it is. Zac was recruited to be a pocket passer. Cody and Taylor was recruited as dual threat QBs to run a option read offense. At some point you have to make that transition. You saw some of that transition last year even though due to mostly injury, it was painful to watch.

You make him sound like Witt, Zac Taylor, or Ganz...Zac is well faster than any of those guys. You're right, he is a pass-first kind of guy. But he has athleticism and some real speed to him as well. His only fault I suppose, is that he isn't as much of a project as a passer. And that he can match a power running back better than a wide receiver in terms of speed.

True, at some point, you do have to make the transition. Do we need to at this point? Coaches obviously have decided to, but I think it's a case where they could have gone either way. Continue to build off what we saw a pre-surgery Zac do to Arizona last year. Rather than take the transitional - as well as freshman - lumps in a year where we are supposed to be in the title hunt. It could work, but I'm skeptical of it, that's all. You certainly have an argument, but I don't think it's a clear-cut, plain-and-obvious decision by any means.

We can win a lot of games with TMart this year (I'm sticking with my 3 regular season loss prediction for now). But we can also win a lot of games with Zac. Why go with Taylor, as well as Green in front? No matter how honest the coaches were with the players through the process, that's a slap in Zac's face. They could win with Zac at the helm; they just don't want to.

While it's nice to have an experienced senior that is a backup that MIGHT get action if the starter goes down, I'd rather have that guy as the starter, but that is just me

 

[knapplc]

I don't understand why we continue to cite articles such as this as evidence.

Because they're the most factual, fact-checkable thing we have to go on. Someone put their journalistic credibility on the line to write this article, someone else put their word as a coach on the line and someone else put their standing as a player on the line to be quoted in the article. That carries far, far more weight with me than anonymous posts on a message board. Nobody signs their names to these posts, me included.

Unless you choose not to believe the 'coaches think Zac is soft' line. Again, though, this is a suggestion that comes from people in the know. I would be the last person to know if it's right or wrong, but it's just something that nobody seems to want to believe. I say at least consider this to be a possibility, given that we rely on the same sources to believe many other things, from recruiting stories to practice stories to Sam Keller's effect on Corey McKeon. A lot of these things, like Keller's effect, are subjective. The difference is that is something you might not mind believing when told, even when it goes against preconceived notions (knapp, I'm referring to you specifically with this ) But why accept that possibility rather easily, while continuing to search for every sign - in what amounts to a fan-pleasing interview article, no less - to not believe something that you don't want to?

Let's apply Occam's Razor to this situation. We have two opposing theories here:

1) Coaches on the staff, likely including Bo, have something against a player that played through an injury described as "the ACL of the elbow," took a pounding all season behind a sieve-like O Line yet led us to nine wins, and because of that grudge, they've buried him in the depth chart in a snit more reminiscent of a high school clique than a major college football program.

2) Three talented players fought out a tough position battle which was, in the end, won by the player whose skills most suit the offense Bo has openly said he wants to run since he arrived at Nebraska.

Of these two, only one relies on supposition without facts to be believed. Only one relies on rumor and the interpretations of the thoughts of Bo and his staff to be true. Only one relies on gauging, from a distance, the emotions that went into this decision. Unless you or any of the "insiders" want to announce your names and positions on the team/staff here in the forums, I'm going to choose to believe the results I see on the field and the words written and provided by the people who sign their names to the articles I read.

I don't expect you to remember my posts from a year ago, but please take my word for it that there were no greater supporters of Zac Lee on these boards than me. You may remember the effusive way I described both times I met the guy in person, and how glowing my praise of his character was. None of that has changed for me, nor has my appreciation of Zac's contributions to the team last year. However, I can't fathom how anyone with a reasonable football acumen can look at the performance Martinez put on the field last weekend and think, rationally, "Zac Lee could have done that." Much as I like and respect Lee, there is no way I'd make that statement.

Bottom line for me was the play on the field. Lee is good enough to lead this team, I have no doubt. But Martinez is better. And that's why he's starting. End of story.

 

[Hercules]

:yeah

 

[zoogs]

knapp, it's not about journalists putting credibility on the line. It's about journalists writing an article for the fans by interviewing players and coaches. Things you will never hear coming out of a well-schooled team: "Well, Zac wasn't a good fit in the offense, so he's getting left behind, but what can he do." "Well, I don't think Zac is really tough enough as a quarterback to be our leader." "Taylor really has a long ways to go with his passing." "It wasn't really a tough battle. We had a clear winner." What I am getting at is that what will come out in articles are things that coaches are supposed to say, and nothing more, and that's the way it should be. I'm not being skeptical of the article, but I am saying it doesn't add any proof one way or another. You put up that article and said we can now lay these theories to rest.

1) Coaches on the staff, likely including Bo, have something against a player that played through an injury described as "the ACL of the elbow," took a pounding all season behind a sieve-like O Line yet led us to nine wins, and because of that grudge, they've buried him in the depth chart in a snit more reminiscent of a high school clique than a major college football program.

2) Three talented players fought out a tough position battle which was, in the end, won by the player whose skills most suit the offense Bo has openly said he wants to run since he arrived at Nebraska.

Both of these situations rely on suppositions.

I think you are taking #1 as a criticism of the coaching staff. Not really. Coaches start players they believe in, and think will be the best players for them. It's not as if coaches think Zac is better, but won't play him because of a grudge. Coaches don't think Zac is better; I think that is evident. Again, we've heard coaches think he's soft. They probably know a lot better than you or I. There's nothing high school about it but it doesn't mean that evaluation can't be questioned. Just like Ted Gilmore's supposed philosophy of WRs needing to be good run blockers, regardless of their other WR skills. Clearly he believes that gives us the players that gives us the best chance to win. But it's an approach that isn't beyond reproach.

Knapp, I hope I've proved with my speculation and general cluelessness over the years here, that I am far from an insider. But you and I both know that they do exist, and to ask for names or sources is simply unreasonable. With supposedly inside information, you just gotta pick and choose what to believe, what to take as fact, and what to take as opinion. I simply have a seen an opinion that I agree with. You don't; that's fine.

And this isn't about defending Zac from you at all. I know you were in Zac's corner last year, but I do want to point out some of your logic that I disagree with. For instance, sure, Zac couldn't do what Taylor did on the ground against Western Kentucky. But Zac could have put up 300 yards through the air and three scores with no picks, cupcake opponent as it were. He pretty much blasted through the Sunbelt opponents last year. What does it show? That Taylor can't put up the passing performance Zac can yet? I mean, I would just say this doesn't show much. You are saying that based on the WKU game, it's clear the coaches made the best decision. I am saying, hoooold your horses.

And the other thing I wanted to point out. You and I both had a high opinion of Keller. Nothing bad to say about him. Keller was a guy that was the first on the field to congratulate Ganz, arm in sling and all. Seemed like a consummate team player and all around good guy. Then BigWillie comes on and gives his take of Keller and how he was a total poison to the team. Both of us immediately read that and thought, wow, we had no idea. It's hard for me to really view Keller negatively still, since I NEVER got that impression from just watching the situation from a distance - and I'm sure that's the case for you as well - but we both acknowledged the possibility, even though there's no Occam's Razor about it. Keller was always positive about Nebraska, even after he left; nobody on the staff said bad things about him. But that is a case where we saw some signs that this might have not been the case, and acknowledged that those signs existed. And this is a case where we have the same source pointing to some signs, but all of a sudden insiders are just unreliable?

I'm not predicting a team collapse or anything, just suggesting that it's possibly true that coaches think Zac is soft, and they are possibly going in the right direction with Taylor, but I'm not sure about that.

 

[BeltwayHusker]

Knapplc, I generally agree with your post but wanted to respond to one thing:

I don't understand why we continue to cite articles such as this as evidence.

Because they're the most factual, fact-checkable thing we have to go on. Someone put their journalistic credibility on the line to write this article, someone else put their word as a coach on the line and someone else put their standing as a player on the line to be quoted in the article. That carries far, far more weight with me than anonymous posts on a message board. Nobody signs their names to these posts, me included.

Really? We're going to credit a fluff piece from the local paper that has all the quarterbacks and coaches holding hands and singing kumbaya? Sure, it sounds like everyone's handling this pretty well, and certainly they're doing a good job of putting on their best faces in public. But I hardly think this story rules out any more complicated goings-on. I have no reason to believe any of the particular versions of the events, but I definitely didn't read this story and think, "Ah, so that settles it."

Sure, message board rumors are not all that credible. That doesn't mean that press conference quotes are particularly credible, either. Almost all of what's said in sports press conferences is pretty useless for gaining actual insight into what's *really* going on. See for example: every press conference given at the end of a season by a coach rumored to be under consideration for another job.

Bottom line for me was the play on the field. Lee is good enough to lead this team, I have no doubt. But Martinez is better. And that's why he's starting. End of story.

Nope, the story has simply turned to the next, more exciting chapter. At least this part has some actual football to watch.

 

[knapplc]

I don't know Big Willie or anyone else who claims to be an insider, but to discount the possibility that Willie has an agenda, or that there are guys he likes/doesn't like on the team is silly. Personally, I think Willie is giving us the straight story - but I'm cautious enough of a guy whose name I don't know and whose "insider" status I cannot verify to take what he says with a grain of salt. Stories with a name attached will always have more credibility to them than anonymous posts on the internet.

 

[Joe_5700]

I refuse to buy into this hype until TMart proves himself against real competition. I'd rather not go through this every single season where an untested QB is the next Crouch/Frazier

I don't remember "anybody" ever claiming Z. Lee, J. Dailey, Ganz, Taylor, etc was the next Crouch/Frazier.

Have you not seen the number of Martinez-Crouch comparisons?

Don't forget that they are both hispanic too.

 

[zoogs]

I don't know Big Willie or anyone else who claims to be an insider, but to discount the possibility that Willie has an agenda, or that there are guys he likes/doesn't like on the team is silly. Personally, I think Willie is giving us the straight story - but I'm cautious enough of a guy whose name I don't know and whose "insider" status I cannot verify to take what he says with a grain of salt. Stories with a name attached will always have more credibility to them than anonymous posts on the internet.

I take it with a certain grain of salt too, but you have been "end of story", attempting to put it to bed completely. If I am misrepresenting you here, my mistake, and please forgive me. There's no doubt I am on the other end of the spectrum. The article in question doesn't even contradict anything necessarily, since all it said was the QBs were pretty aware of their standings and were on the same page with Watson. As well as receiving equal repetitions, but that's something (hearsay here, to be fair) that supposedly he has done his entire time here.

Nope, the story has simply turned to the next, more exciting chapter. At least this part has some actual football to watch.

Agree.

 

[knapplc]

Meh. My "end of story" line was more prose than proof. It seemed like a good way to end that post.

I respect you (zoogies) and Big Willie quite a bit, so it pains me to seem at odds with either of you. I'm just siding with the facts as I see them, I guess.

 

[zoogs]

Not at odds; just disagreeing. I'll likely come around. When a player wins me over, I find it hard to stop rooting for them, and equally hard to see them supplanted. I'll be very skeptical of the new guy for a while probably.

 

[tman]

You make him sound like Witt, Zac Taylor, or Ganz...Zac is well faster than any of those guys. You're right, he is a pass-first kind of guy. But he has athleticism and some real speed to him as well. His only fault I suppose, is that he isn't as much of a project as a passer. And that he can match a power running back better than a wide receiver in terms of speed.

True, at some point, you do have to make the transition. Do we need to at this point? Coaches obviously have decided to, but I think it's a case where they could have gone either way. Continue to build off what we saw a pre-surgery Zac do to Arizona last year. Rather than take the transitional - as well as freshman - lumps in a year where we are supposed to be in the title hunt. It could work, but I'm skeptical of it, that's all. You certainly have an argument, but I don't think it's a clear-cut, plain-and-obvious decision by any means.

Yes Zac probably clocked a faster 40 time, but his on field escape ability was no where to be seen. To me Ganz on field speed was much more affective.

Also, it does seem cruel to move guys up and down the depth chart in given situations but it is simply competition. You put the players out there that will give you the best chance to win. These kids aren't foreign to this concept. They know there is a possibility this will happen. I don't see the issue here. As far as transitions, you have two ways about it. You use a guy who does not have experience reading blocks and holes as a ball carrier. That does not have great balance with the ability to break tackles. Waste the years of QBs that you did bring here to run the exact system you brought them here for. Or you work in the QBs that are more capable of running your system you brought them in for.

Also, it is the body of work these guys are displaying. Not a particular moment. We are talking over the course of Spring practice, fall camp, etc...