Comparing him to Dailey is akin to comparing him to me at QB. Seriously?
Benning This Morning
- Thread starter St. Anger
- Start date
- Status
Comparing him to Dailey is akin to comparing him to me at QB. Seriously?
I agree, and the same thing with Bell. Heck of a blocker, but dropped a lot of balls and wasn't like he was the standout. I think our WR corps is much better this year. Time will tell.
Yes I was serious.
IMO, he is closer to Daley than Gill.
Who do you think he's closer to? Dailey or Gill?
Bell set school records for receptions, receiving yards, and was third all-time in receiving touchdowns. He also averaged something like 25 yards per kick return. I agree that there is talent behind him that can ease the pain of his loss. But it's silly to think that kind of production won't be missed.
Hard to compare directly since GIll, Dailey, and Armstrong played in very different eras with levels of teammates (I expect most agree that the current Huskers have more talent than the 2004 squad but not as much on offense as the early 80s teams)
Sophomore year stats:
Gill: 47-91 passing (.516), 9 touchdowns, 4 picks, 619 yards. 76 carries for 263 yards, 3.5 yards per carry and 3 TDs
Dailey: 153-310 (.494) 17 touchdowns, 19 picks, 2025 yards. 53 carries for 55 yards (1.0 YPC) and 4 TDs
Armstrong: 184-345 (.533) 22 touchdowns, 12 picks, 2695 yards. 145 carries for 705 yards, 4.9 yards per carry, 4 TDs.
Gill improved a lot as a junior and senior, both running and passing. Dailey never really improved and finished his career elsewhere as a wide receiver.
Still, if I was comparing sophomore Tommy Armstrong to the sophomore versions of Gill and Dailey, I definitely say Armstrong is closer to Gill. He's not Turner Gill, one of the best QBs of his era, but he's closer to what Turner looked like as a sophomore than to 19 interception, one yard per run Joe Dailey. IMO.
Sophomore year stats:
Gill: 47-91 passing (.516), 9 touchdowns, 4 picks, 619 yards. 76 carries for 263 yards, 3.5 yards per carry and 3 TDs
Dailey: 153-310 (.494) 17 touchdowns, 19 picks, 2025 yards. 53 carries for 55 yards (1.0 YPC) and 4 TDs
Armstrong: 184-345 (.533) 22 touchdowns, 12 picks, 2695 yards. 145 carries for 705 yards, 4.9 yards per carry, 4 TDs.
Gill improved a lot as a junior and senior, both running and passing. Dailey never really improved and finished his career elsewhere as a wide receiver.
Still, if I was comparing sophomore Tommy Armstrong to the sophomore versions of Gill and Dailey, I definitely say Armstrong is closer to Gill. He's not Turner Gill, one of the best QBs of his era, but he's closer to what Turner looked like as a sophomore than to 19 interception, one yard per run Joe Dailey. IMO.
Admittedly I am comparing both of their entire bodies of work. If you wish to stop at Gill's sophomore year and ignore the rest then I can see your argument, and you made a great one. Of course you can also say we don't have all of TA's entire body of work yet and that would be fair, so I guess we'll see. I think we've seen his ceiling personally and hope to heck I am wrong. I would love to be wrong.
If what we've seen so far is Tommy's ceiling, it's not good enough. 2004 was pretty much Joe Dailey's ceiling, as it turned out. He wasn't any better at North Carolina.
Tommy isn't close to how Turner finished his career. Armstrong was pretty darn average last year, and we need more than that out of the QB position this year. I have top hope that Langsdorf can coach him up to good. So far I've seen nothing to say he'll ever be great, but I think good is very possible.
that 2004 team was very tough to watch. We played one ranked team the entire season yet still had six losses.
People always like to say "oh the offense was fine with Callahan, it was the defense that was terrible" but they forget that the offense was terrible terrible terrible in 2004. In 2005, the start of the year was very very rough... we beat Pittsburg 7-6. After a few decent outings we hit the skids and couldn't even score on the Kansas Jayhawks. 2006 was better but we still went into a shell a lot.. Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Auburn, ect. In 2007 we got a lot of yards and points but a lot of it was after we were very far behind and had to catch up. We could hardly move the ball against good teams when it mattered. checkdown to marlon lucky for 7 yards on 3rd and 10.
People always like to say "oh the offense was fine with Callahan, it was the defense that was terrible" but they forget that the offense was terrible terrible terrible in 2004. In 2005, the start of the year was very very rough... we beat Pittsburg 7-6. After a few decent outings we hit the skids and couldn't even score on the Kansas Jayhawks. 2006 was better but we still went into a shell a lot.. Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, Auburn, ect. In 2007 we got a lot of yards and points but a lot of it was after we were very far behind and had to catch up. We could hardly move the ball against good teams when it mattered. checkdown to marlon lucky for 7 yards on 3rd and 10.
I'm with you 1000% on this. I always think to myself, I know it seemed like our offense was fine, I know they scored some points (can't remember against who) but it sure didn't look that way on the field, and our record didn't make it look that way, and it looked disjointed from day one to me. I think Callahan's offenses get confused with fine wine, people make it out to be better than it was after some time goes by.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Yup. I love how people excuse Martinez because he was on an all-conference team. Armstrong had a similar year and the same people drooling over Martinez, trash Armstrong.
Funny, that's not at all how I see it! The same people that dissed Martinez and had praise for Tommy are now trashing Tommy. Something like the most popular player on a team is always the second team or backup QB. THOSE ARMCHAIR QBs always have all the right answers.
No...without even looking at the numbers I can tell you Martinez had a greater passing percentage and a lot more rushing yards and probably a lot more rushing touchdowns.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Knock yourself out. He had less than 200 less throwing yards, and 300 less rushing yards on less attempts. I will give Martinez credit for putting the ball on the turf at epic levels, and having a better completion percentage. If Tommy would have checked down 2 times a game last year, he blows golden-boys numbers out. You gonna counter with more dynamite "dirt-burglar math?"
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Yes, admittedly true. Martinez didn't have Pelini and Cotton whiffing in front of him all year.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Actually I think you're 3 for 3 on those. Armstrong's 53.3% completion percentage compared to Martinez' 62%, Armstrong at 705 rushing yards vs. 1019, and Armstrong at 6 rushing TDs vs 10 rushing TDs.
I think Armstrong's sophomore year was definitely better than Martinez' sophomore year comparing to Martinez' junior year Martinez had a better season.
I'm sure he had other guys doing it just as well...against the good teams at least. Our OL in the Big Ten title game....hysterically bad.
TA in Tom's offense would have been a damned good QB. He is very very good at running the option from what I've seen and a maybe has a stronger arm than Turner. You forget the line and the weapons Turner had to work with. Most of TG's passes were not exactly under duress and were usually off of option looks to a wide open streaking Irving Fryer. I'm not saying that TA is Gill, but you're comparing apples and oranges. It's yet to be seen if he can become a complete QB with Langsdorf's tutelage. I think he'll be better but he ain't gonna be Ferragamo, Humm or even Berringer in the passing game.
463 doesn't have a clue. Those numbers are not anywhere close to equal. It's the rewriting of history that happens quite frequently when people choose to dislike aplayer.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Really? They are not? He averaged .6 yards per attempt less, and had less than 300 less passing yards. You can't accept that you defended Martinez, and absolutely trashed Armstrong in his Sophomore season. When shown how similar their numbers are, you come back with nothing. Typical dirt-burglar, troll preacher response.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Martinez had a way better completion percentage. Armstrong struggles at shorter routes for sure. That is the actual truth.
More rewriting of history. Find where I ever trashed Tommy. I hope he blows Tmarts records away this year.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Stop. You get called out because the facts aren't on your side. Then you resort to name calling. Then you put out more salicious nonsense that you can't back up with a simple search. I will give you the last word. How will you choose to rewrite history this time?
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
I said basically the same numbers, and posted actual numbers. You are pulling your typical lying-preacher troll. You have posted nothing to refute the numbers I have put up. I admitted if Armstrong had a better completion percentage, you wouldn't even be able to stand by your false claim. But coming from a guy that excels at his own made-up "math", I expected nothing less. You trashed Armstrong all year last year, and denying it makes you even more pathetic if that is even possible.
- Status
