ADVERTISEMENT

Clayton @ Combine

EvanstonCat said:
I would have had no problem sticking Colter behind center in Wildcat situations including short yardage or at the goal line. To put him there as the primary QB when you had to 80 yards was just inane. It hurt us at two positions on the field including WR, where his athleticism would have upgraded that position, and it hurt our offense overall.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you write this, it doesn't change that NU would become more one dimensional, and therefore, with that OL, more zero-dimensional.

Colter at WR won't offset the 'disabling' of your running game with all-American RB (actually Mark was an AA returner) and therefore, your NFL-caliber QB.
 
Gladeskat said:
No matter how many times you write this, it doesn't change that NU would become more one dimensional, and therefore, with that OL, more zero-dimensional.

Colter at WR won't offset the 'disabling' of your running game with all-American RB (actually Mark was an AA returner) and therefore, your NFL-caliber QB.
Click to expand...

Only here on an NU message board does the notion that the ability to pass downfield opens up the run because you can’t stack the box fail to resonate. SMH
 
Aging Booster said:
Green Bay has extra picks in the early rounds, has shown a fondness for NU players, and has a need to start developing a backup to Rodgers, who probably has only 2-3 years left.
Click to expand...
Rogers only has 2 more years left? I highly doubt that. The game has changed and these QB's can play until they are 50 I guess. We really don't know but I'd suspect that Steve Young would still be playing if Clay Matthews couldn't blind side and flop on him anymore. In fact, players like Clay Matthews have lost value.

People think that Brady is just in such great shape and amazing that he wants to continue playing but it's like flag football out there for QB's. QB's don't have to watch knee tackles anymore and don't have to worry about anything much other than maybe a soft tackle.

You may be right about Rogers but I suspect that him, Brees, Rivers, Brady, Rothleisburger, aren't going anywhere anytime soon. In fact, I suspect they will continue to win Super Bowls and make George Blanda look like a young whippersnapper by the time they retire from this "Flag Football" type environment.
 
EvanstonCat said:
Only here on an NU message board does the notion that the ability to pass downfield opens up the run because you can’t stack the box fail to resonate. SMH
Click to expand...

That assumes you have a decent OL to be able to pass downfield effectively against a heavy rush and free up the run. Mark's productivity significantly dropped with Siemian at QB, even though defenses anticipated the run more and would load the box more when Colter was QB. Stated another way, why did Mark's productivity drop so much when Siemian was at QB with his better ability to pass downfield?

Adding Colter to the WR's doesn't change the fundamental problem we had with the OL.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hdhntr1
Gladeskat said:
That assumes you have a decent OL to be able to pass downfield effectively against a heavy rush and free up the run. Mark's productivity significantly dropped with Siemian at QB, even though defenses anticipated the run more and would load the box more when Colter was QB. Stated another way, why did Mark's productivity drop so much when Siemian was at QB with his better ability to pass downfield?

Adding Colter to the WR's doesn't change the fundamental problem we had with the OL.

Hey Glades, could not agree more. (Will you be getting up our way this summer?)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Katatonic, FightNorthwestern, Gladeskat and 1 other person
  • Like
Reactions: ricko654321
Gladeskat said:
That assumes you have a decent OL to be able to pass downfield effectively against a heavy rush and free up the run. Mark's productivity significantly dropped with Siemian at QB, even though defenses anticipated the run more and would load the box more when Colter was QB. Stated another way, why did Mark's productivity drop so much when Siemian was at QB with his better ability to pass downfield?

Adding Colter to the WR's doesn't change the fundamental problem we had with the OL.
Click to expand...
I say this often because I like to razz ECat, but it's true. Colter was a better QB in our system, plain and simple. Trevor is a great guy, a good team player and a warrior, but he just wasn't as good. You can say '''yeah but if the line was better", but they were not. Colter and Mark were a dynamic, electric package that worked for college football.

I hope Trevor makes millions as a pro, but my interest is the success of the NUFB program, with a corollary of successful graduates in whatever field the choose.

Now, Trevor might have been all American at some other program, but at that time, nearly all of the time, Colter was better. Do I think Trevor could have beaten Army? Probably. The reason he was in there later as a change of pace is BECAUSE he had a particular talent. He was the opposite of the Wildcat formation for us.

If Trevor starts and plays most of every game in 2012, I think we are less successful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FightNorthwestern
Overly_Invested_Cat said:
Obviously, but Colter showed bravery and leadership for a just cause nonetheless. Did he handle the situation perfectly? No. Still, he was on the right side of history, whether you want to admit it or not.
Click to expand...

Your opinion aside, the way he tried to go about effecting change set himself up for failure.
 
phatcat said:
I say this often because I like to razz ECat, but it's true. Colter was a better QB in our system, plain and simple. Trevor is a great guy, a good team player and a warrior, but he just wasn't as good. You can say '''yeah but if the line was better", but they were not. Colter and Mark were a dynamic, electric package that worked for college football.

I hope Trevor makes millions as a pro, but my interest is the success of the NUFB program, with a corollary of successful graduates in whatever field the choose.

Now, Trevor might have been all American at some other program, but at that time, nearly all of the time, Colter was better. Do I think Trevor could have beaten Army? Probably. The reason he was in there later as a change of pace is BECAUSE he had a particular talent. He was the opposite of the Wildcat formation for us.

If Trevor starts and plays most of every game in 2012, I think we are less successful.
Click to expand...

Come on, now. Let's be reasonable.
 
Gladeskat said:
That assumes you have a decent OL to be able to pass downfield effectively against a heavy rush and free up the run. Mark's productivity significantly dropped with Siemian at QB, even though defenses anticipated the run more and would load the box more when Colter was QB. Stated another way, why did Mark's productivity drop so much when Siemian was at QB with his better ability to pass downfield?

Adding Colter to the WR's doesn't change the fundamental problem we had with the OL.
Click to expand...

Again, while Mark wouldn't have broken as many longs w/ TS under center (as both safeties would likely be playing back), that doesn't mean there wouldn't have been an effective run game (albeit, JJtBC is a RB more suited to the style of play w/ a passing QB and a below avg. O-line).

And again, McC didn't make the most of Siemian's talents (TS can actually move a bit, unlike say, a Tom Brady type) and didn't use Trevor's legs (to take pressure off the O-line and extend passing plays) until towards the end of Siemian's career in purple (the 4th Q of the M00N game).

If you have a QB where the D has to take account for both the run (more so the run to extend pass plays) and pass, that opens things up for the run game, in addition to utilizing the RB more as a pass catcher.

Take, for instance, the drives during the dOSU game in 2013.

NU drives:

1 - Colter (5 plays; 23 yds - punt); Mark 1 run for -1 yd
2 - Siemian (5 playsl 23 yds - TD); VM 1 run for 7 yds
3 - Colter (3 plays; 8 yds - blocked punt for dOSU TD)
4 - KC/TS (10 plays; 75 yds - TD); VM runs of 5 and 3 yds w/ KC
- VM runs of 2, 6 and 8 yds w/ TS
5 - TS/KC (8 plays; 68 yds - FG); VM run for 4 yds and catch for 41 yds from TS
6 - TS (6 plays; 18 yds - FG); VM run for 8 yds
7 - KC (12 plays; 60 yds - FG); VM runs of 5, 1 and 1yds and catches for 3 and 4 yds
8 - KC (3 plays; 9 yds - punt); VM run for 5 yds
9 - TS (7 plays; 40 yds - punt); VM run for no gain
10 - TS ( 2 plays; 6 yds - INT)
11 - TS (6 plays; 80 yds - TD); VM run for 2 yds
12 - KC (6 plays; 25 yds; turnover on downs); VM runs of 1 and 3 yds

VM had a more productive day w/ TS at the helm.


phatcat said:
I say this often because I like to razz ECat, but it's true. Colter was a better QB in our system, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

What the heck are you taking about?

The NU spread system was never one predicated on a running QB/option, aside from spot starts (such a Kafka vs Minny).

Once Kafka developed as a passer, he was pretty much a pocket QB.

Colter could never have brought the 'Cats back in the M00N game w/ 2 long (almost the entire field) scoring drives.
 
Last edited:
Katatonic said:
Again, while Mark wouldn't have broken as many longs w/ TS under center (as both safeties would likely be playing back), that doesn't mean there wouldn't have been an effective run game (albeit, JJtBC is a RB more suited to the style of play w/ a passing QB and a below avg. O-line).

And again, McC didn't make the most of Siemian's talents (TS can actually move a bit, unlike say, a Tom Brady type) and didn't use Trevor's legs (to take pressure off the O-line and extend passing plays) until towards the end of Siemian's career in purple (the 4th Q of the M00N game).

If you have a QB where the D has to take account for both the run (more so the run to extend pass plays) and pass, that opens things up for the run game, in addition to utilizing the RB more as a pass catcher.

Take, for instance, the drives during the dOSU game in 2013.

NU drives:

1 - Colter (5 plays; 23 yds - punt); Mark 1 run for -1 yd
2 - Siemian (5 playsl 23 yds - TD); VM 1 run for 7 yds
3 - Colter (3 plays; 8 yds - blocked punt for dOSU TD)
4 - KC/TS (10 plays; 75 yds - TD); VM runs of 5 and 3 yds w/ KC
- VM runs of 2, 6 and 8 yds w/ TS
5 - TS/KC (8 plays; 68 yds - FG); VM run for 4 yds and catch for 41 yds from TS
6 - TS (6 plays; 18 yds - FG); VM run for 8 yds
7 - KC (12 plays; 60 yds - FG); VM runs of 5, 1 and 1yds and catches for 3 and 4 yds
8 - KC (3 plays; 9 yds - punt); VM run for 5 yds
9 - TS (7 plays; 40 yds - punt); VM run for no gain
10 - TS ( 2 plays; 6 yds - INT)
11 - TS (6 plays; 80 yds - TD); VM run for 2 yds
12 - KC (6 plays; 25 yds; turnover on downs); VM runs of 1 and 3 yds

VM had a more productive day w/ TS at the helm.


What the heck are you taking about?

The NU spread system was never one predicated on a running QB/option, aside from spot starts (such a Kafka vs Minny).

Once Kafka developed as a passer, he was pretty much a pocket QB.


Colter could never have brought the 'Cats back in the M00N game w/ 2 long (almost the entire field) scoring drives.
Click to expand...


One game. I'm convinced. Do you think I can find a few games where Mark had a better day with Colter at QB than he did with TS at QB?

The NU spread under Wilson was developed for a running QB/option. Anderson and Kustok playing read option was the heart of that offense! It was downright comical watching them play 'hot potato' and running for major yardage.

I seem to recall several less than all-American performances from TS but don't wish to recite them anymore.
 
Katatonic said:
Again, while Mark wouldn't have broken as many longs w/ TS under center (as both safeties would likely be playing back), that doesn't mean there wouldn't have been an effective run game (albeit, JJtBC is a RB more suited to the style of play w/ a passing QB and a below avg. O-line).

And again, McC didn't make the most of Siemian's talents (TS can actually move a bit, unlike say, a Tom Brady type) and didn't use Trevor's legs (to take pressure off the O-line and extend passing plays) until towards the end of Siemian's career in purple (the 4th Q of the M00N game).

If you have a QB where the D has to take account for both the run (more so the run to extend pass plays) and pass, that opens things up for the run game, in addition to utilizing the RB more as a pass catcher.

Take, for instance, the drives during the dOSU game in 2013.

NU drives:

1 - Colter (5 plays; 23 yds - punt); Mark 1 run for -1 yd
2 - Siemian (5 playsl 23 yds - TD); VM 1 run for 7 yds
3 - Colter (3 plays; 8 yds - blocked punt for dOSU TD)
4 - KC/TS (10 plays; 75 yds - TD); VM runs of 5 and 3 yds w/ KC
- VM runs of 2, 6 and 8 yds w/ TS
5 - TS/KC (8 plays; 68 yds - FG); VM run for 4 yds and catch for 41 yds from TS
6 - TS (6 plays; 18 yds - FG); VM run for 8 yds
7 - KC (12 plays; 60 yds - FG); VM runs of 5, 1 and 1yds and catches for 3 and 4 yds
8 - KC (3 plays; 9 yds - punt); VM run for 5 yds
9 - TS (7 plays; 40 yds - punt); VM run for no gain
10 - TS ( 2 plays; 6 yds - INT)
11 - TS (6 plays; 80 yds - TD); VM run for 2 yds
12 - KC (6 plays; 25 yds; turnover on downs); VM runs of 1 and 3 yds

VM had a more productive day w/ TS at the helm.




What the heck are you taking about?

The NU spread system was never one predicated on a running QB/option, aside from spot starts (such a Kafka vs Minny).

Once Kafka developed as a passer, he was pretty much a pocket QB.

Colter could never have brought the 'Cats back in the M00N game w/ 2 long (almost the entire field) scoring drives.
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting Katatonic. It’s always refreshing to see the facts. And the fact is that at least against dOSU, KC never should have been playing over TS. It pisses me off looking at that, and knowing that the coaches still stubbornly insisted on putting a WR in at QB.
 
EvanstonCat said:
Thanks for posting Katatonic. It’s always refreshing to see the facts. And the fact is that at least against dOSU, KC never should have been playing over TS. It pisses me off looking at that, and knowing that the coaches still stubbornly insisted on putting a WR in at QB.
Click to expand...

Who threw the pick-six in the shadow of our own goal posts again? And which QB had zero incompletions that day?

I’m a huge Trevor fan. Always was. But Colter’s legs at the QB position were critical for our 2012 and 2013 teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikewebb68
Gladeskat said:
One game. I'm convinced. Do you think I can find a few games where Mark had a better day with Colter at QB than he did with TS at QB?

The NU spread under Wilson was developed for a running QB/option. Anderson and Kustok playing read option was the heart of that offense! It was downright comical watching them play 'hot potato' and running for major yardage.

I seem to recall several less than all-American performances from TS but don't wish to recite them anymore.
Click to expand...

At the same time, it evolved into someone else w/ Bacher.

When Kafka had his stellar season, he was pretty much a pocket passer.

Even w/ Persa, it was less the QB/option and more Persa extending plays (esp. passing plays) w/ his legs.

While Siemian was not Persa in that respect, he could do a decent enough facsimile - something that McCall failed to take advantage of until Trevor's career at NU was nearly over (if he had done so, the 'Cats could have pulled out a few more wins, including the M00N game).

And funny how you seem to constantly repeat Siemian's less than stellar performances, but ignore Colter's.

They both had good, bad and somewhere in btwn performances.
 
Katatonic said:
At the same time, it evolved into someone else w/ Bacher.

When Kafka had his stellar season, he was pretty much a pocket passer.

Even w/ Persa, it was less the QB/option and more Persa extending plays (esp. passing plays) w/ his legs.

While Siemian was not Persa in that respect, he could do a decent enough facsimile - something that McCall failed to take advantage of until Trevor's career at NU was nearly over (if he had done so, the 'Cats could have pulled out a few more wins, including the M00N game).

And funny how you seem to constantly repeat Siemian's less than stellar performances, but ignore Colter's.

They both had good, bad and somewhere in btwn performances.
Click to expand...

You're also forgetting that Siemian was injured/hobbled for the better part of two of his seasons at NU, and that's not including the ACL suffered at the end of his senior year. He often played through injury but was not 100% in many games.
 
Katatonic said:
And funny how you seem to constantly repeat Siemian's less than stellar performances, but ignore Colter's.

They both had good, bad and somewhere in btwn performances.
Click to expand...

And funny how you seem to constantly repeat Colter's less than stellar performances but ignore Siemian's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N

Zero Wildcats invited to NFL combine

Replies
16
Views
836
FloridAlum Memorial Football Board
NU Houston
N
PurpleWhiteBoy

The rotation without Ty Berry

Replies
5
Views
248
Wildcat Basketball Board
IGNORE2
I
Baz=Heisman

Justin Mullins

Replies
5
Views
557
Wildcat Basketball Board
ballerog711
B
L

not loading the moving truck just figuring out what size truck to get when the time comes....say mid April

Replies
30
Views
1K
Wildcat Basketball Board
clarificationcat
C
C

Offense

Replies
7
Views
368
Wildcat Basketball Board
clarificationcat
C
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back