After that play, I explained to my wife that we must have been trying to surprise Wisconsin by calling the worst possible play for that situation.
Thorson's Development
- Thread starter ajr938
- Start date
If we had Bacher, Persa, Kafka, Basanez, etc... we'd be 9-2 at least, and perhaps 11-0. I can't believe we are saying a good game at QB is one where there are no Turnovers, 9-20 for 60 yards passing, and a total of 0 points off of any drives that didn't benefit from field position after a Turnover or a big Justin Jackson run. 5 turnovers, and yet this offense put up 13 points.
Last edited:
This argument you may actually have a point. Thorson may be our best option at QB. But, that is like being the tallest midget. It doesn't mean we have good QB play right now. Again, we did not win against Stanford, Nebraska, PSU, and Wisconsin because of our putrid offense. We won because of our D, and in spite of our putrid O. And our O in those games was only good enough because of the running game. Justin Jackson is a horse, who was given Ezekiel Elliott vs. MSU carries in our two losses, and Warren Long had big plays. Yes, Thorson had a few big runs, but that hardly makes up for the lack of passing game. Give credit where credit is due please.
And as for Baz as a sophomore, he played all year with an injury. And as poor as his play was that year, he was still better than Thorson this year. FWIW, I don't think we should give up on Thorson. Kafka showed me that QBs can develop, but basically the development that Thorson has to make to become a decent QB in this league must match that of Kafka's, because I'm not sure he is any better than the Brewfka experiment was in their RS freshman year. I also think that the QB competition should be wide open in the spring. Who knows, maybe Alviti can make a Kafka-like step up, maybe Green is as great as Turk thinks he is, and maybe Aidan Smith is like a Timmy Chang or Jared Goff in his freshman season.
Last edited:
Good God, are you jumping on the dimbulb train, too. We won 9 games this year with a RSFreshman QB and I'm absolutely thrilled by Thorson's and the rest of the teams's performance today! We MOST DEFINITELY won the Stanford, Nebraska, PSU, and now the UW games because of Thorson's play! Our great defense only scored 7 points in those games! But we have negative turds here (you included) that are trying their darndest to rip Thorson for a mistake-free performance that was KEY in our victory! Go look up Wisconsin's defensive stats for the season!
Please! All of you Thorson, McCall, and NU program haters...drink a huge drum of Drano and die! NU does not need the fricking unbelievable negativity you bring to the program! This was a HUGE win!
Here, I've got a blender and ice cream to make a Drano smootie!
For a RSFreshman ...YES! Or would you rather have Stave's performance! Please name another RSFreshman QB at NU who as done anything comparable to this, i.e., gone 9-2,beating 2 ranked teams, with a chance of going 11-2 his freshman year. Our defense is great, but Thorson is not costing us ball games with his play. He pretty much was the offense in wins against Stanford and Nebraska (90%). Is he a superstar QB right now? ... No. But McCall has done a terrific job of getting the offense to win with him even though we have an average and now depleted OL and rather poor WR's. Yet clueless artificial female stimulation devices think he should throw more slants (wtf?!) and complain about predictability (wtf?!) when UW has great LB's that restrict offensive choices, and after Stave had two passes over the middle picked off, resulting in 10 points for NU.
Sheesh, do you folks realize just how dumb and unnecessarily negative your comments are?
Jesus just called ...he wants you all to Drink Drano and come see Him stat!
Look at it this way ... Both NU and UW had great defenses going into this game and they both were excellent in the game. The difference in the game was how well did each team protect the football. UW had 3 fumbles (Stave had one) and two interceptions (Stave had both); NU, with Thorson at QB, had zero fumbles and zero picks! NU wins and the deciding factor was Thorson's mistake-free play versus THREE turnovers for Stave!
The Drano is still cold and frosty!
The Drano is still cold and frosty!
I did take some Drano (9 out of every 10 DocCat's recommend it) and now the bull shit is ready to flow!
Wow! Way to go Glades! Cookie really lit a fire. Don't know if it is a sign of maturation but apparently winning is no longer sufficient for some on the board. Now, how we win is the most important thing. Having sat through the dark ages, I can still look upon 9-2 as a good thing. So thanks, Glades, for bringing some perspective along with your football knowledge.
299 yards passing, driving from the 26 to the 1 in the final drive. Yeah, I would have taken Stave. If Stave had 5 short fields off turnovers, he'd have put up a lot more than 13 points. RS Freshmen QB's that I would have taken over Thorson. Sandy Schwab, Len Williams, Brett Basanez. Probably even Gavin Hoffman.
I'm not ripping him, I'm just stating the facts. We are winning because of our D. Not because of stellar QB play. If you can't see that, I don't know what you're smoking.
I am thrilled with the win. It WAS a HUGE Win. But, it was our D. Not the O. We held Wisconsin to 1 TD. -26 yards rushing. We only scored 13 points with 5 turnovers. That can't be spun any other way.
Time of possession:
NU: 32.03
UW: 27.57
Turnovers:
NU: 0
UW: 5
Score:
NU: 13
UW: 7
Yes. It can be spun another way. Our offense gave the defense enough rest for the defense to win the game and made no mistakes.
OK, I retract my comment. You can spin it a different way. But, it would be wrong. Even your spin gives the credit to the defense in winning the game.
Anyone who thinks our success this year is due to the success of our offense (especially relative to our outstanding defense) needs to have their head examined. This is the worst offense I have seen at NU in memory. Our offenses during the Peay era were better. The only futility I recall being similar to this was the Brewfka experiment. I suppose when our starting QB's have gone down in the past (Persa and then Siemian last year), we have been worse.
Last year was worse. We were 5-7. This year is better, we are 9-2.
Last two years, we lost close games at the end. This year, we win close games at the end. We have had at least three games where the offense got the ball with 4 minutes left and was still holding the ball when the final whistle blew. This did not happen for the last two years. During those years, we went three and out and punted back to our opponent giving them a final chance.
We do not have a great offense this year. But I dispute the claim that it is the worst in memory. Unless your memory does not extend to last year. Being able to close out games is a big part of what a good offense does. This year we have done it. Last year we could not.
Again, our 5-7 record and our 9-2 improvement this year is a reflection of the improvement in our Defense, and in spite of the regression on offense.
I don't think our offense was worse last year. Statistics (scoring, yards) say it plainly. And our QB was by far better (he is in fact a Denver Bronco now). We don't close out games with our offense. Our defense closes out games. Like yesterday.
With our outstanding D, any offense we have had in recent memory would either match the 9-2 record we have this year or increase our total in the W column. None of them would have done worse than 9-2. None.
It's beyond me, and why I usually don't comment on these boards, why so many people are so negative. We scored more points on UW than Iowa and they're undefeated. Is Thorson the best qback at this point? No. But he'll get better. If I recall correctly, wasn't it Sieman (now playing on Sundays) who was being vilified last year? Yep, though we later found out he was injured.
I would wager that 90% of those who are complaining didn't play in college. It's not as easy as it seems, and Sunday morning quarterbacking is easy - hindsight is always 100%.
We are 9-2, with a chance to win 11 games for the first time ever. And people are complaining? So we're a defensive team like the Ravens were, with an O that's 3 yards and a Woody Hayes type cloud of dust. Great, if that's how we win the games, then I'm all for it.
I would wager that 90% of those who are complaining didn't play in college. It's not as easy as it seems, and Sunday morning quarterbacking is easy - hindsight is always 100%.
We are 9-2, with a chance to win 11 games for the first time ever. And people are complaining? So we're a defensive team like the Ravens were, with an O that's 3 yards and a Woody Hayes type cloud of dust. Great, if that's how we win the games, then I'm all for it.
You mean like Boston College?
Best overall defense in the nation. 3-8 record. You cannot win with defense alone.
No, you're not following. I'm THRILLED with 9-2. It is great and it is more than sufficient. But, let's not kid ourselves and credit the offense for our 9-2 record. We are winning with Defense and in spite of a putrid offense. I don't know why it is so hard for some people to accept that. Why make excuses for the offense and the QB? Call a spade a spade. And celebrate the Defense, which is the best in twenty years and the chief reason why we have 9 wins, not the O.
Point conceded. However, I still maintain that our success is overwhelmingly due to our defense. Our O (and mainly Justin Jackson and the running game) is just good enough to enable us to avoid BC's fate. But, it's not the reason we are 9-2. Take this O and a Colby Swiss, and we are winless this year.
I am celebrating the team. It is a team that is built around a stifling defense with a supporting offense. No argument. But the vilifying of Clayton Thorson and the offense is inappropriate.
As a redshirt freshman, CT has the following stats:
6 TDs passing against 6 interceptions
52% completion percentage
5.28 yards per attempt
As a fifth year senior last year, TS had the following stats:
7 TDs passing against 11 interceptions
58.2% completion percentage
5.65 yards per attempt
Not the huge difference that your posts suggest. Biggest different is the 11 interceptions. That is moving in the correct direction.
This year's team has been able to hold onto the ball and win time of possession. Last year's team rarely could. This year's team closes out games and wins in the end. In several instances with the offense sustaining long drives to finish off the fourth quarter. Last year's team did not do that.
Yes, if we had the 2000 offense and this defense, we might be talking play-offs. But we are 9-2 on the backs of a great defense and an offense that does not lose games for us. I submit last year this was not the case. Our offense is built to support the defense.
I have enjoyed the 9 wins and hope to enjoy two more. I love great defense. This is a great team.
Go Cats.
This like an admission that you've never played football before. A QB is constantly making decisions that could result in mistakes, no matter what the coaching staff asks of him.
Glades is right. Thorson managed this game extremely well against the #1 scoring D in the nation. And it didn't get to be that type of defense by playing a soft schedule. Wisky has active linebackers that takeaway the underneath route and they are fast. Their d-line were giving our O-line a hard time and Thorson had very little time. He had very little time to read his first and second reads and make decisions and he was very good today. Our receivers don't get open. People forget we had a 5-year QB last year who was drafted in the NFL and who is so highly thought of that he is sticking with undefeated Denver and he could hardly get our offense going last year when we had some receivers. Thorson is preventing himself from getting sacked and he is keeping the offense on the field. I'm sorry that the offense is not at the talent level as our past dominant offenses but that is what he has to work with and as a RS freshman, he is doing a great job. Some people have got to know the difference between a talented QB who doesn't have the time or the receivers to throw the ball and a QB who has both, but is just bad at it. Thorson is part of the reason why we have won every single close game this year. I doubt very many of the past QB would have done better than he has in a similar situation, so I wish people would stop the complaining.
and, like always, you are wrong. We had open receivers but Thorson completely whiffed most of the day. I also believe Fitz over your silly comments. Fitz said in an interview that we had open receivers and cant keep missing them. even on a rb screen, Thorson tossed the ball into the chest of a defender. Obviously, he was severely intimidated by _isconsin and couldnt see straight. There was a reason why Thorson was in a 3 way battle with two other lesser qbs during preseason. He is a talent but doesnt have the quickest football wit.
There are things that he does that IM POSITIVE he is not being coached to do. And since he is not the best listener when he has to put it together on Saturday, he reduces his play to natural sandlot tendencies. if he ever broke his tendency of bailing out right but instead went left, as he did against nebraska, he may nail a TD.
Glades, in all fairness, Thorson is an incredible weakness for our team. Building up your thesis that he had a solid game simply because he handed the ball off is non sensical. He had a very very poor game. He missed targets and very easily could have had 4 ints. Im quite sure that Fitz has plenty to say to him.
Living through the dark ages!!!! That was 25 years ago give me a break!, how about wanting to be a top 10 top 5 team
Well after week 11 thorson went from 114th in QB rating (out of 127 qualified QBs) to 116th. Damn he's at least better than 11
Well after week 11 thorson went from 114th in QB rating (out of 127 qualified QBs) to 116th. Damn he's at least better than 11
Were you at the game?
The FIRST thing a QB must learn and achieve is managing the game without hurting the team through turnovers.
Thorson has done pretty well with this, particularly yesterday in tough playing conditions against the best defense in the country. He may not be Tom Brady right now, but he isn't costing us games with fumbles and picks. That's impressive considering his counterpart had a fumble and two picks that resulted in 10 points and the loss to Northwestern. Thorson outplayed Stave at the most basic requirements for the QB position.
You should also look up rushing yards by the QB, sacks allowed, time of possession and yards per carry by our running backs. When you look at all those stats, I'd be surprised if it does not paint a clear picture of why we would not have as good a record this year with Trevor as our QB. This is not a knock on Trevor because he has a chance to be a good pro QB. It is a reflection of how poor of a fit he was with our offense and with the strengths of last year's and this year's offensive roster.
Not the best "listener?" Doesn't have the "quickest football wit?" Sounds like you are challenging his intellect. Pot, meet kettle.
Considering he had zero turnovers against a top defense versus three turnovers by Stave which resulted in 10 points, he's certainly better than Stave.
And that's the way the Cookie crumbles.
Stats are for losers!
well i guess nobody can stop you from saying thorson had a good game, but the reality is that his game was very poor. So bad that fitz commented that we were missing open recievers. Ill even go further and say that he had at least 3 passes that were so off topic that the reason why they werent intercepted was because wisconsin didnt make the play. He was so off target, even on high percentage throws, that Fitz shut him down completely and reduced the playbook down to rushing plays. He had one of the most unproductive days that a qb could have. If you are going to measure our productivity against wiscon by a limitation of turnovers then Thorson should get pow all bigten.
btw, i agree with you that Thorson is apparently learning not to turnover the ball but my statements about him yesterday were based on the production of our qb against wisconsin. The fact that he is a freshman or senior is insignificant to my comments that he had a very poor game insomuch that his coaches cant even trust him. As far as his learning, i think he is in front of the kafka learning curve but i wish he was more fluid with the game as some other underclassmen qb are.
Who cares? 9-2 is the only stat that matters. The guy only played QB one year in high school and yet he is not making the mistakes that LOSE games. Alviti played three at Maine South and has had one more year in the program and can't beat him out so right now he's our best option.
Never said he wasn't our best option. But that's like saying he's the tallest midget
Incorrect. It is like looking at our pool of talent and determining who has the most potential to give overall the best chance to win both this season and in the future. CT fits that bill. He is not permanently stunted. He is young and growing. You demand that he make massive strides in his first season. It is difficult to make the strides for which you are looking during a week-in-week-out season. Given this season of experience, what the coaches are trying to teach him is going to make much more sense to him in the off-season and we should see the benefits of it next year and in the years to come.
This is a re-building year for our offense.
And we are 9-2.
And people are complaining.
Amazing.
Before their junior and/or senior years not sure any of those would have done better. Just sayin.
I do not have much football wit (to use your words). However, because of all of the talk on the board about his always breaking right, I was noticing that during the game. Here is what I saw...
The Cats would come up to the LOS and the superback would be split out. After the initial set, the superback would shift and set up in the backfield to CT's right giving an extra blocker in the backfield to that side. The UW blitz (or rush) would come crashing through the line and CT would roll to the side the extra blocker was on. His right. This was the rule much more than the exception.
So I question the comment that CT was at odds with what his coaches were planning. There is always the possibility that the coaches are placing the extra blocker due to some belligerence on his part but I see no facts to support such a conclusion.
Similar threads
