Thorson's Development

[NJCat83588]

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.

I'm not going to try to convince you the NU off sense is great, or even good. But believe it or not, statistically it is better than last year. Through 11 games, NU is averaging 23 points per game exactly the same as they did last season. Total offense is up, with 2015 averaging 369 ypg (9th in the Big 10) up from 353 ypg last year. NU's pass efficiency is 100, down slightly from 106 last season. NU is 3rd in rush offense but dead last in pass offense. One important stat which has improved is time of possession: NU is currently 5th in the Big 10 at 32:52, up from 29:26 (10th last year). This means the defense is on the field 3 and a half minutes less per game, the equivalent of more than one half of football over 11 games.. NU is also better on turnover margin, although they have created fewer turnovers this year than last year. The improvement comes fro fewer offensive turnovers, 15 this season versus 23 last year. Again, this benefits the defense.

So whilst some like the myth that the NU offense has regressed in 2015, the facts suggest otherwise.

On other big improvement: NU is 5th in net punting average at 37.3, and has given up the least return yards at 36. Last season, NU was dead last in net yardage at 32.7.

And for those of you who believe NU gets screwed by the refs, the Cats are 13th out of 14 in penalties against: opponents have been penalized just 38.3 ypg. Only Rutgers gets screwed worse. Ironically, _isconsin leads the league in opponents penalties at 70.5..........

 

[Wildcatfootball12]

FOR PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW STUFF:

Thorson is meh at best this year, but is this simply a rough part of his development process, or does he not have the makeup of a future stud? Obviously, I want to think the former, but I don't really know anything.

To be noted: Thorson has played @Nebby, @BigHouse, @CampRandall this year. Damn. 2-1 in those games in arguably 3 of the tougher places to play in the nation.

 

[mybrotha]

When is anybody going to realize that McCall game plans according to what his boss tells him to game plan? And my remarks are not directed at you or anyone else in particular but this constant harping about McCall is just ignoring the 200lb former player in the room.

Imagine following exchange, McCall says to Fitz on any Monday, "Hey coach I want to throw the ball about 70% of the time each and every week." Fitz responds, "Sure thing Mick, you're the boss so just surprise me, okay?" Reality?

I'd disagree. I think there is a general game plan but Fitz is not in on every call made by McCall.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

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!

Glades, you cant pick and choose. You cant say that stats are for losers and build an argument that Thorson is a good qb by using his stat line of zero turnovers.

 

[NJCat83588]

Glades, you cant pick and choose. You cant say that stats are for losers and build an argument that Thorson is a good qb by using his stat line of zero turnovers.

Some stats are actually telling. Turnovers is one of them.

 

[Gocatsgo2003]

FOR PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW STUFF:

Thorson is meh at best this year, but is this simply a rough part of his development process, or does he not have the makeup of a future stud? Obviously, I want to think the former, but I don't really know anything.

To be noted: Thorson has played @Nebby, @BigHouse, @CampRandall this year. Damn. 2-1 in those games in arguably 3 of the tougher places to play in the nation.

Thorson has all the physical tools to be a very good quarterback. I've heard very good things about his makeup/competitiveness. It's also fairly normal for a young QB to have more than a few rough patches, a la Baz, Karka, etc. Nothing I've seen this year makes me think he couldn't or won't develop into a very good QB.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

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.

the strwaman that people cant have reasonable discussions about the effectiveness or development of a qb because they never played the position is usually a default argument used when little to no evidence supports an argument against the prime question. The question remains, how much has Thorson developed since Stanford? I disagree with you that the topic's discussion is somehow negative. In fact, after observing our inept production out of the qb position, I am not surprised that a fan posted this topic. From my perspective, i see little development of Thorson from Stanford to Wisconsin and i believe my perspective is strongly supported with how we have continued to reduce or shutdown parts of the playbook a we have proceeded thru the season To be sure, no doubt, he is gaining a wealth of experience but wecertainly arent seeing such seeds sprout up yet. Doesnt mean we should be startled. If we keep watering Thorson with experience, he will have the time and seasoning to sprout into a very competitive qb. we have seen this before with baz and kafka. i would argue that Thorson is ahead of baz' and kafkas learning.

but to suggest, as Glades did, that Thorson was the much better qb on the field yesterday is absurd. McCall wouldhave loved to have the luxury of a 5th year senior, even though Stavie isnt brett favre.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

Some stats are actually telling. Turnovers is one of them.

TD passes is another and maybe more telling. For instance, Thorson could have easily had 3 ints yesterday if the _isconsin players didnt drop his passes. Seems as if Lady luck was a bit on his side yesterday. i mean you cant rightly deny that _isconsin missed a few easy picks?

 

[GlideCat]

McCall would have loved to have the luxury of a 5th year senior, even though Stavie isnt brett favre.

Disagree. I still believe that having the threat of the quarterback run tied up one of their better defensive players at the edge and was a part of why we had some room between the tackles during the first half. I do not think that Coach McCall would have desired to have a non-mobile quarterback in the game even with the fifth year experience. Put Stave or TS back there and their D Line would have pinned their ears back every down. That is what we saw last year and what we saw our D Line do yesterday.

 

[NJCat83588]

TD passes is another and maybe more telling. For instance, Thorson could have easily had 3 ints yesterday if the _isconsin players didnt drop his passes. Seems as if Lady luck was a bit on his side yesterday. i mean you cant rightly deny that _isconsin missed a few easy picks?

It's a game of results. NU were +6 in turnovers, resulting in a W. Everything else is message board masterbation.

 

[GlideCat]

TD passes is another and maybe more telling. For instance, Thorson could have easily had 3 ints yesterday if the _isconsin players didnt drop his passes. Seems as if Lady luck was a bit on his side yesterday. i mean you cant rightly deny that _isconsin missed a few easy picks?

They stayed in a zone through most of the day. That is designed to go for interceptions. Yes, our young QB has a tendency to force balls. Their DC tried to take advantage of that. He failed. We won.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

It's a game of results. NU were +6 in turnovers, resulting in a W. Everything else is message board masterbation.

i agree but for posters to claim tha thorson is 9-2 as the starting qb much like a baseball pitcher is 9-2 is a faulty comparison. Thorson didnt win tha game for us. The realty was that he was a veryvery small art of the game. Look, Thorson was a very very independable qb yesterday. So much so that the only dependence was taking the snap. There have been alot of side conversations in this thread but the original question remains, ie, how much has Thorson developed since Stanford? From my perspective, i see no evidence, based on observation.

That doesnt mean that his experience is coming back void? Most of the time freshmen qbs have to be watered for an extended time to sprout up. Experience is the water. Also, it depends on how fertile the field is. For instance, Jamieson Winston or Johnny football were young redshirt freshmen who sprouted up quicker due to a fertile field of 5 4+ star ol and NFL caliber wr. The field here isnt so fertile so Thorsons play is the exact sorta thing we should expect. But it would be entirely incorrect to say the plant isnt sprouting just because it hasnt broke the surface yet. His experience is precious and we have the best of both worlds, ie, a team that is 9-2 at a time when we are getting a wealth of experince for our future stud.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

They stayed in a zone through most of the day. That is designed to go for interceptions. Yes, our young QB has a tendency to force balls. Their DC tried to take advantage of that. He failed. We won.

tying together the wisconsin DC as a failure due to us winning is absurd. The wisconsin DC totally exploite our offense and shut it down. Even the TD drive was only 19 yards. It was frustrating to watch or offense with 5 additional possessions and still inept. Certainly the wisconsin defensive coordinator didnt fail at a damn thing.

 

[NJCat83588]

i agree but for posters to claim tha thorson is 9-2 as the starting qb much like a baseball pitcher is 9-2 is a faulty comparison. Thorson didnt win tha game for us. The realty was that he was a veryvery small art of the game. Look, Thorson was a very very independable qb yesterday. So much so that the only dependence was taking the snap. There have been alot of side conversations in this thread but the original question remains, ie, how much has Thorson developed since Stanford? From my perspective, i see no evidence, based on observation.

That doesnt mean that his experience is coming back void? Most of the time freshmen qbs have to be watered for an extended time to sprout up. Experience is the water. Also, it depends on how fertile the field is. For instance, Jamieson Winston or Johnny football were young redshirt freshmen who sprouted up quicker due to a fertile field of 5 4+ star ol and NFL caliber wr. The field here isnt so fertile so Thorsons play is the exact sorta thing we should expect. But it would be entirely incorrect to say the plant isnt sprouting just because it hasnt broke the surface yet. His experience is precious and we have the best of both worlds, ie, a team that is 9-2 at a time when we are getting a wealth of experince for our future stud.

Glad to see you have come off the ledge. CT isn't the second coming of James Winston, but he isn't the second coming of Tim Hughes either. As I pointed out above, the NU offense is actually better statistically than the 2014 edition was, with an NFL QB at the helm. There are so many moving parts to the success of a team, that to focus on just one position is too simplistic. Just take Aaron Rodgers advice and R-E-L-A-X and enjoy the ride for the last 2 games of the 2015-16 season!

 

[GlideCat]

tying together the wisconsin DC as a failure due to us winning is absurd.

If he was in a zone hoping to exploit CT's inexperience and create turnovers and interceptions, then he failed. There were none. My adding the line at the end that "we won" was just for style points. It was not directly related to the point. You should understand style points.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

If he was in a zone hoping to exploit CT's inexperience and create turnovers and interceptions, then he failed. There were none. My adding the line at the end that "we won" was just for style points. It was not directly related to the point. You should understand style points.

well, he got zero style points. I gave the style points to McCall.

 

[Gladeskat]

but to suggest, as Glades did, that Thorson was the much better qb on the field yesterday is absurd. McCall wouldhave loved to have the luxury of a 5th year senior, even though Stavie isnt brett favre.

I doubt it, considering Stave was responsible for a half-dozen turnovers in our last two games with UW. Stave and poor play calling has now cost UW two games against us.

"Protect the football!" (Football 101, second lecture ... First lecture reserved for showing a football is actually pumped, not stuffed)

 

[Fanaticat98]

First of all - I do think Thorson has a lot of work to do, as do the WR and the OC/WR coaches. The offense is a problem. Thorson did not "win" the game yesterday but he managed the offense and did enough not to lose it. Wisconsin's offense "lost" the game in a way with all those turnovers.

Also - not to be lost in this is that 4 of the last 6 games have been against scoring defenses in the top 20. Wisconsin is the #1 scoring D in the country. Not the easiest environment for a RS frosh to light up the scoreboard with an underperforming WR unit to boot. I'd like to see the rankings of the D's that Manziel and Winston faced as RS frosh, as well as the rankings of their WR corps.

 

[hdhntr1]

Stats are for losers has nothing to do with any particular player! Sheesh, you're clueless, but perhaps understanding comes from seeing huge stats heroes lose games! Stave threw for over 220 yards with some beautiful passes in the second half, but ultimately what did him in was he didn't take care of the ball like Thorson did!

60 yards, zero turnovers >>>>>> 220 yards and 2 interceptions that resulted in 10 points for NU!

We're 9-2 and you're bitching!!! Yup! Clueless.

Well one stat that isn't for losers and that is wins. The only stat that really matters is that we are 9-2

 

[hdhntr1]

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!

I said on Friday that because of the weather and Ds in this game that neither O would be effective and that the weather would neutralize the Wisconsin passing game and that Stave would throw three picks. Well he threw two picks, one of the receivers fumbled and Stave did as well. Wisconsin had allowed teams into their red zone all of 17 times all year. And these people expected him to light it up with a makeshift OL against the best scoring D in the country at home? Zero turnovers is a HUGE stat.

Thorson will be a very good QB over his time here. He is developing into a very good leader and while he is developing, we are winning (the only important stat) That is a very good job by him and the coaching staff.

 

[Sheffielder]

I don't have anything bad to say about Thorson. As fans, we owe him our patience. He's a RS freshman, playing like one with some bright flashes that sincerely give me hope for the future. And it's nice to see the kid has some wheels that will take us places. Imagine...a single qb who can both run and pass. I had almost forgotten those kinds of qbs existed. After all, it's not his fault as a RS freshman he's the best qb we have. I don't know whose fault that is, but not his.

Buuutt then there's the o-line and the receivers. Not so hot this year, or the year before that, or the year before that...can someone remind me what the excuse is this year? Last year it was injuries. What is it this year? Time zone changes? No...we make fun of teams that come up with bullsh*t excuses, as they deserve to be made fun of. Couldn't be the coaches, right? Impossible. We're 9-2 so let's keep a lid on those questions, our offense is almost in the Top 115 so no one has the right to ask about any shortcomings, at least not until we reach three consecutive losing seasons, then maybe it can creep onto the table for discussion. And besides, look at how well the offense controls the pace of the game to give the defense a rest. What a compliment! Someone remind me the name of the award for the offense that best controls the pace of the game to give the defense a rest while also scoring the least amount of points.

 

[Just Gary]

I don't mind complaints about the offense. Those are fair complaints. There is no reason why we should not have a decent offense and if we did, we could be a Top 5 team right now. What bothers me is people who think it is the fault of the QB. We heard the same thing last year. I am not 100% committed to CT. I know he needs improvement and I have questions about his true accuracy. I would love to see him throw the ball in a pocket that wasn't consistently under pressure to receivers who are not in double coverage just to see how well he can throw. I see ZO making some passes that CT seem to have trouble with but I also see ZO floating the ball making it easier to pick off. I like Thorson's velocity but notice he doesn't seem to have the touch needed on some of the throws. These are things he can learn. What I do like is he has learned to play under fire and he has learned to win. We had some good drives and he has thrown some good balls on third down. We don't use a passing attack inside the 20 and he is a weird running threat (he can't run the option but he can outrun most of the defense if he gets the right opportunity). So, CT really is an anomaly for our spread offense. I actually think CT is a better pro style QB and we would do better with him behind center and using a two-back set (Vitale/Long and Jackson/Vault). Have Dickerson as a true TE and run our of that formation with some nice play-action passing. But that would be too big a change for us.

But the point is, people want to just criticize CT as the problem when the true reality is there is not a single QB in the nation that would make a difference with the ineptness of our offense. CT didn't miss the two FG or couldn't get a first down on fourth and a half a yard with a run off-tackle (instead of a QB sneak which he maybe could have done). It is a lack of enough healthy talent at several position (line and receivers) that hurts our offense. Given that we don't have the talent, the offense did a great job against Wisconsin doing what it could do and not turning the ball over. That helped us win big time. So I'm happy with their performance.

 

[hoosboot]

Someone remind me the name of the award for the offense that best controls the pace of the game to give the defense a rest while also scoring the least amount of points.

I'm pretty sure the award is called "The 9-2".

 

[TheC]

I said it before, I'll say it again, Clayton will leave NU ( not NW closet Illini fan) with more wins than any QB in school history.

At this point, I'd have to say that he better or else the program has taken a backwards turn again. I don't think we've had a 4 year starter at QB since the Dark Ages. So, if he holds the job for all 4 years, he should easily break the record for wins unless the program slips back to < 6 wins per year (or worse).

 

[Catreporter]

At this point, I'd have to say that he better or else the program has taken a backwards turn again. I don't think we've had a 4 year starter at QB since the Dark Ages. So, if he holds the job for all 4 years, he should easily break the record for wins unless the program slips back to < 6 wins per year (or worse).

Wasn't Basanez a four year starter?

 

[GlideCat]

... couldn't get a first down on fourth and a half a yard with a run off-tackle (instead of a QB sneak which he maybe could have done)./QUOTE]

Question...

Do we have a QB-under-center sneak in our playbook? I have wondered this several times in short yardage situations.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

I doubt it, considering Stave was responsible for a half-dozen turnovers in our last two games with UW. Stave and poor play calling has now cost UW two games against us.

"Protect the football!" (Football 101, second lecture ... First lecture reserved for showing a football is actually pumped, not stuffed)

im sure many wisconsin fans are pissed at Stave. To be honest, i was upse he came off the field so you may have a point. His replacement threw a damn good pass that would have been a td against anyone else not named harris. why would they put the game on the line by throwing the pill anywhere close to harris?

And regarding Thorson.....he hasnt hatched yet. Its a process that takes longer in fields that arent fertile with 5 star ol and wr. Thorson imo is FAR advanced than where baz and kafka were. i will give the kid points for limiting turnovers during this experience processs. Fitz and McCall have thoroughly impressed me on how they are watering and tilling the ground for thorson. even if we lost at -isconsin.

 

[Chambers1]

the coaches restrict his passing. I must say they have done a good job of not putting the game in thirst a hand. Doing that has gotten them wins. They obviously don't have confidence in him. You can tell by the play calling.

 

[DaCat]

Question...

Do we have a QB-under-center sneak in our playbook? I have wondered this several times in short yardage situations.

Yes. We lost Siemian for the season last year after doing it one too many times against Purdue.

 

[Mr. Stupor]

I've said this before and it remains true. You can't tell on TV but we have NO receivers open pretty much ever.

Bingo. Thorson is in fact progressing. He's recognizing that he simply can't throw into the traps Springer sets for him. B

 

[mikewebb68]

Yes. We lost Siemian for the season last year after doing it one too many times against Purdue.

And we have run it this year as well, more than once.

 

[EvanstonCat]

We'd be about 6-5 or worse without Thorson, or do you forget the Stanford, PSU and Nebraska games. At Nebraska, Thorson accounted for 90% of our offense.

Add Wisconsin to the list of games in which he played well. No fumbles or interceptions. Excellent game considering the circumstances.

That's ridiculous. 9-20 60 yard is not an excellent game. I didn't look, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had the worst performance of a QB amongst all of Wisconsin's opponents this season. The net of that plus our overall offensive futility plus our outstanding D resulted in a win. 99% of the reason we won was because of our D. But, let's not think for a minute that had we had any other NU QB that has faced Wisconsin in the last 10 years, that we wouldn't have done better in any and all of those games. Sure he had a run here or there, but that only makes up for some of the lack of passing and scoring in those games - those other QBs would have scored more overall in all of those games.

 

[Gladeskat]

That's ridiculous. 9-20 60 yard is not an excellent game. I didn't look, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had the worst performance of a QB amongst all of Wisconsin's opponents this season. The net of that plus our overall offensive futility plus our outstanding D resulted in a win. 99% of the reason we won was because of our D. But, let's not think for a minute that had we had any other NU QB that has faced Wisconsin in the last 10 years, that we wouldn't have done better in any and all of those games. Sure he had a run here or there, but that only makes up for some of the lack of passing and scoring in those games - those other QBs would have scored more overall in all of those games.

You wanted "5-picks" Kafka? "Chuck it up for grabs" Bacher? "Pick-six" Siemian? I'm glad Thorson played Saturday. He did a great job protecting the ball in a hard-fought game against a very good defense. That was KEY to our success.

 

[NURoseBowl]

Question...

Do we have a QB-under-center sneak in our playbook? I have wondered this several times in short yardage situations.

I've wondered this myself. It would seem a guy with Thorson's size and agility would be extremely likely to be able to slide into a crease or simply plow ahead enough to gain the yard or less that we're talking about.

 

[EvanstonCat]

You wanted "5-picks" Kafka? "Chuck it up for grabs" Bacher? "Pick-six" Siemian? I'm glad Thorson played Saturday. He did a great job protecting the ball in a hard-fought game against a very good defense. That was KEY to our success.

No I wanted the Kafka, Bacher, and Siemian that passed for 3 TDs in a game and more yards in a game than Thorson has over half a season. I think Bacher may have passed for more yards and TDs in two consecutive games than Thorson has all season.

 

[Gladeskat]

No I wanted the Kafka, Bacher, and Siemian that passed for 3 TDs in a game and more yards in a game than Thorson has over half a season. I think Bacher may have passed for more yards and TDs in two consecutive games than Thorson has all season.

Still crappin' on the QB who won the UW game?

All of those QB's cost us several games each because they failed to protect the ball and made foolish throws. I could go into details because I saw several of them up close. Reckless plays that cost us games. Thorson has yet to cost us a game that we had any reasonable chance to win. Yet what do fans do after this latest win in tough conditions in Madison where we had zero turnovers? They crap on Thorson for not throwing for more yardage. Dumb.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Still crappin' on the QB who won the UW game?

All of those QB's cost us several games each because they failed to protect the ball and made foolish throws. I could go into details because I saw several of them up close. Reckless plays that cost us games. Thorson has yet to cost us a game that we had any reasonable chance to win. Yet what do fans do after this latest win in tough conditions in Madison where we had zero turnovers? They crap on Thorson for not throwing for more yardage. Dumb.

Let's agree to disagree. You think Thorson is better than Kafka, Bacher and Siemian. I don't. Let's just leave it at that because we aren't even on the same planet and so it will be impossible to carry on an intelligent conversation about this when you have two views that are so far apart.

BTW, his turnovers in the Iowa and Michigan games did not help us win, but it was more the fact that he could not lead our offense to score nearly enough to beat anyone (10 points in two losses) and kept giving the opponents great field position. Luckily 13 points, most of which was set up by the D giving us a short field was good enough to beat Wisconsin. I believe there are more than a dozen people I would credit more for that than Thorson.

 

[evanston09]

In addition to a qb sneak, do we have any play action? We haven't run that in ages.
Thorson is controlling the controllable a pretty effectively and should be credited for that. However, he's not given the opportunity to play anything more than adequately well at this point.

 

[mikewebb68]

In addition to a qb sneak, do we have any play action? We haven't run that in ages.
Thorson is controlling the controllable a pretty effectively and should be credited for that. However, he's not given the opportunity to play anything more than adequately well at this point.

Have run this several times as well, I beleive. Happened to be rewatching the Wisky game and saw one on the final play of the 1st quarter.

 

[Turk_rivals223269]

Still crappin' on the QB who won the UW game?

All of those QB's cost us several games each because they failed to protect the ball and made foolish throws. I could go into details because I saw several of them up close. Reckless plays that cost us games. Thorson has yet to cost us a game that we had any reasonable chance to win. Yet what do fans do after this latest win in tough conditions in Madison where we had zero turnovers? They crap on Thorson for not throwing for more yardage. Dumb.

I haven't followed all of Ecat's ridiculous posts about Thorson, because most reasonable people can see that Thorson is the guy, and they are managing him along very well, and imo he is farther along than Kafka or Baz were at this point.

That said, what do you mean that Thorson won the UW game for us? You mean he won the game because he didn't turn the ball over? Wouldn't it naturally follow that our long snapper won the game for us because he didn't muff any snaps? Or maybe the center for no high snaps? Or insert any individual who touched the ball, including the punter, and didn't turn it over?