To all WR posters

[StreamCat]

"This year we're having a season that is historically successful for Northwestern (fifth season of nine wins or more in the school's 110-year football history) and the tenor of this board hasn't changed at all."

If you don't expect mediocrity, why did you feel compelled to qualify the statement that this season is historic "for Northwestern". You expect mediocrity. You said it yourself.

Here's the thing: despite all your constant protests to the contrary, all you guys falling all over each other to out-happy each other with 9 wins are the TRUE PESSIMISTS here. You're the ones who don't think we can achieve greatness and honestly don't expect it.

Ecat and myself and a few others are the optimists here. We want a championship - and are not satisfied with less. And realistically, given the talent we have, 9 wins is and should be a minimum expectation.

This is beyond bizarre. We have a shot at finishing in the top ten after the bowls. Thus begins the road to greatness - but you don't think we can do it. Say it, Stupor, "Pessimist."

 

[lou v]

I don't know about that. If our O is decent and could go toe to toe with anyone (think the days of Basanez and Bacher), I don't think Michigan and Iowa get the ball in favorable field position all day. I don't think our Defense is on the field after constant 3 and outs. I don't think they have to defend a short field. I don't think Michigan or Iowa score nearly as many points. With a decent offense, we might even score more than the 30 or even 40 points that the opposing teams put up on us. People forget, but we have actually been known to do that you know.

There have been some posters who appear to believe the QB or the offense had good days. At least one has claimed that Thorson is better than Kafka, Basanez, Bacher, and Siemian, as laughable as they may sound. People don't seem to acknowledge how putrid our offense is and the fact that our QB is ranked 116 in the country, and give the overwhelming credit for our 9 wins this season to our dominant defense. They think our 116th ranked QB is responsible for multiple wins.

Well, now you're talking about NU's offense at its best. This team doesn't have those kinds of weapons and was never going to be a 2000 or 2005 or 2008 offense. They realized their limitations and formulated a game plan that played to the team's strength -- namely, defense. (And one thing to consider is that those teams played fast, which meant that NU's defense could be on the field longer when the offense doesn't score, and sometimes when they do.) I don't disagree that the offense could be MUCH, MUCH better. My point is that I don't think their record would have been any better. The losses would have been less ugly and the wins easier, but style points aside, I don't think they'd be better than 9-2.

If anyone thinks that Thorson this season is better than any one of those guys at their best, they're fooling themselves. However, you could argue that Thorson is better than they were as redshirt freshmen. That's what the argument, I'm guessing, was about. Kafka was abysmal in his first starts. Baz was actually pretty good (but awful as a sophomore and mediocre as a junior). Bacher and Siemian didn't play as RSF. Thorson's numbers are horrid, but that's a byproduct of the game plan, too. If he threw the ball as much as those guys did, he wouldn't be 116th in passing. His job is to hand the ball off, run it on occasion, throw when necessary and -- most importantly -- don't turn the ball over. He's done those things pretty well, and the bottom line is that his record as a starter is better than any of those guys.

So we'll see what happens with Thorson. I think he has better tools than all of them. We'll find out if he can develop the poise, decision making and moxie to go along with it.

 

[Medill90]

The people here are smart about some things, but not about football. However, because they are smart about other things, they think they are smart about football merely because they watch football on weekends. If you designed bridges for a living, you wouldn't take seriously insights from someone who claims useful knowledge because they took some science classes in college and drive over a bridge every day to work, but people here have the attitude that their football insights are deep and telling. As such, they don't "crave information". Information has been given to them lots of times. It's available in abundance. They have just decided that they don't like the information that they've been given and, because they are smart on some things, they have better answers in football.

If you're going to post on the presidential primary you should take it over to the Rant Board.

 

[Mr. Stupor]

This is beyond bizarre. We have a shot at finishing in the top ten after the bowls. Thus begins the road to greatness - but you don't think we can do it. Say it, Stupor, "Pessimist."

What's beyond bizarre is your inability to read. Why did you feel compelled to qualify our historic season as being "historic for Northwestern"?

The answer is simple, of course. But you won't answer it. So I'll do it for you: it's guys like you who are the pessimists here. You qualify everything in terms of our crappy past. You can't even envision the clean break from it that guys like ECat and I see - let along expect it.
You expect us to be mired in mediocrity forever. Admit it. It'll do you good.

 

[No Chores]

Here is what couple posters on this board (the usual suspects, btw) posted, OVER FOUR HOURS after you posted this on this very board. Looks like they heard your message and really took it to heart, ROFL.


DocCat 2:

"I think the reason people are not satisfied is because our team is so one-sided. Our D is awesome, but our O is atrocious. Many feel the wheels are about to come off the wagon entirely. We will eventually play a team with a very good offense that will score on us and our offense won't be able to keep us in the game. A blowout will result. See Michigan and Iowa."

Stupor (note that these are taken from multiple posts)

"You're wrong. This is not a great team. It reminds me of the ND team that won with smoke and mirrors and bandaids like we've done - and the. got their *** handed to them by Alabama.

This is a one sided mess of a team with an all time great defense and a dark ages offense. Hell, the dark ages team had better passing games than this! "

"What's stupid is arguing that the worst offense in the Big Ten is good. Sorry. But that's simply and plainly the truth and all the Pollyanna nonsense and spin in the world can't change it."

You have a few posters here (fortunately, a small minority; it seems like a greater number than it is because they hyperpost) that have little respect for what others post, or even what you post, Lou. They will continue to break board rules, troll and otherwise do their best to ruin the board for the rest of us, imo. If you don't think they are good for the board, you run the board; so I am not going to tell you how to do your job. I participate on many other message boards, and on most other boards their conduct would simply not be tolerated.

mike, you must have a lot of time on your hands to be able to participate on "many other message boards". Because someone is not entirely positive about our team's performance does not mean that they are failing to make a meaningful contribution to the Board What should we do with these scoundrels - ban them? What would the many other pristine message boards on which you participate do to them? By the way, how many other boards on which you participate are there?

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

What's beyond bizarre is your inability to read. Why did you feel compelled to qualify our historic season as being "historic for Northwestern"?

The answer is simple, of course. But you won't answer it. So I'll do it for you: it's guys like you who are the pessimists here. You qualify everything in terms of our crappy past. You can't even envision the clean break from it that guys like ECat and I see - let along expect it.
You expect us to be mired in mediocrity forever. Admit it. It'll do you good.

If you can't even find any happiness after a victory, you are anything but an optimist. Stop pretending not to be a fan, Stupor. A "fan" enjoys seeing him team win...

 

[Gladeskat]

Oh jeez! I wish I'd saved the posts Ecat and others wrote during the 'glorious days of Kafka, Baz and Bacher'! When I defended those guys like I'm defending Thorson now. I remember the "Kafka isn't clutch" BS that you and others pumped all over the boards! You were wrong then and you're wrong now!

After a big win over Wisconsin, all you guys can post are rips against Thorson after he plays a SMART, turnover-free game. He executed what was asked of him with flying colors. Give us all a break!

 

[stpaulcat]

Oh jeez! I wish I'd saved the posts Ecat and others wrote during the 'glorious days of Kafka, Baz and Bacher'! When I defended those guys like I'm defending Thorson now. I remember the "Kafka isn't clutch" BS that you and others pumped all over the boards! You were wrong then and you're wrong now! Give us all a break!

ECat has proven himself to be the World Expert on NU QB's. Until he's not, which ends up being most of the time.

 

[shakes3858]

What should we do with these scoundrels - ban them?

Sounds good to me. The board has rules. Break the rules you gotta go.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Oh jeez! I wish I'd saved the posts Ecat and others wrote during the 'glorious days of Kafka, Baz and Bacher'! When I defended those guys like I'm defending Thorson now. I remember the "Kafka isn't clutch" BS that you and others pumped all over the boards! You were wrong then and you're wrong now!

After a big win over Wisconsin, all you guys can post are rips against Thorson after he plays a SMART, turnover-free game. He executed what was asked of him with flying colors. Give us all a break!

Thorson could have taken a knee on every play and had zero turnovers. Would that have been a smart a great offense? As it was, what we got wasn't much better than that relative to efforts like Kafka's bowl game, Siemian's various comeback performances, and Bacher's back to back performances against Minnesota and Michigan State.

He was asked to pass at least 20 times and completed 9 for 60 yards. He led the offense to exactly one TD on a very short field handed to him by the D. And other wise score 6 pts off of 5 TO's. I don't know that he executed what was asked of him with flying colors with that kind of performance. Did he do just enough to win the game? Yeah, I suppose. But, that isn't much of a bar when the D gives you 5 TO's and holds the opponent to 202 yards and -26 yards rushing and one TD. Stop crediting Thorson's performance for the win. We won despite an offense that put up 13 points off 5 TO's and a QB that completed less than half of his passes for 60 yards, and won because of a stellar defensive effort.

 

[EvanstonCat]

ECat has proven himself to be the World Expert on NU QB's. Until he's not, which ends up being most of the time.

Except Glades makes **** up all the time. I was wrong about Kafka. He was an outstanding senior QB (which I acknowledged the whole time as it happened) and I did not see that coming. Bacher, I was screaming for to get off the damn bench during the Brewfka experiment and I was a huge fan. 900 yards and 9 TDs over 2 games, how could you not be a fan? And Siemian? Only Katatonic was a bigger fan than me. Basanez was all-Big 10. Thorson? He is the 13th ranked QB in this conference. There are 12 other (starting) QB's that would do better for us. People who say they'd rather have Thorson than Joel Stave on the field are not interested in honest debate.

No one is claiming to be an expert, but when you say Thorson, who is ranked 116 in Division I is a good QB based on his performance thus far on the field, that stretches reality. Look, Kafka proved that you can go from a raw product to a stellar one over time, and Thorson shows some skills that give him great upside. So, in time he may become our best QB ever. But, to say that he is anywhere close to there now, or that he has progressed significantly or rates well relative to other RS frosh that have played the game and that QB play and the passing offense is not a glaring weakness on the team , especially relative to defense is just dishonest.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

This thread has run its course. Can we get one of those little locks on it? Still have no idea what constitutes a shut down thread, but this has to be approaching the threshold.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Well, now you're talking about NU's offense at its best. This team doesn't have those kinds of weapons and was never going to be a 2000 or 2005 or 2008 offense. They realized their limitations and formulated a game plan that played to the team's strength -- namely, defense. (And one thing to consider is that those teams played fast, which meant that NU's defense could be on the field longer when the offense doesn't score, and sometimes when they do.) I don't disagree that the offense could be MUCH, MUCH better. My point is that I don't think their record would have been any better. The losses would have been less ugly and the wins easier, but style points aside, I don't think they'd be better than 9-2.

If anyone thinks that Thorson this season is better than any one of those guys at their best, they're fooling themselves. However, you could argue that Thorson is better than they were as redshirt freshmen. That's what the argument, I'm guessing, was about. Kafka was abysmal in his first starts. Baz was actually pretty good (but awful as a sophomore and mediocre as a junior). Bacher and Siemian didn't play as RSF. Thorson's numbers are horrid, but that's a byproduct of the game plan, too. If he threw the ball as much as those guys did, he wouldn't be 116th in passing. His job is to hand the ball off, run it on occasion, throw when necessary and -- most importantly -- don't turn the ball over. He's done those things pretty well, and the bottom line is that his record as a starter is better than any of those guys.

So we'll see what happens with Thorson. I think he has better tools than all of them. We'll find out if he can develop the poise, decision making and moxie to go along with it.

Look, I generally agree with what you are saying here. My issues are with those who talk about him being a good QB now. He isn't. And that his play is the reason we have won 9 games. It isn't and I think it's a slap in the face of the defense (and Justin Jackson and Warren Long) to fail to give credit where credit due. You say it yourself - our game plan is to mute our weakness on offense and rely on the D. There - we finally agree. Sure, he executes the game plan, but with that game plan, that's not asking for a whole lot nor does it take a whole lot of skill to execute it. And with those who think that I am not happy with beating Wisconsin (I'm ecstatic) and with 9 wins (thrilled, especially given how terrible our offense is). I also think it's wholly debatable that we'd be 9-2 with better QB play and a worthy passing attack. With our offense at our best, I think we are looking at a playoff run. Honestly. I don't think Michigan and Iowa are better than us in that case. I think we are 11-0 and I'd like my chances in the B1G title game. I can see and acknowledge your side of that argument, but I disagree and I guess we will never know.

Thorson was better than exactly one of those players in their first year as a starter. Kafka. Who along with Brewer were not good as RS QBs and probably worse than Thorson, though I would argue not significantly so. And Kafka was the poor guy I saw little promise in until he broke out his senior year. I was wrong about him. Which is why I agree with your point that Thorson could end up being the best as a polished end product. I agree the tools are there. But, he has a long way to go still. Kafka proved that the type of development that would need to happen is possible though.

 

[Gladeskat]

Thorson could have taken a knee on every play and had zero turnovers. Would that have been a smart a great offense? As it was, what we got wasn't much better than that relative to efforts like Kafka's bowl game, Siemian's various comeback performances, and Bacher's back to back performances against Minnesota and Michigan State.

At least he didn't throw 5 picks, or chuck it up for grabs for picks, or toss mutiple game-killing pick-6's. All of which cost us games! I'd love to have heard the 'love' from you when the Auburn DB took a pick over 100 yards for a TD, high-stepping the last 20 yards. Or when the Indiana DB grabbed a pick thrown into impossible double coverage at the goal line that cost us the game...

But you promptly started ripping Kafka as a horrible QB for tossing a lateral 20 yards backwards. Sheesh, you still mention it as if it was some sure indicator of his QB skills as a junior. SEE above post^^^ LOL!

You should work with FeliSylvestris as an analyst on the Clueless channel.

 

[mikewebb68]

Sounds good to me. The board has rules. Break the rules you gotta go.

Yup. Simple as that. I even participate on another message board that is similar to our Rant board in that it is designed to be more tolerant and ban people less. Even on that board, if you break that board's more tolerant rules, your posts are deleted and you are banned for a period of time based on the offense. No warnings, no nothing, they just take care of business. And their boards are extremely popular, in part because they do not tolerate nonsense. By contrast, poster attacks and other temper tantrums ruined our basketball board for quite awhile because, at the time, the nonsense was tolerated and the intelligent posters left, some permanently.

 

[mikewebb68]

mike, you must have a lot of time on your hands to be able to participate on "many other message boards". Because someone is not entirely positive about our team's performance does not mean that they are failing to make a meaningful contribution to the Board What should we do with these scoundrels - ban them? What would the many other pristine message boards on which you participate do to them? By the way, how many other boards on which you participate are there?

I participate in several message boards, none of which are as tolerant toward rule-breaking as this board. And it is not about "being entirely positive"; if you read the board rules, you would know that, and it is a silly thought at any rate. People who express conflicting opinions in a respectful fashion are obviously fine, that is partially what message boards are for .

But what this board expressly prohibits in its rules is attacking players, coaches and other posters. What some posters have said to me and about individual coaches/players on this board they would NEVER say to my face, to a players face, or to a coaches face, I can guarantee you that. And they are not allowed to post something they would not say to someone's face, as explicitly stated in the board rules. It is a simple concept; regret that you do not understand it, since you seem like a decent poster.

 

[EvanstonCat]

I participate in several message boards, none of which are as tolerant toward rule-breaking as this board. And it is not about "being entirely positive"; if you read the board rules, you would know that, and it is a silly thought at any rate. People who express conflicting opinions in a respectful fashion are obviously fine, that is partially what message boards are for .

But what this board expressly prohibits in its rules is attacking players, coaches and other posters. What some posters have said to me and about individual coaches/players on this board they would NEVER say to my face, to a players face, or to a coaches face, I can guarantee you that. And they are not allowed to post something they would not say to someone's face, as explicitly stated in the board rules. It is a simple concept; regret that you do not understand it, since you seem like a decent poster.

Yeah, we get it Mike. If you don't like how the board is run, where opinions can be freely shared in the interest of discourse, why don't you go back to your other boards where they run things the way you want them? No one is forcing you to spend any time here. It's a simple concept. Regret you do not understand it.

And another thing. Not one intelligent poster has left the basketball board. A bunch of Carmody lovers left who put him above NU and continue to snipe at NU and the Collins regime on your other precious boards, and they are not missed. The basketball board is healthy with high participation and generally less drama than there is on the football boards these days, there is general excitement for the team and program there, and those who enjoy talking about NU basketball and the rise of the program under Collins are doing just fine without those who left. In fact, I link the departure of those who left to the much healthier environment of the basketball boards these days. Tell your friends to stay away.

 

[mikewebb68]

Yeah, we get it Mike. If you don't like how the board is run, where opinions can be freely shared in the interest of discourse, why don't you go back to your other boards where they run things the way you want them? No one is forcing you to spend any time here. It's a simple concept. Regret you do not understand it.

If you fail to understand the simple difference between sharing opinions freely and attacking other posters, players and coaches in direct violation of the board rules I can't help you with that. There are a small number of posters on this board (not you) that repeatedly do this with little respect for players, coaches and other posters. Reasonable people, imo can agree that the "interest of discourse" can be promoted without tolerating the nonsense of posters who choose to repeatedly break the board rules and basically thumb their nose at the moderators. Otherwise, we should just have no rules at all.

 

[Gladeskat]

I know of a few that have left the board or who have greatly reduced their participation because of how the boards have been managed. They think the board is polluted with negativity and pettiness. To them, the bad outweighs the good now. They feel that there are a lot of narcissistic jerk-offs on these boards today that flood the boards with drivel, drowning out and driving off the better posters.

I haven't noticed any distinct change, but maybe it's because I'm a narcissistic jerk-off, IDK.

 

[EvanstonCat]

If you fail to understand the simple difference between sharing opinions freely and attacking other posters, players and coaches in direct violation of the board rules I can't help you with that. There are a small number of posters on this board (not you) that repeatedly do this with little respect for players, coaches and other posters. Reasonable people, imo can agree that the "interest of discourse" can be promoted without tolerating the nonsense of posters who choose to repeatedly break the board rules and basically thumb their nose at the moderators. Otherwise, we should just have no rules at all.

Mike this is what you posted as your exhibit for rule breaking:

DocCat 2:

"I think the reason people are not satisfied is because our team is so one-sided. Our D is awesome, but our O is atrocious. Many feel the wheels are about to come off the wagon entirely. We will eventually play a team with a very good offense that will score on us and our offense won't be able to keep us in the game. A blowout will result. See Michigan and Iowa."

Stupor (note that these are taken from multiple posts)

"You're wrong. This is not a great team. It reminds me of the ND team that won with smoke and mirrors and bandaids like we've done - and the. got their *** handed to them by Alabama.

This is a one sided mess of a team with an all time great defense and a dark ages offense. Hell, the dark ages team had better passing games than this! "

"What's stupid is arguing that the worst offense in the Big Ten is good. Sorry. But that's simply and plainly the truth and all the Pollyanna nonsense and spin in the world can't change it."

I actually even agree with much of the substance here - not everything (including Stupor's assertion that we are winning with smoke and mirrors and bandaids - we are winning straight up because we are flat out outplaying teams and better than them - we aren't lucky - every win has been over a team that we are simply better than and outplaying, but we're doing it overwhelmingly on the defensive side of the ball, not the offense). In any case, all of these posts are opinions. There are no personal attacks on other posters (at least in the posts you note above). I will note that there are probably very many more personal attacks on people like DocCat2 and Stupor and anyone else who isn't rah rah - this team can do no wrong. There are no personal attacks on players or even coaches in these posts above (nevermind that criticizing the coaches is a rule I disagree with like I disagree about the rule on what constitutes a catch). If I recall correctly, the rules (which I can no longer find to check for sure) stated that criticism of performance is ok, just don't rip the characters or make broad statements (X sucks) without supporting arguments. Suggesting that the offense is terrible (it is) is not a personal attack, even though some people have tried to argue that such a comment is a personal attack on all the members of the offense. I don't see anything that is rule breaking here. I don't see what is wrong with anything that is being written in the posts above. What I see are people who disagree with opinions like the ones above and then claim rule breaking (ironically, my observation is that one of those who cries about rule breaking the most - not you - probably attacks more people personally than anyone on these boards), and to me it only comes off as a weak attempt to quiet dissenting opinions on the board.

 

[mikewebb68]

Mike this is what you posted as your exhibit for rule breaking:

DocCat 2:

"I think the reason people are not satisfied is because our team is so one-sided. Our D is awesome, but our O is atrocious. Many feel the wheels are about to come off the wagon entirely. We will eventually play a team with a very good offense that will score on us and our offense won't be able to keep us in the game. A blowout will result. See Michigan and Iowa."

Stupor (note that these are taken from multiple posts)

"You're wrong. This is not a great team. It reminds me of the ND team that won with smoke and mirrors and bandaids like we've done - and the. got their *** handed to them by Alabama.

This is a one sided mess of a team with an all time great defense and a dark ages offense. Hell, the dark ages team had better passing games than this! "

"What's stupid is arguing that the worst offense in the Big Ten is good. Sorry. But that's simply and plainly the truth and all the Pollyanna nonsense and spin in the world can't change it."

I actually even agree with much of the substance here - not everything (including Stupor's assertion that we are winning with smoke and mirrors and bandaids - we are winning straight up because we are flat out outplaying teams and better than them - we aren't lucky - every win has been over a team that we are simply better than and outplaying, but we're doing it overwhelmingly on the defensive side of the ball, not the offense). In any case, all of these posts are opinions. There are no personal attacks. There are no personal attacks on players or even coaches (nevermind that criticizing the coaches is a rule I disagree with like I disagree about the rule on what constitutes a catch). I don't see anything that is rule breaking here. I don't see what is wrong with anything that is being written in the posts above. What I see are people like you and Shakes who disagree with opinions like the ones above and then claim rule breaking, and to me it only comes off as a weak attempt to quiet dissenting opinions on the board.

Again, don't know what to tell you; I can provide 100 examples of posters attacking Fitz, McCall, Thorson and other posters. Glades posted above that posters have left the board due to the negativity. Lou also appears to agree that the negativity has been too much, as he started this thread! And what you posted above is how two posters essentially responded to Lou's post, by not listening to Lou at all, and basically saying "Lou I could care less what you say, I will just continue posting the way I post". You can say everything is fine and dandy, but I disagree with you. Guess we just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Gladeskat]

Except Glades makes **** up all the time.

Sorry, but I don't make anything up. In fact, I have to constantly correct you for posting erroneous "facts". Constantly.

You're just making up more BS now because you're losing an argument here.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Again, don't know what to tell you; I can provide 100 examples of posters attacking Fitz, McCall, Thorson and other posters. Glades posted above that posters have left the board due to the negativity. You can say everything is fine and dandy, but I disagree with you. Guess we just have to agree to disagree.

Well, I guess we do have to disagree. I don't see this board as a place only open to rah-rah positive thoughts. Nor is that anywhere in the rules. How boring would that be? If people choose to leave because that's what they want, well that's their decision. I do believe everyone should try to be respectful to each other (and I admit that I do freely wander on this point, and even if it's only when I'm baited first, perhaps, that's not a great excuse), but again, my general observation is that many of those who cry the most about negativity (not you) are the worst offenders in personal attacks on this board.

 

[mikewebb68]

Well, I guess we do have to disagree. I don't see this board as a place only open to rah-rah positive thoughts. Nor is that anywhere in the rules. How boring would that be? If people choose to leave because that's what they want, well that's their decision. I do believe everyone should try to be respectful to each other (and I admit that I do freely wander on this point, and even if it's only when I'm baited first, perhaps, that's not a great excuse), but again, my general observation is that many of those who cry the most about negativity (not you) are the worst offenders in personal attacks on this board.

Agree with all of this. But Lou and I have now gone on record to voice our displeasure with the negativity, and I suspect that you do not believe that were are terrible offenders in personal attacks on this board. So I submit to you that something is not right.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Sorry, but I don't make anything up. In fact, I have to constantly correct you for posting erroneous "facts". Constantly.

You're just making up more BS now because you're losing an argument here.

BS. You're doing what you always do when you can't win an argument on the basis of reason. You throw up half-strawmans (the only kernel of truth in your insinuation that I attacked these QBs is that I called out Kafka's horrible play and did not project him to become as good as he ultimately did - something I have admitted I was wrong about). The rest of it is pure BS.

LouV already pointed out that anyone who suggests Thorson is playing at a higher level than Bacher, Siemian and Kafka is absurd. I'm not losing the argument. As I pointed out, there is no point to argue here, because we clearly are on two different planets.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Agree with all of this. But Lou and I have now gone on record to voice our displeasure with the negativity, and I suspect that you do not believe that were are terrible offenders in personal attacks on this board. So I submit to you that something is not right.

Understand you don't like what you see as negativity. And that Lou was disappointed that some of use were not happy with the QB play or offense. I saw that as an opinion (Lou does participate in the discussion beyond his role as a moderator from time to time) versus a warning to the board to go rah-rah. I also didn't see critique of the offense or QB play as negative as much as objectivity. And I also objected that such critique suggested we were not at all happy with the win (again, for the umpteenth time, I AM THRILLED).

I will agree that there are a very few posters here who seem to go out of their way to rip on the team with no objectivity or balance (similar to the people who left the basketball board that could only rip NU and the Collins regime), but it is very exceptional and it is not to be confused with the rational and reasonable critique of the offense and QB play this year as well as the objective criticism of the WR coaching and the failure to develop our WRs into a decent and dependable core. The people who are objectively making the criticisms also objectively praise the team when they do well and are ecstatic about the D. They are not your enemy nor should they be banned from the board.

 

[Gladeskat]

LouV already pointed out that anyone who suggests Thorson is playing at a higher level than Bacher, Siemian and Kafka is absurd. I'm not losing the argument. As I pointed out, there is no point to argue here, because we clearly are on two different planets.

Nobody seriously claimed that he was. I'm only trying to point out that the FIRST thing he must do is protect the football. He did an excellent job protecting the football when his counterpart coughed it up three times, and people here start bitching about his QB play, citing QB's who have notoriously thrown away games (it happens and I'm fine with it) by not protecting the football. A QB's first responsibility is to protect the football! Some people seem to disregard this and whine about offensive production and passing yardage against fricking Wisconsin.

There's Planet Football 101: Protect the football first and foremost when playing against one of the top defenses in the country in their madhouse stadium in bitter conditions.

Then there's Planet Clueless: who immediately ***** about Thorson after a big win because he didn't throw for 200 yards or whatever is necessary to placate their stat-damaged mind, after winning a real struggle in Madison against a top defense in frigid weather to go 9-2!

Why do our fans immediately start tossing acid on the kid after winning the biggest game of his young career aside from Stanford?

 

[EvanstonCat]

Nobody claimed that he was. I'm only trying to point out that the FIRST thing he must do is protect the football. He did an excellent job protecting the football when his counterpart coughed it up three times, and people here start bitching about his QB play, citing QB's who have notoriously thrown away games (it happens and I'm fine with it) by not protecting the football. A QB's first responsibility is to protect the football!

There's Planet Football 101: Protect the football first and foremost when playing against one of the top defenses in the country in their madhouse stadium in bitter conditions.

Then there's Planet Clueless: who immediately ***** about Thorson after a big win because he didn't throw for 200 yards or whatever is necessary to placate their stat-damaged mind, after winning a real struggle in Madison against a top defense in frigid weather to go 9-2!

Another strawman. No one is bitching about Thorson because he didn't throw for 200. They are just pointing out that the QB play isn't a primary reason we won. And doing so doesn't make going 9-2 any less enjoyable.

If you want to say that you're happy with Thorson because he protected the football, then fine, I get it, and even acknowledge that there is something to your point that he addressed his first responsibility. In fact, I have already said that he did just enough so that we could win. If you want to say that this is his only responsibility and by meeting it this makes him a good QB, then we disagree. I could take a knee the whole game and protect the football, meeting the first responsibility. That doesn't make me a good QB. A good QB doesn't go 9-20 for 60 yards. A good QB doesn't lead his team to 13 points off 5 turnovers. Yes, it was good enough to win, but only because the D held Wisconsin to 7 pts and made a goal line stand at the end. I will say this. Wisconsin's D is awesome, and so perhaps it's a bit much to expect Thorson to do much better than he did, but by no means is QB a strength of the team or a primary reason why we are 9-2 or why we beat Wisconsin. If you can't bring yourself to admit that the primary reason we have had success this year is the defense, then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Gladeskat]

You forgot our WR's struggle to get open. They did last year when we had Siemian.

While Thorson can certainly improve his reads and throws, it is absurd to dismiss his contributions in games like Stanford and Nebraska (90% of the offensive production). Our defense has been outstanding, but it's a team game, Ecat, and Thorson has NOT cost us a game so far this year with stupid play. Thorson didn't set the world on fire, but he didn't cough up 3 turnovers like Stave did. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Save the rips for the off season. Sheesh! We just won a huge game against ranked Wisconsin in Madison (first time in 14 years) and people are pissed off and crapping on a freshman QB who didn't hurt us! That's what LouV and others such as myself are talking about.

 

[Gladeskat]

Another strawman. No one is bitching about Thorson because he didn't throw for 200. They are just pointing out that the QB play isn't a primary reason we won. And doing so doesn't make going 9-2 any less enjoyable.
.

Yes, that is exactly what people are bitching about! They want Thorson to lead the team to much greater offensive production (=more passing yardage) than what they saw.

Nobody said the defense wasn't the primary reason we won. That's obvious! What I'm bitching about is that some people here give Thorson little to no credit for the good job he did under really tough conditions, as if we would have won with anybody at QB! That's NOT TRUE! Stave threw some really nice passes, but in the end he lost because he coughed up the ball three times, which resulted in 10 points for NU. We won 13-7!

Sheesh, Thorson wins a game in Madison, in wintery conditions, against the top scoring defense in the country for ranked Wisconsin and he gets ripped. One dimbulb thinks he should be switched to tight end when he's the best QB we have right now! Please!