Nebraska Football: Taylor Martinez Deserves Second Start. No More, No Less
If you were born on October 27, 2002, here is a list of things you have not seen in your lifetime:
The United States during peacetime, the national average for a gallon of gasoline below $2.00, and a Nebraska quarterback rush for 100 yards in a single game.
Until Saturday that is.
Take the opponent out of the equation. For his first football game since 2008, Taylor Martinez looked good. Martinez went 9-15 passing for 136 yards and ran seven times for 129 yards and three touchdowns. His passes were on target and thrown with authority. Take into account the numerous dropped balls by Nebraska receivers and Nebraska fans should feel comfortable with the talent level at the quarterback position.
One of the things fans had to be most impressed with about Martinez was his poise in the pocket. It was a welcome sight to see a Nebraska quarterback remain calm, go through his progressions and think pass first. Especially one with such an ability to tuck and run.
Judging by the first game, the zone read will play a pretty significant role in Nebraska's offense for the 2010 season. With the speed in the backfield, it will be interesting to see what type of packages Nebraska's offense can bring to the field.
However, the hype on Martinez is about to blow up, so let's throw in some perspective. Martinez looked great against a Hilltopper team that has now lost 21 consecutive games. Let's not forget that just a year ago, the state was singing the praises of Zac Lee after he threw for 213 yards and 2 touchdowns against Florida Atlantic.
Taylor Martinez could be something special. He could be the answer to Nebraska's quarterback questions for the next three years. He could be on a Heisman watch list someday. He could go number one overall in some future NFL draft.
But there is only one thing Taylor Martinez proved on Saturday vs. Western Kentucky. He proved he deserves another start. No more, no less.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?