Poll: Who should be the starting QB?

[Cougarbib]

Riley - only if 100% healthy. I assume this is not the case.

Someone above said no doubt - Hill. Someone else says if close - go with the younger guy.

Here is the BUTT

I heard that Hill was close or ahead in the context that he is the best at running the offense as designed for Riley to run it and there just was not time to retool things in 2 days of practice. The inability to retool us a big part of why Riley started.

You did not have an option to choose other. If you had, I would have chosen other. Other would look like this - hold the ridicule at least long enough to think about this -

No Nelson unless as healthy as he was Vs Washington State unless some emergency need arises and it just cannot be avoided - emergency means - it becomes clear he is our best chance to win in some situation. Extreme example - Hill and Lark are both injured or get ejected for fighting over who should play or both carry the other's Locker contents to Bronco - and Kuresa is not ready and Munns can't find his helmet. And they don't want to try Falslev or VanNoy. Anyway - U get the drift.

2 QB. Sorry folks - sometimes an audition is just what is needed. UH in Provo would make a good time for such an audition. Someone emerges - then you go 1 QB - with possibly some Wildcat.

That is what The Bibster would do. The same Bibster that wanted a tryout of Lark and or Munns when Riley was injured in 2010 and Heaps was struggling. Wish we had done that then. Hope we do it now.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[mizzoucoug]

Lark. Have we learned nothing from the past? Beck and Heaps were damaged by playing early in their careers.

[crh55]

This might be harsh but I wish Riley never transferred to BYU. Heaps probably would have figured things out given a whole season. And if not Lark would have gotten his chance. At least our offense would resemble a BYU offense.

Don't get me wrong I like Hill's speed. But he probably would have been coached into an effective passer with an offense build around a passing QB, and his running ability would have been a nice addition, a la Steve Young.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[BYUgeezer]

Voted for Lark because I think he is capable and has earned a shot. Gave up a year of eligibility and delayed his mission because BYU didn't have a back up. Always had more upside than Riley.

I'm not worried about playing Hill early. He differes from Heaps in these ways.

More mature.
Not afraid to get hit.
Doesn't appear to have a entitlement attitude
Has not alienated his team mates
Has the phsical tools to be successful
Seems to be able to keep his head under pressure

[scott715]

Hill had 72 yards rushing in one and a half quarters. Wow but how long before he gets hurt?

[snoscythe]

Has anyone else seen how "well" our OL has played? That puts Hill ahead of Lark IMHO.

[BroncoBot]

I thought Lark was supposed to be mobile as well. wasn't he the fastest QB on the team coming into 2011?

[stuckinbig10country]

I thought Lark was supposed to be mobile as well. wasn't he the fastest QB on the team coming into 2011?

And Riley was the slowest.

[mizzoucoug]

I thought Lark was supposed to be mobile as well. wasn't he the fastest QB on the team coming into 2011?

The last time lark played he had some good wheels if I recall correctly. This guy isn't Heaps--give him a shot! No sense in ruining Hill this early in his career. Let him backup Lark and play on a limited basis.

[jacksonman]

I agree with starting to Lark and sprinkling in Hill. There is a good chance whoever starts is going to get rocked a few times and we will need the back-up to come in. Let teams prepare for Lark and let Hill come in on occasion. No need to rush Hill in. Let him play the whole second half of the mo-up games too.