CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Nelson

by SpiffCoug · 5/29/2010

Sponsored Advertisementad content
Y
Y12
Mars wrote:
It's only a bad thing if you have your 2nd-best QB starting while your best QB sits the bench behind him for two years. Which would be the case if Nelson started 2010 and 2011. No one thinks Riley has more talent than Heaps. Why waste talent when it can be used, unless Nelson or Heaps mean more to you than BYU does? [/color]


Talent does not equal better qb. Jamarcus Russell was more talented than a lot of NFL qbs, but he was unable to bridle that talent and make it useful.



While I understand the argument, I think we should stay away from "talent" forming our opinions.



I am comfortable with Nelson starting this year, especially with Doman as qb coach who should be able to get the most out of Nelson being a running qb. But with all the raving reviews about Heaps, I am geting more comfortable with the idea of Heaps starting. Even if Nelson starts all year, I don't think his job is safe for 2011. If Heaps chooses to stay, I think it is an open competition again in 2011 because Heaps will force the issue with his year of D-1 experience and better overall abilities.
R
rblack
Mars wrote:


I'm curious, out of those who want Nelson to start against Washington:



1- How many want him to start all year this year, and all year next year- his senior year? (With Heaps -the #1 freshman QB in the nation- red-shirting one year, and then losing a year of eligibility sitting the bench the second, or going on a mission and coming back a year after someone else not named Nelson or Heaps is named the starter)

2- How many want him to start all year this year, and then sit on the bench his senior year as Heaps takes over?

3- How many want him to start some of this year, only to give way to Heaps as the season progresses?



To me, if you are in camp #2 or #3, then it's better to just see Heaps start from Washington on; the whole 2 QB thing rarely works out well. And I don't see a lot of people in camp #1.

I'm in camp #1 and I think that camp #3 would be a mistake. Camp #2 doesn't bother me because it will mean that it is a result of some good competition in spring practice. The bottom line is that even Camp #3 is better than Heaps having the entire offense put on his back in his first college game, making freshman mistakes and getting pulled in favor of a more mature Nelson. It could ruin his career. With a good Quarterback, the game is mostly mental. Some of the great quarterbacks to play the game were not extremely accurate, not the prototypical size, or not great scamblers. Yet, you could put them into the game and they would be able to win the game by handing off the entire game. Why? Because they exuded the confidence and they made great decisions. One of the best quarterbacks that has ever played for BYU was Sarkisian. He led the team to the most wins in a season ever. He did it with 150 yard games and 200 yard games with the occasional 300 yard game. He didn't put up flashy numbers, but he made great decisions. Yes, he had good runningbacks, however, even without Unga, we have some pretty good backs right now. Bottom line, we need to let Heaps mature. He might mature quickly. I can see him starting next year. If he starts this year, I think it will be more of a reflectance on the lack of confidence the the coaching staff has in Nelson's ability than it will be due to an overflowing of confidence in Heaps' ability. In short, if Heaps starts the first game, there are problems in Cougarville and we might look back at the end of the year and think that the Vegas Bowl would have been nice.
J
jonnylingo
snoscythe wrote:
Why would you start your second-best guy just because of his high school ranking?


Has anybody really suggested this? Its arguable that Nelson is better than Heaps even with his additional experience and obvious athletic ability.



You are assuming that Nelson is better. That is a very good assumption.



When the team suits up in full pads and really gets practicing we will know who is going to be better at moving the offense.



While starting a freshman has its obvious flaws and issues no matter how talented that qb is, I think you are swinging too far to the other side of the spectrum here by not acknowledging what a special talent Jake Heaps is. You can know this by how he continuously blows away his observers. Just review bronco's comments about jake as well as a number of the veteran players who were not expecting him to come in and start off so strong.



I think the fact that he has done so well right off the bat in practice on a top 25 d1 team shows how much better he is than the average qb.



We don't have enough information yet. Nelson has the edge because it appears that his experience in d1 football as well as his experience in the byu system may give him an edge in the trust department.



I fully expect however that because of heaps' physical and skill ability a long with his smarts and ability to learn very quickly he will overtake Riley before this season is over if not before it even starts.
B
Brayden Green
Y12 wrote:
It's only a bad thing if you have your 2nd-best QB starting while your best QB sits the bench behind him for two years. Which would be the case if Nelson started 2010 and 2011. No one thinks Riley has more talent than Heaps. Why waste talent when it can be used, unless Nelson or Heaps mean more to you than BYU does? [/color]


Talent does not equal better qb. Jamarcus Russell was more talented than a lot of NFL qbs, but he was unable to bridle that talent and make it useful.



While I understand the argument, I think we should stay away from "talent" forming our opinions.



I am comfortable with Nelson starting this year, especially with Doman as qb coach who should be able to get the most out of Nelson being a running qb. But with all the raving reviews about Heaps, I am geting more comfortable with the idea of Heaps starting. Even if Nelson starts all year, I don't think his job is safe for 2011. If Heaps chooses to stay, I think it is an open competition again in 2011 because Heaps will force the issue with his year of D-1 experience and better overall abilities.




Why would you want to stay away from talent when looking to see who the next BYU qb will be? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and substitute the word "talent" for "potential." Talent has EVERYTHING TO DO with who starts over who doesn't when experience is on the same plane (which it is, in this situation). I think that Jake has a ton of "potential" but at the same time, he is a good-great qb now, and until I see more from Riley - or if they change the offense completely around - he is the better fit RIGHT NOW for the everydown snaptaker. It will be confirmed later in the fall, when both qb's are going against the first team defense.
Y
Y12
BlueIsBetter wrote:
Mars wrote:
It's only a bad thing if you have your 2nd-best QB starting while your best QB sits the bench behind him for two years. Which would be the case if Nelson started 2010 and 2011. No one thinks Riley has more talent than Heaps. Why waste talent when it can be used, unless Nelson or Heaps mean more to you than BYU does? [/color]


Talent does not equal better qb. Jamarcus Russell was more talented than a lot of NFL qbs, but he was unable to bridle that talent and make it useful.



While I understand the argument, I think we should stay away from "talent" forming our opinions.



I am comfortable with Nelson starting this year, especially with Doman as qb coach who should be able to get the most out of Nelson being a running qb. But with all the raving reviews about Heaps, I am geting more comfortable with the idea of Heaps starting. Even if Nelson starts all year, I don't think his job is safe for 2011. If Heaps chooses to stay, I think it is an open competition again in 2011 because Heaps will force the issue with his year of D-1 experience and better overall abilities.




Why would you want to stay away from talent when looking to see who the next BYU qb will be? I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and substitute the word "talent" for "potential." Talent has EVERYTHING TO DO with who starts over who doesn't when experience is on the same plane (which it is, in this situation). I think that Jake has a ton of "potential" but at the same time, he is a good-great qb now, and until I see more from Riley - or if they change the offense completely around - he is the better fit RIGHT NOW for the everydown snaptaker. It will be confirmed later in the fall, when both qb's are going against the first team defense.


To go with another LSU example, Ryan Perilloux was the most talented qb, but he was such an annoyance, the coach finally kicked him off the team.



What if Heaps gets a case of fumblitis and suddenly can't take a snap from center without fumbling it during the fall? Do you still just look at this from a talent perspective only. What good is his talent if he can't get in a position to use it since he can't hold on to the ball? Talent is a key part of the equation, but not the only thing. That is what I was pointing out.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
L
Lawboy
kitic,



Your 2 polls on Heaps and Nelson are push-polls in the extreme. You should apply for a job with the RNC or DNC, because you know how to phrase a question to accomplish your objective. The real problem with push-polling, of course, is that it smacks of an agenda.



Why 2 polls? why not simply ask "Who do you think gives BYU a better chance to win games in 2010"? ad let people answer based upon that?
B
Brayden Green
Lawboy wrote:
kitic,



Your 2 polls on Heaps and Nelson are push-polls in the extreme. You should apply for a job with the RNC or DNC, because you know how to phrase a question to accomplish your objective. The real problem with push-polling, of course, is that it smacks of an agenda.



Why 2 polls? why not simply ask "Who do you think gives BYU a better chance to win games in 2010"? ad let people answer based upon that?


lol. We all know the DNC and RNC need some good agenda-pollsters. I agree, though.
B
blue42
Italics wrote:
There just aren't many/any reasons at all to bench the #1 QB recruit in the nation for - let's face it - a below average quarterback. If Nelson was anywhere even close to above-average, he would not have been recruited by Utah State, and he would not have sat on the bench for all these years. I have nothing against Nelson, but honestly, Nelson = Nothing special, and Heaps = Tremendous potential .


I really have to laugh at this comment. I love the "below average quarterback" remark. This insight is going directly against the thinking of the coaching staff. If Nelson was such a crappy QB, why would they agree to let him be the #2 QB last season behind Hall? If the coaches thought so poorly of his abilty they would have changed his position last year instead of backing up Hall. Don't throw out the line "because Gaskins suck too" won't fly. With this type of argument it says the coaches didn't care about the program and really didn't care who the #2 QB was. I know it mattered to them and they wouldn't have put him there if they didn't think he couldn't get the job done, again not at the level of Hall, but that was the reason he was the #2 QB.



Just like any successful team or business manager you are always looking at the backups as your potential replacement, so if Hall went down last year were the coaches saying they were going to give up on the rest of the season because they had nothing but sub par QB's left? I am sure the coaching staff has a much different opinion of Nelson than you do, as I mentioned before, if not he would be playing safety.



As far as "sitting on the bench all these years", I am confused, which YEARS are you talking about. The only full year he was on the bench was last year (you will notice it is singular, no S on the end) because he started his Freshmen year at USU after the 3rd game and his next two years on a mission which means last year was his only year on the bench.



I for one don't care who starts because I have full confidence that Bronco will do what he thinks is best for the team. The obvious divide on this topic boggles my mind, I understand people having opinions and voicing those opinions and that is what a discussion is all about, but completely bashing one player to prop up the other makes me laugh. It almost reminds me of the political discussions back in '08 :sick: It's fine for us to discuss and banter topic as fans but I honestly hope this same chasim isn't happening on the team, because if it is it won't matter who starts because the season will be a disaster with a divided team.(look back to the Crowton years)
B
Brayden Green
blue42 wrote:
There just aren't many/any reasons at all to bench the #1 QB recruit in the nation for - let's face it - a below average quarterback. If Nelson was anywhere even close to above-average, he would not have been recruited by Utah State, and he would not have sat on the bench for all these years. I have nothing against Nelson, but honestly, Nelson = Nothing special, and Heaps = Tremendous potential .


I really have to laugh at this comment. I love the "below average quarterback" remark. This insight is going directly against the thinking of the coaching staff. If Nelson was such a crappy QB, why would they agree to let him be the #2 QB last season behind Hall? If the coaches thought so poorly of his abilty they would have changed his position last year instead of backing up Hall. Don't throw out the line "because Gaskins suck too" won't fly. With this type of argument it says the coaches didn't care about the program and really didn't care who the #2 QB was. I know it mattered to them and they wouldn't have put him there if they didn't think he couldn't get the job done, again not at the level of Hall, but that was the reason he was the #2 QB.



Just like any successful team or business manager you are always looking at the backups as your potential replacement, so if Hall went down last year were the coaches saying they were going to give up on the rest of the season because they had nothing but sub par QB's left? I am sure the coaching staff has a much different opinion of Nelson than you do, as I mentioned before, if not he would be playing safety.



As far as "sitting on the bench all these years", I am confused, which YEARS are you talking about. The only full year he was on the bench was last year (you will notice it is singular, no S on the end) because he started his Freshmen year at USU after the 3rd game and his next two years on a mission which means last year was his only year on the bench.



I for one don't care who starts because I have full confidence that Bronco will do what he thinks is best for the team. The obvious divide on this topic boggles my mind, I understand people having opinions and voicing those opinions and that is what a discussion is all about, but completely bashing one player to prop up the other makes me laugh. It almost reminds me of the political discussions back in '08 :sick: It's fine for us to discuss and banter topic as fans but I honestly hope this same chasim isn't happening on the team, because if it is it won't matter who starts because the season will be a disaster with a divided team.(look back to the Crowton years)


Did you know that Gaskins stepped aside in the name of the future team? Nelson didn't beat out Gaskins, and wouldn't have... He was slated to be the 3rd qb to start the season. Gaskins stepped to the side, knowing it was his Senior year, so that an underclassmen could take the snaps. Neslon happened to be the next guy, with the other options on missions.
B
blue42
BlueIsBetter wrote:
Did you know that Gaskins stepped aside in the name of the future team? Nelson didn't beat out Gaskins, and wouldn't have... He was slated to be the 3rd qb to start the season. Gaskins stepped to the side, knowing it was his Senior year, so that an underclassmen could take the snaps. Neslon happened to be the next guy, with the other options on missions.


I know this very well having spoken both to Brenden and his Dad about it, but the point being IF the coaches didn't believe Nelson couldn't fill that spot they wouldn't have let Brenden step aside.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
Mars
rblack wrote:
...better than Heaps having the entire offense put on his back in his first college game, making freshman mistakes and getting pulled in favor of a more mature Nelson. It could ruin his career. With a good Quarterback, the game is mostly mental. Some of the great quarterbacks to play the game were not extremely accurate, not the prototypical size, or not great scamblers. Yet, you could put them into the game and they would be able to win the game by handing off the entire game. Why? Because they exuded the confidence and they made great decisions... Bottom line, we need to let Heaps mature. He might mature quickly. I can see him starting next year. If he starts this year, I think it will be more of a reflectance on the lack of confidence the the coaching staff has in Nelson's ability than it will be due to an overflowing of confidence in Heaps' ability. In short, if Heaps starts the first game, there are problems in Cougarville and we might look back at the end of the year and think that the Vegas Bowl would have been nice.

I still think Heaps is more "mature" and "confident" than Riley is. He has had a professional QB Coach for about as long as he can remember. Riley has never had a personal trainer, just high school and college.
B
Brayden Green
blue42 wrote:
Did you know that Gaskins stepped aside in the name of the future team? Nelson didn't beat out Gaskins, and wouldn't have... He was slated to be the 3rd qb to start the season. Gaskins stepped to the side, knowing it was his Senior year, so that an underclassmen could take the snaps. Neslon happened to be the next guy, with the other options on missions.


I know this very well having spoken both to Brenden and his Dad about it, but the point being IF the coaches didn't believe Nelson couldn't fill that spot they wouldn't have let Brenden step aside.


Oh yeah, well I served with Gaskins and he was my DL... (tic) - he really was though, actually.



Yeah they were confident with the situation, but that doesn't mean that Riley beat gaskins out... If Gaskins had another year to play, we wouldn't be discussing Riley vs. Heaps. It would be Gaskins vs. Heaps, with Gaskins having the inside edge. Rather than a lesser qb Nelson, being dead even with Heaps.
B
Brayden Green
Duplicate, sorry.
B
Brayden Green
Y12,

If he has fumble-itis then he wouldn't be a very good qb, and therefor not talented...

Now, if he is an all out Douchebag, like a few of the LSU qb's mentioned above, then I can see talent not being the case, but that isn't even an issue with the guys BYU recruits. Plus we aren't paying them, so they aren't all entitled idiots. ;)
C
CrimsonCoug
BlueIsBetter wrote:
BlueIsBetter wrote:
Did you know that Gaskins stepped aside in the name of the future team? Nelson didn't beat out Gaskins, and wouldn't have... He was slated to be the 3rd qb to start the season. Gaskins stepped to the side, knowing it was his Senior year, so that an underclassmen could take the snaps. Neslon happened to be the next guy, with the other options on missions.


I know this very well having spoken both to Brenden and his Dad about it, but the point being IF the coaches didn't believe Nelson couldn't fill that spot they wouldn't have let Brenden step aside.


Oh yeah, well I served with Gaskins and he was my DL... (tic) - he really was though, actually.



Yeah they were confident with the situation, but that doesn't mean that Riley beat gaskins out... If Gaskins had another year to play, we wouldn't be discussing Riley vs. Heaps. It would be Gaskins vs. Heaps, with Gaskins having the inside edge. Rather than a lesser qb Nelson, being dead even with Heaps.


My recollection is that Gaskins beat Nelson out, then stepped aside. Either way, it's an interesting question: if the coaches give Heaps the nod, does that make Gaskins sacrifice meaningless? Would the coaches do that? Would Gaskins regret stepping aside?
Page 2 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.