Sponsored Advertisementad content
Look, I've sat back and kept out of the fray for awhile now just observing... But it's time to jump in and share some truth now.
Purple Reign, you have been a good guest here compared to many that we have had. I appreciate that and welcome you to stay on as long as you want. In the end, all we can really do is share our opinion of what will transpire on September 4th because no one really knows how it will play out. Once the game is over, then the "I told you so's" can begin.
But when it comes to the discussion of who is "QB U", the part that sticks out to me like a sore thumb is the "U". I don't care what they did in the pros. I don't care where they were drafted. We're not talking "QB Pros" here, we're talking "QB U". As in what they accomplished at the collegiate level. And there are few schools who even come close to comparing to what BYU has done with regards to the passing game. Setting aside the "BCS" or "traditional power school" media bias, look at what BYU has accomlished... an undisputed (by the voters, who decided it at the time; fans will always dispute each and every one, just like I claim USC didn't win one in 2003) national championship and many many top individual awards like the Heisman, Davey O'Brien, Sammy Baugh, Outland, Doak Walker, etc. despite the media bias towards the bigger programs. Their accomplishments we're so great, they couldn't be ignored or cast aside even if they thought it was a byproduct of a "system" offense.
Do you really think there aren't "systems" in the NFL? Every team has their own strengths and strategies that may differ from the norm. Is the only reason Miami has had success recently because they incorporated the "wildcat"? Maybe so but that didn't stop them from winning, getting to the playoffs, and exciting the fans. Or you do you think that the Colts and Pats play like every other team in the league? How about the New Orleans Saints? How did they win the super bowl with a QB who has less than ideal physical measureables? Because there is such a thing as intangibles and intelligence. Things BYU is rarely short on. Shoot, we've had to rely solely on them in many cases because we couldn't get the premier athlete to come to Provo. Why should that be a knock on our collegiate success?
I also find it interesting that people continue to talk about BYU or Hawaii or Texas Tech's "system" being the key to their success. If by "system" you mean, a wide open passing attack that looks for the open receiver, then I guess we're guilty as charged. But how that should be something that is used to belittle a team's accomplishments is beyond me. It's obvious we haven't always gotten the best athletes (though that is changing under Bronco) and so we have needed to play to our strengths. But if your athletes are so superior, why can't they stop this "system"? And why are more and more college and NFL teams adopting the west-coast passing attack and "spread" that originated under great minds like Lavell Edwards and Bill Walsh? Are you trying to tell me that Florida, West Virginia, Michigan, Cincinnati, Oregon don't run "spread"-type gimmicky "system" offenses? Please explain the difference to me. Because BYU runs and has run a more pro-style offense than any of them going back to the 70's. Again, there is a reason why the NFL and top BCS conferences are becoming more and more passing leagues.
And let's get one thing clear... It's not like BYU's offense is based on a gimmicky, trickeration-type system. We run an execution-dependent scheme that can and has been stopped. But you have to be not only athletically superior but execution-ally sound in order to do so. Why aren't you calling for the head of teams who rely on the trickeration aspect to win big games like the SEC team who had their little 5-foot-nothing RB "hiding" behind the center and then took the snap around the corner undetected? Or the teams who continue to use the "wild-cat" or a "running QB" type "system" (ahe, Jake Locker, cough, cough...). Can't you line it up and play like the "rest" of college football with a passing QB and a traditional RB? Why you gotta have your QB play an nontraditional type offense in order to gain an advantage? I'll tell you why... for the same reason the American revolutionaries didn't line up and use the same type of warfare that the Brits incorporated... because they'd have gotten slaughtered. BYU couldn't compete with the "3 yards and a cloud of dust"-type system that was so popular 20-30 years ago (but a "system" nonetheless) so they incorporated something totally new. And something that revolutionized their sport much like guerrilla warfare did for the Americans and the rest of the world. Similarly, UW couldn't compete this year without the threat of a running QB. They just aren't there yet. But why should they have to be limited to what the rest of college football does? If they have an advantage that could be utilized to their benefit, use it! Just win baby!
Again, it's exciting to compare the success of what your schools players do at the next level but in my opinion, that is not the discussion we are talking about. "QB U" keeps it defined within the walls of the college stadium. What has your school done in the college arena? That's what matters in this discussion.
P.S. as others have well pointed out, BYU has tradtionally gotten quite a few talented (perhaps overlooked but talented nonetheless) non-LDS players to come and play for them. And it all happens thanks to the tradition of winning and success the program has experienced. It's easy to discount a lot of them because they may have converted while at BYU but they didn't show up to campus as Mormons. There have been years where nearly 50% of the team has been non-LDS. Recently, that number has been down somewhat in part due to the emphasis Bronco has placed in his recruiting of looking for "fit" players but even moreso due to the dip in success BYU experienced in the early part of the decade. If BYU isn't winning, why would a non-LDS player necessarily want to come here when they have other options? But when BYU is winning a lot of players, both LDS and non-LDS want to be part of that. Nearly half of our top-25 recruiting class last year weren't Mormon. And many of them were very accomplished and successful in high school, some who even picked BYU over UW. Enjoy the list:
*** DeQuan Everett
*** Josh Quezada
** Drew Phillips
*** Blair Tushaus
** Kori Gaines
*** Jordan Johnson
*** Tayo Fabuluje
*** Collin Keoshian
Or how about Haouli Jamora who was commited to the Cougars prior to changing to UW?
And sometimes the LDS ones do choose to go to schools other than BYU. Do the names Kona Schwenke, Manti Te'o, Chris Badger, Dallas Lloyd, Taysom Hill, Xavier Sua'Filo, Tony Meoaki, Ben Olson, Christian Tupou, Al Afalava, Haloti Ngata, Todd Heap, Stanley Havili, Kevin Prince, Jarett Finau, Taniela Tupou, Everett Thompson ring any bells? At least a fear of those names should be real familiar. BYU doesn't have the market on LDS players any more than ND does on the Catholic ones. It may be a unique tie that draws them to the university but it doesn't guarantee anything. Jake Heaps could have gone to any school he wanted. And if you really knew the Heaps, you'd know Jake has his sight set solely on the NFL. If he thought anywhere besides BYU could help more with that, that's where he'd be this very minute. What's more, if you knew Mormon culture at all, you would realize that players who don't have mission plans (like Heaps) generally tend to shy away from BYU as they feel they'll get pressured by coaches, teammates and classmates to go on one. Again, another reason for Jake to go anywhere else but BYU. He's at BYU because he feels he can win here, feels BYU will prepare him for the next level and loves the coaches he has that will help him to get there.
