CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

I think I understand my issue with Jake Heaps

by taekwondave · 8/11/2010

Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BYUcougfan
I am not so much pro Heaps as I am against Nelsen. I don't mind the occasional option play, but I certainly don't want 2 years of watching BYU as an option team, which is what we will become when opposing teams quickly realize the guy can't stretch the field.
S
SpiffCoug
BYUcougfan wrote:
I am not so much pro Heaps as I am against Nelsen. I don't mind the occasional option play, but I certainly don't want 2 years of watching BYU as an option team, which is what we will become when opposing teams quickly realize the guy can't stretch the field.

Excellent first post!



I absolutely agree that if Riley Nelson is named the starter, BYU will become an option team. I wonder if we could get Barry Switzer or Tom Osborne to come be a special advisor to help us properly run the option.



You can't really think that BYU coaches don't have confidence in Riley's ability to lead the team. Sure they're going to have to tailor it to his strengths (Bronco even said as much yesterday when he said he's going to have to deal with Riley's running as it's one of the things he does best). But they certainly aren't to go make wholesale changes to the offense.
S
Schmoe
How many times has BYU run the option in practice? If Nelson is named the starter by making more plays out of the same formations and calls as Heaps, Lark, and Munns, then why would we suddenly change to running the option?
M
Mars
Schmoe wrote:
How many times has BYU run the option in practice? If Nelson is named the starter by making more plays out of the same formations and calls as Heaps, Lark, and Munns, then why would we suddenly change to running the option?

Collie used to run it, right?
S
SpiffCoug
Mars wrote:
How many times has BYU run the option in practice? If Nelson is named the starter by making more plays out of the same formations and calls as Heaps, Lark, and Munns, then why would we suddenly change to running the option?

Collie used to run it, right?

Wildcat does not equal option.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
B
BYUcougfan
I am not a fan of putting a QB in the game that can't throw the ball down the field. If Nelsen is the starter, then opposing secondaries are going to be playing way up because they won't have to respect anything deep, just like in 2002 and 2003 when we did not have receivers with any kind of speed.



I'll be happy to see him come in on 3rd and 4 from the 25 to run some sort of option play. I am sure Riley is a great guy, but if he is the best QB we have in camp, then BYU is in trouble.
C
CAFB_04-12
BYUcougfan wrote:
I am not so much pro Heaps as I am against Nelsen. I don't mind the occasional option play, but I certainly don't want 2 years of watching BYU as an option team, which is what we will become when opposing teams quickly realize the guy can't stretch the field.

Some of my favorite all-time BYU plays were Doman options to Staley. Of course, who knows if Nelson is another Doman or if JJ is another Staley...
S
SpiffCoug
BYUcougfan wrote:
I am not a fan of putting a QB in the game that can't throw the ball down the field. If Nelsen is the starter, then opposing secondaries are going to be playing way up because they won't have to respect anything deep, just like in 2002 and 2003 when we did not have receivers with any kind of speed.

Our overall talent level is not even comparable to 2002 or 2003. But if defenses are playing "way up" then it would be that much easier to beat them "deep" because "going deep" won't have to be 40 yards down field


BYUcougfan wrote:
I am sure Riley is a great guy, but if he is the best QB we have in camp, then BYU is in trouble.

Really? This is what I don't get. Riley is not some poor schlub the coaches pulled from biology 101. He is a talented player. BYU will not be in trouble if he is the starter. He has too much talent around him to be in trouble.



BYU won't have a poor record with Riley. Unless you think 8-4 is a poor record, which is the lower end of wins for either QB.
W
Wickchad
kitic77 wrote:
Schmoe wrote:
How many times has BYU run the option in practice? If Nelson is named the starter by making more plays out of the same formations and calls as Heaps, Lark, and Munns, then why would we suddenly change to running the option?

Collie used to run it, right?

Wildcat does not equal option.


Max Hall and Austin Collie actually did run the option during the first drive of the UCLA game. It went for a first down. I thought that series was actually the best scripted series of Anae's career. (The OU drive goes to Max in the 2 minute offense...) Ever since then I haven't felt like he has been as creative in attacking a teams weaknesses or surprising them with things we hadn't done before. Worse scripted series of Anae's career was last year against Utah with 2 wildcats to Unga for a three and out...



Back on topic...



The reason I am excited about seeing Heaps start as a true freshman is the possibility that we could have a TRUE freshman lead the team and do things that rarely is done across the nation. Imagine if we had a spectacular QB for four years (That's why I am in the Heaps serves a four year mission in Provo camp...)



If Heaps starts out slow and loses his confidence then I have no problem shifting to an offense run by Nelson that features a lot of the option. I really wouldn't mind watching an offense similar to Utah's in 2004 when they ran a lot of spread option. That would not be boring football. Ultimately just win baby!
C
Cougs_Rule
Tdave, the "qb battle" is getting ugly? Or the "discussion" is getting ugly on this relatively insignificant corner of the world carried on by mostly men who either are neglecting their families or their studies or their job because they love BYU football so much? Its for fun! :-)

Psychologists call your condition, as stated in your first post of this thread, "a reactive formation." Maybe you should form your own opinion, have fun sharing and bantering and not live off of or in reaction to everyone else's opinion.

Good grief. why have I waisted 15 minutes reading and posting on this thread when I know that for sure that Jake will be the starter by game 3 or 4 if not sooner. :-)
Sponsored Advertisementad content
T
taekwondave
dmcougar wrote:
Tdave, the "qb battle" is getting ugly? Or the "discussion" is getting ugly on this relatively insignificant corner of the world carried on by mostly men who either are neglecting their families or their studies or their job because they love BYU football so much? Its for fun! :-)

Psychologists call your condition, as stated in your first post of this thread, "a reactive formation." Maybe you should form your own opinion, have fun sharing and bantering and not live off of or in reaction to everyone else's opinion.

Good grief. why have I waisted 15 minutes reading and posting on this thread when I know that for sure that Jake will be the starter by game 3 or 4 if not sooner. :-)


I stand corrected. That is what I meant, of course. I haven't heard of any "ugliness" in the actual qb race, just a little ugliness in the discussion of it. Touche.



As for my "reactive formation"...I need to brush up on my psychology obviously. As for "living off of or in reaction to everyone else's opinion"...this is a discussion forum. That's part of the gig. I form plenty of my own opinions and post them regularly. Some of those opinions are related to what goes on here on this board. I don't see anything wrong with that.



As for this being "for fun!" I agree. This is very fun for me. I think it's fun for everyone. That's why we come here. Is there something about my post that indicates I DON'T enjoy making my opinion heard? :skeptic:
C
Cougs_Rule
Well, I would say I dont think you understand your issue with jake heaps, yet. Or maybe you have finally gained resolution through this post and and you can now embrace your inner child which wants to believe in jake. jk
C
Cougarbib
I recognize that a strong case could be made for Heaps or Nelson and with a stretch for either of the other 2. Lark has the best balance of both skillsets (pass and run). Munns is a man amongst boys NFL protypical stud.



We might just end up needing all 4 of them over the next 6 years.



I would just like to see a little respect shown to all 4 of them. They sacrificed to be here. I don't have a problem that some of you think it is all over and this is just a go-through-the-motiions thing (I don't think it is in case this statement creates any confusion about that). But show respect for all 4 of them.



Secondly, several of you are in love with a fantasy QB and fantasy season and fanasy 4 years thing. The fact that every single one of us hopes Heaps is really that good should not result in statements the QB 1, 2, or 3 sucks.
C
Cougs_Rule
Cougarbib2 wrote:
I recognize that a strong case could be made for Heaps or Nelson and with a stretch for either of the other 2. Lark has the best balance of both skillsets (pass and run). Munns is a man amongst boys NFL protypical stud.



We might just end up needing all 4 of them over the next 6 years.



I would just like to see a little respect shown to all 4 of them. They sacrificed to be here. I don't have a problem that some of you think it is all over and this is just a go-through-the-motiions thing (I don't think it is in case this statement creates any confusion about that). But show respect for all 4 of them.



Secondly, several of you are in love with a fantasy QB and fantasy season and fanasy 4 years thing. The fact that every single one of us hopes Heaps is really that good should not result in statements the QB 1, 2, or 3 sucks.


There, see Dave, what he said. Believe in Munns if you need. Nobody and I mean nobody is cheering for him or quoting stats or anything that I have seen. Hes the REAL FANTASY QB and will have a FANTASY year, in ,well....sometime after Jake gets dethroned.

SHeesh Cougarbib, can we pick our guy without believing he will have a fantasy year? Nelson's character and leadership seems very apparent--maybe the best out of all of these guys. If I dont think he is the guy it doesnt mean I disrespect him.
M
Mars
kitic77 wrote:
Schmoe wrote:
How many times has BYU run the option in practice? If Nelson is named the starter by making more plays out of the same formations and calls as Heaps, Lark, and Munns, then why would we suddenly change to running the option?
Collie used to run it, right?
Wildcat does not equal option.

I know.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
Mars
Cougarbib2 wrote:
several of you are in love with a fantasy QB and fantasy season and fanasy 4 years thing. The fact that every single one of us hopes Heaps is really that good should not result in statements the QB 1, 2, or 3 sucks.

Again, I think that some are guilty of putting words into others' mouths here. I don't recall anyone saying that Nelson "sucks". Me, I'm concerned by his interceptions, fumbles, and sacks, all three stats which he leads fall camp in.



Besides, I don't think 11-2 is a "fantasy" expectation. 13-0 is. And there really isn't anything wrong with that mindset either (except for the eventual pain of disappointment).
J
jonnylingo
Mars wrote:
since i have apparently been labeled a "heaps camp" guy, I wouldn't have a problem if heaps didn't start... I don't think there are many here who would flip out. mars is the only one that comes to mind.

Really? Thanks for speaking for me, but that's not true. I expect Nelson to start against Washington, and for Heaps to play as well. I don't see either blue-shirting this year.



I think the whole "Heaps camp" idea is stupid. We aren't supposed to use reason and logic to make our opinions?



Last year I was in "Max Hall's camp". This year I'm in "Matt Reynolds' camp", "Andrew Rich's camp", "Brian Logan's camp", "Jordan Pendleton's camp", etc. Some people are saying that like it's a bad thing. Seems pretty immature of them.


I stand corrected.
Page 2 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.