Two QB system

redneckjedi wrote:

You're just drunk again. dude, step away from the crack pipe :)~

Crack pipe? Nah. We use good ol' fashioned moonshine out in these parts!

Nothing like drinking straight out of the tub!

This basically means that the competition between Riley and Jake has either raised both their level's of play, or they both choked at their opportunity to take control of the job. Should be interesting to watch.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

runbyu1 wrote:

Here's what I would love to see:



Both QB's line up next to each other in shot gun. On each snap Riley rolls left and Heaps rolls right. The defense will have to cover both sides of the field each time.



I know this sounds "Crowtenish" - but it would be fun to watch for a few series.

Dang that sounds like it would be confusing to a defender---let's re-write the college football playbook AGAIN!

I think we had someone seriously propose this back in the CougarBlue days. The consensus among posters on the thread (except for the author) was that you're putting an eligible receiver who can't block well in the backfield. That means the defense can come with one more pass rusher. Plus, your QBs are closer to the ends, making both of them closer to the edge of the pocket. Therefore, while it is unpredictable, it's not too confusing to the defense: the d-line collapses the pocket, you have an LB to spy or rush each QB, and you have 6 left to cover 4 in the pattern. The offense's initial formation is too bunched up to exploit the intial "who has the ball" confusion, because if they both split out, they have no protection, and if they both stay in, they're in the same place and you can sack both of them and sort out the mess later.



Honestly, the only time I've ever seen a 2-QB set actually work better than a 1-QB set is in NFL Blitz 2001 and in BYU intramural flag football. In both cases, it's because it's impossible to provide protection (in Blitz because d-linemen own o-lineman, in flag football because you can't actually make contact when you block or it's a penalty). So you snap it, and if the line can't pick up the rush, the QB throws it to the hot read, who is behind him and is still eligible to pass. If they can, run the play as usual. When you actually have a good o-line, there's no need for a 2-QB set except as a gimmick play.



I think for our 2 QB system to be most effective, we have to do things to catch defenses cheating. For example: I've seen video of Riley running the triple option. We need to do that in a game. We also need him to fake the dive hand off, then drop back and throw deep after the secondary has crept up. And we need to have him play drop back pass offense, too. When Jake is in, he needs to have some designed draws from the shotgun (or at least the famous old delay halfback draw BYU used as its entire running game for years), and probably a snap or two with the triple option as well, in addition to the normal drop back passing game. That way the defense can't drop 8 into coverage against Jake (or pin their ears back and blitz, either) without fear of the run, and they can't stack the box against Riley without fear of the pass. Every formation with either QB should have the defense guessing about run/pass for a second or so after the snap. That will give our TEs space over the middle, our o-line help with the initial push, our WRs a cushion and favorable coverages to work with, and the QB a little extra time to make decisions and deliver the ball. And all that together = yards and points for the offense.

This is not good. I trust that a starter will emerge after the first two games. If not BYU's offense will become a jack of all trades, master of none. Seriously, the triple option! We don't run the triple option. I'm not happy about this decision. How many of you Heaps lovers are going to agree with Heaps driving the length of the field for a score only to be replaced by Riley in the next series and vice versa. Bronco needs to find a starter. I hate this idea and don't point to the Chris Leak/Tim Tebow anomaly. This simply will not work effectively.

This is the right move. It allows the QBs to win the job on game days, with real playing time, and not have their season ended during fall camp. Nobody needs to get all worked up about this, it will work itself out. It allows Nelson to feel like he won the start, he gets to start, the first game, and show what he can do. It allows Heaps to settle down a little, watch the game, see what's happening, then he can go in and prove what he can do.



I'll promise you this, if Nelson struggles against UW, and Heaps throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game, Heaps will start against Air Force, and Nelson will come in for spot duty.

bball wrote:
I'll promise you this, if Nelson struggles against UW, and Heaps throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game, Heaps will start against Air Force, and Nelson will come in for spot duty.

And vice-versa as well?

Rather than announce that Nelson would start, why couldn't Bronco have said it is a game time decision and send Heaps out for the coin toss, then send Nelson out for the first series?



Just a thought

There can be only... two?



Sounds good.

snoscythe wrote:

I'll promise you this, if Nelson struggles against UW, and Heaps throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game, Heaps will start against Air Force, and Nelson will come in for spot duty.

And vice-versa as well?

If the vice-versa happens, and Neslon just kills it, then let's RS Heaps. UW is a good indicator of MWC bottom tier teams (yeah Riegn, I said it...). So if Riley can beat UW, he can beat 80% of the teams we play against.

BlueIsBetter wrote:

bball wrote:
I'll promise you this, if Nelson struggles against UW, and Heaps throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game, Heaps will start against Air Force, and Nelson will come in for spot duty.

And vice-versa as well?

If the vice-versa happens, and Neslon just kills it, then let's RS Heaps. UW is a good indicator of MWC bottom tier teams (yeah Riegn, I said it...). So if Riley can beat UW, he can beat 80% of the teams we play against.

Umm...if vice-versa happens, (Heaps struggles, Nelson throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game) Heaps will have already played and blown his chance at a RS. One snap = one year of eligibility.

Lawboy wrote:
I think he is going with both because you never really know what you have until they get in the game. Some guys are workout warriors, but panic in games. Other guys stink in practice, but rock on game day. You give both guys a chance to show they can get it done, and whoever does better wins the job. Plus, if Heaps does not, can still resdshirt him if he does not play after game 2. So this is a smart move. I like it.

Like I said, UW is a glorified scrimmage. We have no starter yet. Don't like it at all. If we can still win without having a starter then I will be very impressed with the byu coaches and the players.

QuarterbackU wrote:
This is not good. I trust that a starter will emerge after the first two games. If not BYU's offense will become a jack of all trades, master of none. Seriously, the triple option! We don't run the triple option. I'm not happy about this decision. How many of you Heaps lovers are going to agree with Heaps driving the length of the field for a score only to be replaced by Riley in the next series and vice versa. Bronco needs to find a starter. I hate this idea and don't point to the Chris Leak/Tim Tebow anomaly. This simply will not work effectively.

chris leak and tebow worked becuase it was not a two qb system. it was a primary qb and situation qb system. there is a big difference in my mind. i hope that this is what we end up having after a few games. we need a starter getting most of the reps and we need it bad. i am not optimistic about this working at all. I fear for our offense. good thing uw's defnese is suspect.

snoscythe wrote:

snoscythe wrote:

I'll promise you this, if Nelson struggles against UW, and Heaps throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game, Heaps will start against Air Force, and Nelson will come in for spot duty.

And vice-versa as well?

If the vice-versa happens, and Neslon just kills it, then let's RS Heaps. UW is a good indicator of MWC bottom tier teams (yeah Riegn, I said it...). So if Riley can beat UW, he can beat 80% of the teams we play against.

Umm...if vice-versa happens, (Heaps struggles, Nelson throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game) Heaps will have already played and blown his chance at a RS. One snap = one year of eligibility.

Not necessarily true. Depending on how many snaps you take and when they are, you can still RS. I'm not sure if injury is a necessary component or not. Harvey scored a TD against Tulsa in 2006 during his redshirt year... Again, since he was injured, that may have contributed. I'm not sure on the exact rule here.



http://www.byucougars.com/Profile.jsp?ID=2486

jonnylingo wrote:
So basically Washington is a glorified scrimmage for us. We are still trying to see who is going to step up and respond. It definitely adds just one more intriguing aspect to the game.

We are just a scrimmage? :roll:



Okay then, so what happens after we hang 40+ points on you? :crazy:

PurpleReign wrote:

So basically Washington is a glorified scrimmage for us. We are still trying to see who is going to step up and respond. It definitely adds just one more intriguing aspect to the game.

We are just a scrimmage? :roll:



Okay then, so what happens after we hang 40+ points on you? :crazy:

The defense runs gassers and pursuit drills as a punishment. It's a scrimmage, right? ;)

Can anyone one recall a 2-QB system that has led to a championship season?



I guess Florida pulled it off in 2006, but that year Tebow was very much a situational QB and Leak was the starter. That is what i think needs to happen, Heaps should be the go-to guy and Nelson should play in a limited situational role. Hopefully we will get there soon.



I think that this decision is because Bronco is insistent that new players pay their dues.

Doesn't this set Heaps up for a redshirt year next season? Then he becomes the heir apparent after 2011 when Nelson graduates. No sense burning a year of eligibility if Nelson proves he can win games this year.



I love the triple option. Not on every play like AF runs it, but I like it. Each QB is going to have to improve on his weakness though (Nelson on the pass and Heaps on the run) so teams don't just call a defense based on who is under center.

redneckjedi wrote:

BlueIsBetter wrote:

bball wrote:
I'll promise you this, if Nelson struggles against UW, and Heaps throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game, Heaps will start against Air Force, and Nelson will come in for spot duty.

And vice-versa as well?

If the vice-versa happens, and Neslon just kills it, then let's RS Heaps. UW is a good indicator of MWC bottom tier teams (yeah Riegn, I said it...). So if Riley can beat UW, he can beat 80% of the teams we play against.

Umm...if vice-versa happens, (Heaps struggles, Nelson throws well, throws a couple of TDs, avoids too many interceptions, and wins the game) Heaps will have already played and blown his chance at a RS. One snap = one year of eligibility.

Not necessarily true. Depending on how many snaps you take and when they are, you can still RS. I'm not sure if injury is a necessary component or not. Harvey scored a TD against Tulsa in 2006 during his redshirt year... Again, since he was injured, that may have contributed. I'm not sure on the exact rule here.



http://www.byucougars.com/Profile.jsp?ID=2486

You can get a medical redshirt if you played in less than 1/5 of the games and did not play in any conference games (i.e. any games with consequence in conference races).



A true redshirt, however, is unavailable the instant you play one snap. I don't think you want to bank on Heaps getting injured.

PurpleReign wrote:

So basically Washington is a glorified scrimmage for us. We are still trying to see who is going to step up and respond. It definitely adds just one more intriguing aspect to the game.

We are just a scrimmage? :roll:



Okay then, so what happens after we hang 40+ points on you? :crazy:

Our offense laughs because they will have hung 72+ on you...

PurpleReign wrote:

So basically Washington is a glorified scrimmage for us. We are still trying to see who is going to step up and respond. It definitely adds just one more intriguing aspect to the game.

We are just a scrimmage? :roll:



Okay then, so what happens after we hang 40+ points on you? :crazy:

Didn't the Cougar "D" shut down Sam Bradford last season opener?



I bet we will do the same to Jake Locker next week.