CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Would we have won playing only Heaps?

by Mars · 9/5/2010

Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
Mars


Simple question(s):



-Would BYU have scored more or less points if Riley Nelson had played all game against Washington?

-Would BYU have scored more or less points if Jake Heaps had played all game against Washington?





I, for one, think the dual-quarterbacks system worked nearly perfectly to provide different looks to our offense and score the most points possible. As unpopular as that opinion may be...
S
Schmoe
With the way our receivers were dropping the ball, I think that a more run-based offense that Nelson runs would have been more effective throughout the game last night. I don't think that this will always be true, as I expect our receivers to fix their case of butterfingers, but Nelson gave us the best chance to win last night.
U
urroner
Schmoe wrote:
I don't think that this will always be true, as I expect our receivers to fix their case of butterfingers, but Nelson gave us the best chance to win last night.




BUTTERFINGERS!!!!



http://www.retrobike.net/forum/files/drooling_homer_140.gif" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
B
bball
Both QBs were a bit inconsistent. Nelson badly missed on several throws, Heaps missed some too, but receivers dropped Heaps' balls, not Nelsons. Heaps may have been throwing too hard, still receivers must catch the ball, hard, soft, or otherwise. The reason we won, I think, from an offensive standpoint, is neither QB through any interceptions. We had no turnovers in the game, so we didn't give the game away.



I'm very interested in the fact that when teammates comment about the QBs, they always mention Heaps, not Nelson. I still believe, by season's end, Heaps will be the starter, and Nelson will be used in certain situations.



Somehow, I don't think the coaches will alternate QBs in the same way they did yesterday, against AF. I think we'll see a different scheme, maybe each QB will play alternating quarters, but I don't see them alternating QBs on every series.
C
Cougarbib
And Locker badly missed on more throws than Heaps and Nelson combined and had a couple of passes dropped? This was game 1 folks. It was Nelson's first prime-time action since his USU days and Heaps first ever. Both are good and both will improve. One or both will eventually be great.



It is amazing to me that a couple of folks can't let go of the notion that Heaps will blow past Nelson in a few weeks. He might. He might not. I can see why Bronco did not pick one QB.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
Sponsored Advertisementad content
S
Schmoe
bball wrote:
...receivers dropped Heaps' balls, not Nelsons. .


I remember a beautifully thrown timing route (12 yard out route) by Nelson that was dropped on a third down, I don't know if there were others, but it seemed that receivers were dropping passes from both QBs.
C
craigoscarson
I think if you asked Sarkisian, he might have preferred BYU to play only one of either QB. He's got to make sure his mediocre defense from last year is prepared and not having tape on either QB with BYU had to have been a logistical nightmare.



We're talking about college football players not rocket scientists; it's hard enough for some of those gorillas to remember one game plan; let alone 2 and it's not like UW brought back an all world defense from last year.



As long as both QBs stay humble and one doesn't just all of a sudden kick into another gear we didn't know they had, this system is going to do the trick, particularly if our special teams and defense stay solid.
S
snoscythe
You do realize your poll options ask the same three questions twice, right? The only difference is the glass half empty/full dichotomy.



So far, it looks unanimous.



Heaps started very sketchy (first pass hit TWO UW defenders in the hands), but he came on at the end and showed why he's splitting reps. I chalk his performance up to first game jitters and if his in game improvement is a sign of his ability to improve, this 2-QB system could be very dangerous as long as the team keeps buying into it.
F
frdbtr
I didn't like the 2 QB system at all. Our offense never had any rythm to it. I also felt MUCH more comfortable with what the offense was going to do when Nelson was in there. It is time to give him the ball and put Heaps on the shelf for 2 years.
A
AmmonCougar1
frdbtr wrote:
I didn't like the 2 QB system at all. Our offense never had any rythm to it. I also felt MUCH more comfortable with what the offense was going to do when Nelson was in there. It is time to give him the ball and put Heaps on the shelf for 2 years.

I disagree. I think we as fans may have felt like there was no rhythm but in listening to the players and coaches after the game I'm convinced it is fine to have both QB's splitting time as they are. I think every other series is also the most equitable way to split time as well. Going every other quarter would not work as well as possessions vary depending on how much time our plays or the opponents plays take. Plus, how do you solve the challenge of who assumes the drive that began in the 1st and carried to the 2nd?



I was impressed with the teamwork of the QB's especially and if all players (same thing is happening with TE's, RB's & Receivers, not to mention LB's and others) understand that coming to BYU will not necessarily fulfill their expectations of stardom due to the number of players who will get playtime and are willing to play in such a system then we will be fine...for a long, long time!



Go COugs!!!



J. Child

Ammon, ID
Sponsored Advertisementad content
M
mizzoucoug
My feeling coming into this game was that we would need Riley's scrappiness to win. I hoped for a pretty win, but this season has just begun and we can't afford to throw away W's. Riley kept UW off balance very well and led us to victory. Obviously he had the advantage of a short field 2x and didn't look very good when he had to start from the 20. Idk, but we needed Riley's skillset more than Heaps' in a game like this where so much about the team was uncertain.
C
craigoscarson
Our true freshman QB did not make one fatal mistake in his first college game against a team that beat USC last year. How can we not look at that and project that by the end of the season, he's going to be much better given the snaps he's getting early?



There is no question that Jake has a much much higher ceiling than Riley. This 2 qb rotation also allows these guys to get a breather, calm down and have an idea of what their play calls will be before getting back in, and it certainly keeps defense honest when they have to plan for 2 players that are very different.



If at some point in the season, we run into a 1st half or 2nd half where we have to score with less than 3 minutes and a long field, would you really use Nelson instead or a guy that can make every throw? And if that guy you chose is Heaps, do you really want to shelve him until that time comes?
S
Sammich
frdbtr wrote:
I didn't like the 2 QB system at all. Our offense never had any rythm to it. I also felt MUCH more comfortable with what the offense was going to do when Nelson was in there. It is time to give him the ball and put Heaps on the shelf for 2 years.

I didn't see any rhythm problems this game that couldn't be ascribed to first-game shakiness. And I think the post above is important---because of the two-qb system, the defense had to prepare very differently than they would have if they were just playing against Nelson. I have confidence in Nelson, but not so much that I trust him to carry the team alone yet.
S
snoscythe
craigoscarson wrote:
If at some point in the season, we run into a 1st half or 2nd half where we have to score with less than 3 minutes and a long field, would you really use Nelson instead or a guy that can make every throw? And if that guy you chose is Heaps, do you really want to shelve him until that time comes?


The guy who can make every throw, but he needs to spend some time with his playbook before I call on him in that situation. At least 4 times he and the receiver we not on the same page. Maybe later on in the season, but Heaps doesn't look comfortable enough with the playbook for me to call on him to win the game in the fourth quarter at this point. I don't care how well you throw the ball--you have to know where your guys are going to be to get the ball there.
J
jonnylingo
snoscythe wrote:
You do realize your poll options ask the same three questions twice, right? The only difference is the glass half empty/full dichotomy.



So far, it looks unanimous.



Heaps started very sketchy (first pass hit TWO UW defenders in the hands), but he came on at the end and showed why he's splitting reps. I chalk his performance up to first game jitters and if his in game improvement is a sign of his ability to improve, this 2-QB system could be very dangerous as long as the team keeps buying into it.

I disagree with the tone of the post. Heaps was incredibly calm and poised for being a true freshman. What he did was incredible for being a true freshman. Agree little jitters on first drive but he was very impressive. Riley waas great to. He is a gamer. Tough as nails. There were times that I was thinking why is riley not our running back. He is more difficult to take dowm than luigi.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
Sponsored Advertisementad content
C
CougarPeasant
Nelson won the game for BYU yesterday and Heaps did not lose it. Both were effective at times, while both made first game mistakes. Nelson's accuracy at times made me cringe, but Heaps was so anxious at times to get rid of the ball that I was worried he'd throw a pick or never find a good rhythm. Only more playing time will fix those issues.



Washington brought a lot of heat on Heaps, which he handled well for the most part. I really felt that he rushed his reads, but made the right one most of the time. He rarely went through all of his options and focused on only his first and second options. I really think the AFA game will allow both players to settle in and have more time to make reads and throws.



As an aside, I think Heaps will get the start over Nelson in the USU game for similar reasons that Nelson started over Heaps against Washington.
S
snoscythe
jonnylingo wrote:
You do realize your poll options ask the same three questions twice, right? The only difference is the glass half empty/full dichotomy.



So far, it looks unanimous.



Heaps started very sketchy (first pass hit TWO UW defenders in the hands), but he came on at the end and showed why he's splitting reps. I chalk his performance up to first game jitters and if his in game improvement is a sign of his ability to improve, this 2-QB system could be very dangerous as long as the team keeps buying into it.

I disagree with the tone of the post. Heaps was incredibly calm and poised for being a true freshman. What he did was incredible for being a true freshman. Agree little jitters on first drive but he was very impressive. Riley waas great to. He is a gamer. Tough as nails. There were times that I was thinking why is riley not our running back. He is more difficult to take dowm than luigi.



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


What tone? :skeptic: As far as I can tell, you had the same impressions--Jake started sketchy, but came on to show why this is a tough decision. I just don't understand what "tone" was so disagreeable.
B
blue42
CougarPeasant wrote:
Nelson won the game for BYU yesterday and Heaps did not lose it. Both were effective at times, while both made first game mistakes. Nelson's accuracy at times made me cringe, but Heaps was so anxious at times to get rid of the ball that I was worried he'd throw a pick or never find a good rhythm. Only more playing time will fix those issues.



Washington brought a lot of heat on Heaps, which he handled well for the most part. I really felt that he rushed his reads, but made the right one most of the time. He rarely went through all of his options and focused on only his first and second options. I really think the AFA game will allow both players to settle in and have more time to make reads and throws.



As an aside, I think Heaps will get the start over Nelson in the USU game for similar reasons that Nelson started over Heaps against Washington.


+1 except for the USU comment. I don't think Bronco would have any qualms about starting Nelson against USU, in fact I hope he lets Nelson start that game because it may cause them to put too much focus and attention on that aspect and maybe get caught up in the moment and forget about the bigger picture, which would be the W.
M
Mars
snoscythe wrote:
You do realize your poll options ask the same three questions twice, right? The only difference is the glass half empty/full dichotomy. So far, it looks unanimous.

If you noticed, everyone gets to choose TWO options. And though Riley is favored, nothing looks even close to unanimous.



Honestly, Riley looked better. But I temper that with the knowledge that:

1- As Schmoe pointed out, coaches ran JJ a lot more with Riley in the 1st half, where Heaps didn't get that huge help. Neither QB looks good without him.

2- Heaps looked better in the 2nd half, once they quit making him throw 3 times in a row, but once BYU got the lead coaches tied him down to a conservative, run-out-the-clock scheme. Typical Bronco style, and I still don't like it. Certainly doesn't make any QB look good.

3- Riley had 1 more series overall than Jake did.





As a side note, I predicted before the game that Nelson and Heaps would switch series, and each get about 50% of the snaps. Some people brushed me off or called me nuts. Many still don't get that Bronco doesn't run things like any typical, sane, rational head football coach runs things- he's all his own animal. And mostly, that is a very, very good thing for BYU.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.