Heaps and Nelson together

I would be interested in hearing what you all think about the possibility of having the two in the same backfield on occasion. When we have brought in Riley in the past everyone in America knows what he is going to do. If they were both in the backfield we have the option of a shotgun pass to either one. Defense has to play the throw and the run. Riley could also

play running back or half back pass. I really don't know enough about the technical to know if it would work, but it seems that the defense would have to play honest and it may open things up for Heaps to be able to find a target without rushing the play. I will be interested in your opinions.

I would be greatly opposed to this. Jake has played his way off the field. He's earned some time on the bench.



Something like what you are proposing is such a drastic change in the offense and our coaching staff isn't up to this kind of change when they struggle to even get current plays in.

We saw last year that the two qb system is not something that we should revisit. Jake hasn't been performing, so why put him back on the field? I know, we have a player who is more athletic and completes more passes, let's make him split time with a less-athletic player who completes less passes...

Schmoe wrote:
We saw last year that the two qb system is not something that we should revisit. Jake hasn't been performing, so why put him back on the field? I know, we have a player who is more athletic and completes more passes, let's make him split time with a less-athletic player who completes less passes...

I wasn't talking about splitting time. I was talking about using both at the same time forcing defenses to play straight up. Riley will be defensed in the future and Jake already is. It would seem that being on the field together would create some problems. I am not talking about every down either. I also think that Riley could be our best running back. Heaps will get some playing time at some point. If he does think what having Riley in the back field would do. Hand off to him, halfback pass, direct snap. When we switch quarterbacks everyone knows what we are going to do. By bringing in Riley with another quarterback still in just multiplies the options and creates defensive problems.

It would only create problems for BYU. Sorry, it's a bad idea. And I don't think Heaps will get playing time again this year. He hasn't earned it by his play on the field.

This is a horrible idea. I like the theory: you have one QB that is lights-out in the passing game and another one who is a gifted runner who can pass enough to keep the defense honest so even if the passing QB hands off to the running QB the DBs still have to play the pass and the run on the same play.



In reality however, the USU game showed us that at least for right now, Riley is actually a better passer AND runner than Jake. So unless you're going to teach Jake how to block there's not much point putting him in the backfield.

I think it should be considered. Edwards put Young in with Mcmahn and Young threw a pass to one of the recievers. I always wondered why they didn't do it more often and let Young run as well. You wouldn't do it a lot just once in a while to keep a defense jittery.

Why not put Lark and Munns back there too in a diamond formation?

snoscythe wrote:
Why not put Lark and Munns back there too in a diamond formation?

Perfect! That would certainly confuse the Defense. It certainly confuses Mongo. LOL!

;)

So, instead of having another athlete on the field, a running back or wide receiver, we'll take that place with a QB who has proven he can't throw consistently well and is not nearly as athletic.

nuk13 wrote:
I think it should be considered. Edwards put Young in with Mcmahn and Young threw a pass to one of the recievers. I always wondered why they didn't do it more often and let Young run as well. You wouldn't do it a lot just once in a while to keep a defense jittery.

Exactly my point. If we had EITHER a McMahon OR a Young right now, neither Jake nor Riley would get a sniff of the field and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Not having a dominant, lights-out QB means the on-field ration of athletes to QBs needs to go up, not down.

Schmoe wrote:
We saw last year that the two qb system is not something that we should revisit. Jake hasn't been performing, so why put him back on the field? I know, we have a player who is more athletic and completes more passes, let's make him split time with a less-athletic player who completes less passes...

QB2 was not the problem last year. The problem was Riley Nelson never was healthy and may or may not have been very good and Jake Heaps was not even mediocre until we got well into the cupcake section of the schedule. Injured QB and True freshman QB with more entitlement issues than heart would have been a disaster no matter which one started. Coaches messed up big time by not developing Nelson in 2009 and giving Lark and Heaps significant reps as backups in Spring / fall 2010. All of the BS about Heaps not getting enough reps was just chapter 1 in the Jake Heaps Apologists Book of Excuses.



Maybe in this scenario Nelson gets protected better including from himself in camp - green jersey whether he like it or not - and avoids injury. I know he said that was not when the injury happened, but he must have been fine prior to that. In retrospect maybe he was calling out Jake that day. But most likely, Nelson would have been out by FSU in any event - and our coaches had all of the eggs in the Heaps basket - and he was not ready to play live. That was the problem most of the last 14 games.



Don't get me wrong. Jake Heaps still is not ready and should be back-up QB in a tight game situation, but with a lead, Lark should go in and get some experience until he becomes number 2 or 1 or proves he is not capable.



Future back- up planning. Unless Heaps shows dramatic on field improvement along with much quieter off field grit and leadership, or unless Lark is a bust - Redshirt Heaps in 2012. That schedule will be a head knocker even for a QB with heart.



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

Before the season started I thought Riley should have been moved to RB to use his feet and give options for trick plays.

Like others have said, Nelson is a better in-game passer right now than Jake Heaps is.



If defenses start putting 8 or 9 in the box to stop Nelson's running then he'll beat them through the air.

hawkwing wrote:
Like others have said, Nelson is a better in-game passer right now than Jake Heaps is.



If defenses start putting 8 or 9 in the box to stop Nelson's running then he'll beat them through the air.

USU coach indicated that they were emtying the box when Heaps was in ie not even worrying that he would run effectively under any circumstance. Didnt fear our running game much either.



When Nelson came in, he said they had to quit emptying the box and then amazingly receivers were more open and made plays when Riley made catchable, not spectacular, throws.



Nelson is a decent passer. Heaps is not right now.



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

I still want to see what Riley can do with starters reps in practice. This is something he's never had at BYU. The argument that Heaps was held back by splitting reps last year is equally applicable to Riley. In fact, you can probably argue that Riley is even further behind where Jake should because of an even greater lack of practice reps.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I still want to see what Riley can do with starters reps in practice. This is something he's never had at BYU. The argument that Heaps was held back by splitting reps last year is equally applicable to Riley. In fact, you can probably argue that Riley is even further behind where Jake should because of an even greater lack of practice reps.

+1

This is becoming a which quarterback should be the starter thread. If I had my preference it would be Lark. My idea has to do with the times when they brought Riley in for special situations. I wondered why they would take Heaps out. The element of surprise was gone. Everyone knew that Riley was most likely to run for a first down just like he did prior to the first touchdown. There are so many options that could take place just by leaving Heaps in at the same time plus it requires the the other team to defense both QB's strengths. In addition you have a running back in Riley that is not know for fumbling after a big run.

BYUgeezer wrote:
This is becoming a which quarterback should be the starter thread. If I had my preference it would be Lark. My idea has to do with the times when they brought Riley in for special situations. I wondered why they would take Heaps out. The element of surprise was gone. Everyone knew that Riley was most likely to run for a first down just like he did prior to the first touchdown. There are so many options that could take place just by leaving Heaps in at the same time plus it requires the the other team to defense both QB's strengths. In addition you have a running back in Riley that is not know for fumbling after a big run.

You're wrong on this idea as well. Lark isn't the starter, nor should he be. You're 0-2 in this thread on good ideas.



Right now Heaps doesn't have any strengths. Your ideas are flat out wrong and shouldn't be given any consideration from the coaching staff. It's time to abandon those ideas.

Much of the problem with last years two qb system was its implementation. Switching qb's by series is about the worst idea I've ever heard of--especially when they are such different styles of qbs. Trying to be a wildcat/option offense for a whole series, then switching for a whole series to a drop back pass for a series, then back and forth was a terrible idea. If you insist on playing two qbs, you have a much better chance for success if you just designate one as your primary offense and use the other to supplement it 3 or 4 times a drive. And if one starts having more success, go with it. This is what Texas did to us. It's also what TCU does to us with their wildcat etc.



In this case, if Riley and Heaps were in the same backfield, it would only be for some sort of trickeration. That might work maybe twice in the whole season. Otherwise, there is nothing to gain by taking out a capable running back, receiver or blocker so that Jake can be on the field as a useless distraction to his own offense. He's just not a threat to defenses at this point.