Game Planning for Riley

Everyone keeps saying "when defenses have an opportunity to game plan for Riley, he becomes ineffective". Well, isn't that what has been happening to HEaps? Teams have obviously been game planning for him and have stopped him. We will see if that happens to Riley since so far, we don't have enough evidence to support that that is what is going to happen. (the AFA game is not a good enough sampling to go off of and don't give me the USU song and dance, dude was a true freshman when he played for USU).

Yes, it is the same thing that has been happening to Heaps. And to be fair, a lot of our reservations have to do with what we have seen that has not happened this year, our assessment of Nelson's abilities, and projecting what we think will happen. Not totally reliable.



But at the same time...I don't think our projections are unfounded.



I see defenses loading the box, playing tight man coverage/inviting over the top throws, and just coming after Nelson. He will be unable to make them pay over the top, while the defense just focuses on limiting his ability to create plays with his legs.



He will get hit a lot, take the punishment, wear down, and his throws will get more erratic.



That is, unless he proves that he can consistently make the throws and soften the defenses focus on him. If you were asking me to put money on that, there is no way I would do it.



Every defense schemes for players. To me, this is a question of an obvious shortcoming in ability that makes it easier for the defense to prepare and gum up an offense. Jake has the ability to make the defense pay, he has just been playing so poorly that he has rendered his abilities useless. Probably worth going with Riley...but the limitations of doing so appear to be pretty obvious.

I think Doman needs to go to a spread-option offense for Riley, and let him run it. Stop trying to fit him into a "BYU-style" attack. Play to his strengths. We saw last year how fitting Riley into the BYU offense was not great, so let let him go with what he will be grat at. We have seen Texas do the same thing with Ash and McCoy, and they took off. Play to strength, not to scheme preference. If BYU does that, I think Riley will do just fine.

Lawboy wrote:
I think Doman needs to go to a spread-option offense for Riley, and let him run it. Stop trying to fit him into a "BYU-style" attack. Play to his strengths. We saw last year how fitting Riley into the BYU offense was not great, so let let him go with what he will be grat at. We have seen Texas do the same thing with Ash and McCoy, and they took off. Play to strength, not to scheme preference. If BYU does that, I think Riley will do just fine.

I agree with this. to Doman's credit, it looked like that is what Riley was doing in the USU game. Everything was from the shotgun and everyone was spread out. We will see more on Saturday.

Lawboy wrote:
I think Doman needs to go to a spread-option offense for Riley, and let him run it. Stop trying to fit him into a "BYU-style" attack. Play to his strengths. We saw last year how fitting Riley into the BYU offense was not great, so let let him go with what he will be grat at. We have seen Texas do the same thing with Ash and McCoy, and they took off. Play to strength, not to scheme preference. If BYU does that, I think Riley will do just fine.

1 week to install a completely new offense? you think that's a good idea?

The current offense sucks and doesn't seem to be too developed so why not?

We already run a spread, or spread option for 85% of our offense. It will not be a hard adjustment.



What happens, if and when they stack the box and man the corners though. SEE: Air Force, last year.



8-19, 73 yards passing

20 rushes for 95 yards.



I hope to see different, but I would be surprised if we don't see that defense employed. They give nelson space and time, he'll beat them with his arm and legs.



Also, we haven't even talked about gameplanning against those abs (which is impossible).

BlueIsBetter wrote:
We already run a spread, or spread option for 85% of our offense. It will not be a hard adjustment.



What happens, if and when they stack the box and man the corners though. SEE: Air Force, last year.



8-19, 73 yards passing

20 rushes for 95 yards.



I hope to see different, but I would be surprised if we don't see that defense employed. They give nelson space and time, he'll beat them with his arm and legs.



Also, we haven't even talked about gameplanning against those abs (which is impossible).

If it was so easy to stop Riley, then why didn't USU just put 8 in the box and dare Riley to throw? The bottom line is, he would beat that defense. he was injured in the AFA game which is why I said that was not a good enough sample to judge what he could do in a game. Given all the reps in practice (like what Heaps has gotten for over a year), I think that Riley would be a very effective QB and we would get the added benefit of his running abilities. Unless Riley shows a serious flaw in his abilities which causes defenses to be able to easily stop him, I want Heaps shelved for the next year and a half and let him develop. I wanted it done last year but they decided to split time and when Riley went down, heaps was gifted the starting job on a silver platter and frankly has not lived up to expectations. I defended him early this year because we had a rookie Ocoordinator but we just saw a backup QB that supposodly doesn't have the ability to throw further then 10 yards go out and run the same offense up and down the field for 2 scores. And the icing on the cake was a 96 yard drive in 2 minutes 30 seconds to win us the game. Time for the development of the golden boy to be from the bench/practice.

We wouldn't bee installing an entirely new offense, that would be like running Pro-style and going to Triple Option all in one week. We have a more pro-style offense right now, but we still have many aspects of the spread style that we ran for the last 6 years. I think we look at the style of play calling that Brandon used in the second half and we will see very similar play calling in the SJSU game. Look back at when Gifford Nielsen went down in ' 77(?), dude was a drop back passer then came Marc Wilson who was a more moblie guy. What did Scovill do? He just adjusted the offense to Wilson, got him out of the pocket, I'm certain that many of the plays were the same route combination's they simply adjusted where Wilson's position was on the field, I strongly believe you will see the same approach. The routes will be different due to arm strength differences, but the offense doesn't have to be completely changed, just adjusted.

To be fair, we haven't seen a healthy Riley in a game for more than a single play until last Friday. He was hurt last year, which obviously affected his ability to throw. I think he'll be a lot more effective now that he can both pass and run more efficiently.

Schmoe wrote:
To be fair, we haven't seen a healthy Riley in a game for more than a single play until last Friday. He was hurt last year, which obviously affected his ability to throw. I think he'll be a lot more effective now that he can both pass and run more efficiently.

I am excited to find out. SJSU will be a good test. They are about likecOle Miss and UsU in overall ability. AFA was better. I expect Riley to deliver a physical, hard-fought win.



One game at a time. We have little data on Nelson. Hopefully we get a lot of data Saturday.



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

I don't think much game planning is needed.



Riley himself said other than the designed QB runs the plays he completed were normal plays in the offense. Nothing changed other than the QB runs.



So, this idea that the offense needs to be retooled or redesigned to accommodate Riley's weaknesses is BS.



In the end, Riley had a better completion rate, a better 3rd down conversion rate and better redzone conversion rate than Heaps running the same offense.

If you listened to postgame interviews, Riley gave detailed breakdowns of what the defense was doing on key plays and why he checked down to the receiver he picked ad how he knew a receiver would adjust a route on a broken play. It showed superiority on how he reads the defense under the heat of a pass rush.



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

Starting at QB and coming in with "nothing to lose" have different effects on a person. I would be like the coaches and see how the QB's react this week. I also think there is more "upside" to starting Jake if he rebounds in practice than starting Nelson this week. If Nelson flounders like he did last year in all the games he played, then what? Bring in Heaps to lead them to an emotional win? I think there is a better chance of winning if Heaps starts because if he rebounds than we are golden, if he doesn't Riley comes in with almost none of the pressure, fresh body, and hopefully a worn out SJST defense.



But we could probably end all this if we would develope a run game. The horror I was seeing in this past game was that USU was able to run the ball on us and we were not able to run on them. Something seriously wrong with that in my estimation. And why the heck do they keep running JJ on short yardage up the middle plays? My thought is either bounce him to the outside or give it to Kariya up the middle.

I'm interested to see what Riley can do when HE'S game planning for opponents. He's never been the quarterback at BYU with the entire game plan around what he can do. He's never gotten all the snaps in practice. He's never had BYU coaches prepare an entire game plan for him and his skill set.



Even the AF game, that every one loves to tout as proof it's so easy to game plan for against Riley is a poor example. That game was a complete shoot from the hip for Anae and company after scrapping the original game plan in the 2nd quarter. That game was not a Riley game plan - it was a Riley and Jake game plan - that the coaches went away from.



How are other teams going to game plan for Riley when they've never seen an actual game plan designed around Riley?



I hope teams do think game planning for Riley is easy, because if they do Riley and his game plan just may eat them up.

imuakahuku wrote:
Starting at QB and coming in with "nothing to lose" have different effects on a person. I would be like the coaches and see how the QB's react this week. I also think there is more "upside" to starting Jake if he rebounds in practice than starting Nelson this week. If Nelson flounders like he did last year in all the games he played, then what? Bring in Heaps to lead them to an emotional win? I think there is a better chance of winning if Heaps starts because if he rebounds than we are golden, if he doesn't Riley comes in with almost none of the pressure, fresh body, and hopefully a worn out SJST defense.



But we could probably end all this if we would develope a run game. The horror I was seeing in this past game was that USU was able to run the ball on us and we were not able to run on them. Something seriously wrong with that in my estimation. And why the heck do they keep running JJ on short yardage up the middle plays? My thought is either bounce him to the outside or give it to Kariya up the middle.

We ran for 200 yards on USU. Nice improvement, don't you think. Maybe we can put Jimmer in to run. We have who we have - and right now, Riley makes what we have click. Jake and his apologists, make excuses.



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

If we implement the zone read, for Riley, similar to what TX did to us, then we will be able to exploit Riley's running ability, and hit passes as the DBs/Safeties have to honor the run and handle containment. A healthy dose of Power running up he middle by Kariya, Juice and some off tackle runs by Riley and JJ will soften up the DL. Passes to our now effective TEs and Hoffman, Jacobson and Apo will be a nice compliment. This is a perfect scenario for Riley and one in which he can excel. We get another 200 yards rushing and the passing game opens up. Bigger worry is our D being able to stop big plays against SJSU RB who is very quick and powerful.



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

Cougarbib2 wrote:

Starting at QB and coming in with "nothing to lose" have different effects on a person. I would be like the coaches and see how the QB's react this week. I also think there is more "upside" to starting Jake if he rebounds in practice than starting Nelson this week. If Nelson flounders like he did last year in all the games he played, then what? Bring in Heaps to lead them to an emotional win? I think there is a better chance of winning if Heaps starts because if he rebounds than we are golden, if he doesn't Riley comes in with almost none of the pressure, fresh body, and hopefully a worn out SJST defense.



But we could probably end all this if we would develope a run game. The horror I was seeing in this past game was that USU was able to run the ball on us and we were not able to run on them. Something seriously wrong with that in my estimation. And why the heck do they keep running JJ on short yardage up the middle plays? My thought is either bounce him to the outside or give it to Kariya up the middle.

We ran for 200 yards on USU. Nice improvement, don't you think. Maybe we can put Jimmer in to run. We have who we have - and right now, Riley makes what we have click. Jake and his apologists, make excuses.



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

I hope you are not calling me a jake appologist. I am simply stating what I think may be a good course. You don't have to like it. I want Jake to redshirt a year, I want him to develop into the greatest QB ever at BYU until Kuresa and then Magnum, then the next QB. Heck if JJ can throw put him in at QB. But I want what I think may give us the best chance of winning.



BTW our second half running was horrible. It is supposed to get better as we wear down the D not worse. Riley was the most effective runner-by far- in the second half (coincidentally also the one not adjusted/planned for at half time). We should be able to cram it down their throats in the second half the same way they are doing it to us. All I hear and heard was how great our O-line was, our talented stable of RB's, and our stingy DL and LB's. And I have seen the opposite. A line that gets stacked or beaten a lot by DL's and DL's that get pushed around in the second half. The only second half I have enjoyed so far this year was the Ole Miss game. I would like to see our boys start doing to the other teams what they have been doing to our boys. What I saw from Riley in the game was he brought back that fight which we had on the first drive of the game and somehow lost in the second and third quarters.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I'm interested to see what Riley can do when HE'S game planning for opponents. He's never been the quarterback at BYU with the entire game plan around what he can do. He's never gotten all the snaps in practice. He's never had BYU coaches prepare an entire game plan for him and his skill set.



Even the AF game, that every one loves to tout as proof it's so easy to game plan for against Riley is a poor example. That game was a complete shoot from the hip for Anae and company after scrapping the original game plan in the 2nd quarter. That game was not a Riley game plan - it was a Riley and Jake game plan - that the coaches went away from.



How are other teams going to game plan for Riley when they've never seen an actual game plan designed around Riley?



I hope teams do think game planning for Riley is easy, because if they do Riley and his game plan just may eat them up.

I think this is a fair post. Again, I think it all boils down to whether or not Riley can consistently make throws. If he can prove he can do this, he will be successful. I seriously doubt he can do it, but I am open to him proving me wrong. Besides, it wouldn't be drastically different than what we have seen the first few weeks of the season.

Cougarbib2 wrote:
We ran for 200 yards on USU. Nice improvement, don't you think. Maybe we can put Jimmer in to run. We have who we have - and right now, Riley makes what we have click. Jake and his apologists, make excuses.



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

Ok, so for all those who get irritated at those who doubt Nelson and are called "anti-Nelson," I think we should call out those who try to categorize anyone who questions Nelson as a "Heaps apologist" - as if there are only two available options upon which we can house our perspective.



I think a Heaps apologist would basically say that no matter what Jake does, he should be on the field. I have not read ONE post since last Friday that would suggest that is the case. Most appear to understand that Jake has played his way off the field for a time.



The bottom line is, there are many (myself included) who don't think Nelson is a viable option as a starting quarterback. Let this flare up whatever emotions you have, but that is my honest assessment. Truth be told, most of those who have witnessed Nelson can acknowledge this to a greater or lesser extent. Does that mean we are anti-Nelson?



At the same time, I would love to be proven wrong. Nelson has earned some form of opportunity. But it is kind of like Andrei Kirilenko...no question he has a valuable skill set, but you see him shoot enough, you know what you have got. I don't need to watch him practice...I have seen enough to know.



Clearly Heaps playing at the top of his game is the best case scenario for BYU. Anyone who thinks getting Nelson or Lark at the top of their game is better than Heaps at the top of his is fooling themselves. Does that make me a Heaps apologist?



Bottom line is Jake played his way to the bench and Nelson has earned a chance to prove himself. Nevertheless, those two points do not mean that Nelson is a solution.