Paul Shoemaker Weighs In

It's worth a read:



http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700184614/Riley-Nelson-or-Jake-Heaps-A-former-BYU-quarterbacks-insight.html



Former QB says to go with Nelson. But, what does he know, right? ;)

byufan4ever wrote:
It's worth a read:



http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700184614/Riley-Nelson-or-Jake-Heaps-A-former-BYU-quarterbacks-insight.html



Former QB says to go with Nelson. But, what does he know, right? ;)

While I agree going with Nelson might be a good idea if the team can't perform with Jake, remember that Shoemaker was in the same postion back then as Nelson is now. Maybe a bias?

vancouvercougar wrote:



While I agree going with Nelson might be a good idea if the team can't perform with Jake, remember that Shoemaker was in the same postion back then as Nelson is now. Maybe a bias?

As I was reading that, it was pretty obvious that he is biased.

vancouvercougar wrote:

It's worth a read:



http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700184614/Riley-Nelson-or-Jake-Heaps-A-former-BYU-quarterbacks-insight.html



Former QB says to go with Nelson. But, what does he know, right? ;)

While I agree going with Nelson might be a good idea if the team can't perform with Jake, remember that Shoemaker was in the same postion back then as Nelson is now. Maybe a bias?

Maybe a bias, but maybe since he was in the same position he knows better than us, right? I'm not professing to know, but I give more credibility to Shoemaker BECAUSE he was in the same position.

Sounds fairly biased, although I can't disagree with what he is saying.

He said "go with the hot hand" who is Nelson right now. There doesn't need to be bias to see that is sound logic.

What bias? Paul Shoemaker was the Jake Heaps of the 90s--the guy who came in undefeated from high school and everyone thought he was going to be the next Detmer. The difference was that Shoemaker had to earn it first, and he never panned out. If we had Scout.com and Rivals.com in the 90s, pre-BYU he would be Heaps v.1.0.



In reality, more than anyone else, Shoemaker is uniquely qualified to view this from BOTH sides of the equation--the favored golden child that disappointed as well as the unlikely hero off the bench who created a QB quandry by the level of his play.

frdbtr wrote:
He said "go with the hot hand" who is Nelson right now. There doesn't need to be bias to see that is sound logic.

Heaps isn't the hot hand, so Heaps-ites claim it's bias because they can't claim Heaps has the hot hand. So the author's credibility must be attacked to preserve Heaps-ites' position on the matter.



Riley has the hot hand, so even if you perscribe to the "play the hot hand" logic, by default the Heaps-ites consider you a Riley-ite.



Politics at its finest.

Gunk wrote:

He said "go with the hot hand" who is Nelson right now. There doesn't need to be bias to see that is sound logic.

Heaps isn't the hot hand, so Heaps-ites claim it's bias because they can't claim Heaps has the hot hand. So the author's credibility must be attacked to preserve Heaps-ites' position on the matter.



Riley has the hot hand, so even if you perscribe to the "play the hot hand" logic, by default the Heaps-ites consider you a Riley-ite.



Politics at its finest.

LOL! funny.

So, what happens when Nelson starts to stink? I mean, he is limited in what he can do. He can run and he can throw intermediate passes. Defenses are going to key into that. What happens when he struggles? Do we call for his head? Do we demand Heaps comes back in? I am a firm believer in developing stability and letting your QB know he doesn't have to look over his shoulder. This entire thing is creating a terrible situation. Nelson will always be looking over his shoulder, Heaps will too. I just hope the better QB steps up and puts this all to rest.

frdbtr wrote:

frdbtr wrote:
He said "go with the hot hand" who is Nelson right now. There doesn't need to be bias to see that is sound logic.

Heaps isn't the hot hand, so Heaps-ites claim it's bias because they can't claim Heaps has the hot hand. So the author's credibility must be attacked to preserve Heaps-ites' position on the matter.



Riley has the hot hand, so even if you perscribe to the "play the hot hand" logic, by default the Heaps-ites consider you a Riley-ite.



Politics at its finest.

LOL! funny.

"..niether were there any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of BYU, heirs to the kingdom of the Cougar" 8)

Cougarpoke wrote:
So, what happens when Nelson starts to stink? I mean, he is limited in what he can do. He can run and he can throw intermediate passes. Defenses are going to key into that. What happens when he struggles? Do we call for his head? Do we demand Heaps comes back in? I am a firm believer in developing stability and letting your QB know he doesn't have to look over his shoulder. This entire thing is creating a terrible situation. Nelson will always be looking over his shoulder, Heaps will too. I just hope the better QB steps up and puts this all to rest.

I've been thinking about this "Nelson is limited" business. Accuracy-wise, he showed he could get it done last week. He was 10-14 and two TDs. (Yeah, one was flukey - he was still pretty accurate.) He also completed a pass that went 40 yards past the line of scrimmage, probably 45 in the air. Yes, that's probably his maximum range. But if our game plan requires ANY QB to be throwing further than that on a regular basis, I would question that game plan. What he does lack in velocity I think he can make up for by staying alive in the pocket longer and letting guys come more open; makes for an easier pass to throw and an easier ball to catch. Also, his running ability make safeties and linebackers want to peek in the backfield while in coverage, which will further help his receivers open up.



My conclusion so far to this mental experiment is that Nelson can be about as successful as Doman was, and I like that. Doman's long ball was not great, and it didn't matter because he didn't need it to be great. The games Crowton called for a lot of long balls were frustrating because he tended to try and put everything into the throw and then overthrow his guy. I would argue that Nelson probably has a better supporting cast on offense than Doman had with the very notable exception of Staley. Nelson's game Saturday showed that DiLuigi and Kariya are enough of a threat in both the passing and running game that there's an opportunity for significant misdirection in the defense regardless of the play call, which was one of the big factors in the Doman/Staley offensive success. That duality should help him have an easier time throwing the ball like he did Saturday.



I really think Nelson, in conjunction with solid defense and special teams play, should have us in a position to win every game we have left. I also think he could put up some pretty big numbers as well.

I agree. No one calls 60 yard bombs because most QBs can't make that throw. It is much better to throw short to intermediate routes where the receiver can actually get YAC. I can't remember who posted it, but for whatever reason those receivers catching Heaps throws don't get a lot of YAC. That is very limiting to the offense. It would be useful to measure the YAC for both QBs. It seemed to me the receivers got more YAC after Rileys throws--probably because he kept play alive longer with his throws instead of locking in and airing it out as soon as he felt pressure. Believe me, I was in the Heaps camp. He hasn't delivered, so I am in favor of giving him some development time so that he can be that great BYU QB as a Redshirt Junior and Senior. Clearly it isn't working right now. If he does redshirt, all of the upper classmen that have a problem with him may be gone, and the team may be a more cohesive unit.

Gunk wrote:
Heaps isn't the hot hand, so Heaps-ites claim it's bias because they can't claim Heaps has the hot hand. So the author's credibility must be attacked to preserve Heaps-ites' position on the matter.



Riley has the hot hand, so even if you perscribe to the "play the hot hand" logic, by default the Heaps-ites consider you a Riley-ite.



Politics at its finest.

I'm not attacking you in anyway, Gunk, in fact I am agreeing with you to a point. You have illustrated perfectly why the quality of (football) discussion on this board has been in the crapper since August 2010. I visit the site EVERY day, but I rarely log in because I don't feel I have much to contribute. Lately I don't even dare to post, lest I be labeled as one of Gunk's "-ites." Good golly, can't anybody have an opinion here anymore without being stuffed into a little "ite" box by other posters (yes, I am looking at you Blue, Bib, Spiff, Schmoe, etc.). You are not going to convert anybody to your viewpoint, so all the arguing, especially when it gets personal, makes you look foolish. After 14 months and about a billion post on the Jake vs. Riley thing, I think we all know where you all stand.



The worst part is that you guys won't let anybody be neutral in the discussion and just offer an observation. Part of the cultural shift Bronco had to make when he became HC was to eliminate the us vs them, offense vs. defense that was going on under Crowton. Then this week we get numerous comments on here about how Bronco had better stamp out any QB favoritism going on in the locker room, or else he isn't qualified to be the coach. Look in the mirror, folks. That is all we have going on here recently (except ridiculously concrete timetables for Big XII expansion). We don't even know what is going on inside the team, yet we can beat the gong for "our guy" and then use the gong to beat the other guy's posters over the head? All the while we criticize any actual player, actually on the team, in the actual locker room who might show a little favoritism toward one or the other? Reminds me of two high school girls' cliques where you are either with us or with them. Can't anybody be Switzerland? Last I checked, we all root for the same team. Man, am I ever looking forward to basketball season and some more reasonable and intelligent postings (unless we have to start a Zylstra vs. Harrison debate :roll: