Riley Apparently Could Have Beaten Utah and Texas

Texas for sure as Riley would have played better than Jake and surely that would have been worth two points vs Texas. Texas got better after the first half and QB changes - but Riley would have been worth two points.



Now as for the Utes



The first BCS Poll just came out and has us ranked about 46 and Utah 52 or something like that.



The CBS Sports poll has us at 40 and Utah at about 57 or somethitng like that. So with Riley - we are better than Utah. Polls don't lie - do they? So you guys that work there in Utah let your obnoxious Ute fans know that they were better that day - but now we are by far better.



Makes you want to play in a BCS conference and go 3-3 doesn't it.

Honestly?



Heaps played, because the coaching staff saw the practices....



Heaps didnt play great in either game, but who is to honestly say that we win that game. BYU probably would have won if texas keeps their QB in... Maybe BYU wins if they played heaps the first half and then riley in the second half... the only reason Texas won was because we hadn't prepared for mccoy.



As for the utah game... everyone says it was a fluke (I would love to think that honestly) but no player.... I dont care if it was freakin robert griffen III or whoever could possibly make up 44 points....

shakavaka wrote:
Honestly?



Heaps played, because the coaching staff saw the practices....



Heaps didnt play great in either game, but who is to honestly say that we win that game. BYU probably would have won if texas keeps their QB in... Maybe BYU wins if they played heaps the first half and then riley in the second half... the only reason Texas won was because we hadn't prepared for mccoy.



As for the utah game... everyone says it was a fluke (I would love to think that honestly) but no player.... I dont care if it was freakin robert griffen III or whoever could possibly make up 44 points....

Honestly



BYU with Riley Nelson at QB is now ranked higher than Utah in the BCS and other polls. Honestly.



BTW - welost to Texas becasue Jake couldnot movfe the offense at all in the 2nd half and left the defense who held Texas to 17 points on the field all day. Yes - I think Riley could have moved tghe chains enough to get another field goal.



Utah - who knows if the team would have melted down if they were fired up like they get when RIley is in. I mainly put that info in there to remind us all fo what life in the BCS conferences is like.



But we are clearly a better team under RIley and it is interesting to see the rankings now that we are beatng the teams we are supposed to beat. What do you think we would be rated if we left Jake in and lost to USU and who knows how many more games?

Right now Texas is at #22 and TCU is at #36 in the RPI. So if you're saying that Riley would have beaten Texas on the road, then he is also going to beat TCU on the road since. Right?

I hope we beat TCU!



But as long as we are being "honest", I heard Riley Nelson taught Chuck Norris everything he knows. And, if BYU had just scored more points that all of their opponents, they would be undefeated. AND, Poll rankings, especially for teams rank down in the 40's-100's are a surefire way to predict the winner of a football game.



I haven't come down on either side of this debate. It was clear that Heaps won the job in the off season (not an opinion, fact). Clear that he lost his chance through poor performance. Riley has brought excitement and points back to the BYU offense. Perhaps now that we have heard wildly speculative hyperbole from both sides we can drop the whole Nelson vs. Heaps thing and enjoy watching BYU win a few games?

I'll be the first to admit, Nelson has passed my expectations, I was probably one of the biggest Heaps supporters.... But lets be honestly, Nelson isnt the god that most BYU fans are worshiping him as. I've seriously heard more about nelson from random people than about Jimmer during the tourney. Heck, the way most of you talk about him, we would have blown out ol miss, destroyed texas, dominated utah, and be top 10 in the BCS... Heck, you are right, Riley is the most amazing player to ever don the Y. We love you riley!



5 st. riley's and I'm off to bed...

This may be true, but can we please stop with all the "RIley would have.... stuff" It's done and over. Lets just enjoy what he's doing.

Riley has done OK, and the team has won, but I am concerned that every play is becoming a broken play. That is the risk with this type of success. We can debate all day, but the truth is that as a team, you start with an assignment, and that all goes out the window, when things breakdown. Then it becomes school yard, and everyone just tries to get open. It looks great when someone catches a pass, but over the long haul it will show. If the competition were better (as in the first few games), then the speed of the competition would negate any progress. I see it for what it is, and base the results on the caliber of competition. I love to see them win, but one man does not make the team, and I hope we continue winning, but the key word is "TEAM"

I think a lot of people have been being kind of smug because of the insults that were hurled Riley's direction by some who though that Heaps was the only solution at QB. I know that I have tried to rub it in some noses when people have said crap like "riley can't even throw 10 yards". The bottom line is, Riley is on scholorship because he is a good football player and not just because he has good leadership and the coaches like him. I knew after watching his 1st touchdown pass to Quezada that he had an adequate arm to run our offense. That throw was 20+ yards on a frozen rope and Riley threw it off his back foot across his body. Someone who didn't have a legit D1 arm could not have made that throw. Anyway, I think it is time to stop the smugness and just accept that Riley is our starting QB until he graduates or gets hurt. Hopefully the former.

mgdhunter wrote:
Riley has done OK, and the team has won, but I am concerned that every play is becoming a broken play. That is the risk with this type of success. We can debate all day, but the truth is that as a team, you start with an assignment, and that all goes out the window, when things breakdown. Then it becomes school yard, and everyone just tries to get open. It looks great when someone catches a pass, but over the long haul it will show. If the competition were better (as in the first few games), then the speed of the competition would negate any progress. I see it for what it is, and base the results on the caliber of competition. I love to see them win, but one man does not make the team, and I hope we continue winning, but the key word is "TEAM"

I only saw a couple "broken" plays all game long. Just because Riley leaves the pocket does not constitute a broken play. It does buy time for the offense to get open though. His QB runs that are not designed are broken plays though but I have only 1 concern there and that is he needs to not get hurt. He says that he knows what he is doing though to minimize injury so I will trust him on that.

I'd like to think Nelson would've been better. I think Jake is clearly a BYU type, Steve Young wasn't but what Steve and Riley bring is better because it gets other players motivated. I have no idea why or how that works, but players on D, ST, and O seem to play better.

Y4LYFE wrote:
I'd like to think Nelson would've been better. I think Jake is clearly a BYU type, Steve Young wasn't but what Steve and Riley bring is better because it gets other players motivated. I have no idea why or how that works, but players on D, ST, and O seem to play better.

People play better when they feel like their efforts are not in vain. Since Heaps was not able to sustain drives I could see how that might affect others.



On a similar note, doesn't Apo's body language look different now that Heaps isn't there to throw it to him all the time?



And where is Jacobsen?

I don't understand what the purpose of this thread is other than to stir the pot. I was one of the first on the "bench Heaps" platform, but even I think this thread is petty.



Could Riley have beaten Utah and Texas? Perhaps. The thing is, if Riley could have, Jake Heaps could have as well. Things happened in the game and he didn't. What's the point in arguing whether we actually would have won with Nelson in the game?



Yes, many called for Heaps to be benched, but that chorus only began after those games. Up until that point, it was pretty much unanimous that Heaps was the guy. Even then, most in the "bench Heaps" crowd were looking to Lark, not Nelson.



I think any of our quarterbacks could have beaten Texas or Utah. All we know for sure is that Jake didn't, but it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that he couldn't have beaten either.



That said, I pin the blame for those games more on our coaches than the guy under center. We lost one game because of the second half timidity that has continued under Nelson, and we lost the other because the coaches lost the team, both offensively and defensively.

snoscythe wrote:
I don't understand what the purpose of this thread is other than to stir the pot. I was one of the first on the "bench Heaps" platform, but even I think this thread is petty.



Could Riley have beaten Utah and Texas? Perhaps. The thing is, if Riley could have, Jake Heaps could have as well. Things happened in the game and he didn't. What's the point in arguing whether we actually would have won with Nelson in the game?



Yes, many called for Heaps to be benched, but that chorus only began after those games. Up until that point, it was pretty much unanimous that Heaps was the guy. Even then, most in the "bench Heaps" crowd were looking to Lark, not Nelson.



I think any of our quarterbacks could have beaten Texas or Utah. All we know for sure is that Jake didn't, but it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that he couldn't have beaten either.



That said, I pin the blame for those games more on our coaches than the guy under center. We lost one game because of the second half timidity that has continued under Nelson, and we lost the other because the coaches lost the team, both offensively and defensively.

I disagree. This isn't the classiest thread in the history of message boards but it's a relevant question: i.e. Riley has had a lot more success than Heaps had, but he's also had easier competition, how much of Riley's success is simply due to the lower-quality opponent?



I think almost everyone on the board would agree that if Heaps had played the whole game, we would have lost to USU. So maybe it's not fair to ask whether things would have gone differently in our 2 losses but it's basically the same question as asking: "when Riley plays against a better defense (TCU) will he still be the better option compared to Heaps?"



No one on this board is actually going to make the decision about who to start against TCU, so it's just as rhetorical as asking what would have happened in the past had our cards been played differently.

BerliNY wrote:
Right now Texas is at #22 and TCU is at #36 in the RPI. So if you're saying that Riley would have beaten Texas on the road, then he is also going to beat TCU on the road since. Right?

Maybe but not necessarily. Texas stunk in half one and gave us the opportunity to put them away and we did not. But with a 13 point lead and them trying to come back - Riley would have moved the chains enough to eat some clock, rest our defense, and keep them from gaining so much confidence.



Now - having made their change - Texas plays 4 quarters instead of 2 1/3 quarters.



We have a decent shot Vs TCU but we R the Dogs and would be Vs Texas on the road right now.



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

This smug thread was actually TIC re the woulda - I think everyone with eyes and ears knows that even a tiny spark in the 2nd half Vs Texas would have made a two point difference and thet also know that the Utah game is impossible to explain with any certainty.



It actually was a smug reminder to all of those posters who whine about our weak schedules and want to play a Big12 schedule weekly augmented by ND, Utah, etc., out of conference - how foolish that might be and especially how unkind the polls are to a 3-3 team even after they demolished their 5-2 rival.



The smug point



5-2 is way better than 3-3 if you like being relevant. And Utah is another case in point of just how much difference 1 player can make when that 1 player plays QB.



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

snoscythe wrote:
I don't understand what the purpose of this thread is other than to stir the pot. I was one of the first on the "bench Heaps" platform, but even I think this thread is petty.



Could Riley have beaten Utah and Texas? Perhaps. The thing is, if Riley could have, Jake Heaps could have as well. Things happened in the game and he didn't. What's the point in arguing whether we actually would have won with Nelson in the game?



Yes, many called for Heaps to be benched, but that chorus only began after those games. Up until that point, it was pretty much unanimous that Heaps was the guy. Even then, most in the "bench Heaps" crowd were looking to Lark, not Nelson.



I think any of our quarterbacks could have beaten Texas or Utah. All we know for sure is that Jake didn't, but it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that he couldn't have beaten either.



That said, I pin the blame for those games more on our coaches than the guy under center. We lost one game because of the second half timidity that has continued under Nelson, and we lost the other because the coaches lost the team, both offensively and defensively.

The key point is Heaps WAS the guy, and I was planted firmly in his camp based on what he did the last 4 games of last year. We have a rookie OC. We have a young QB who lost his swagger and confidence, so we needed a new guy. Sometimes the difference between winning annd losing is pretty slim.



Riley surprised me, but he is playing excited and confident. Not sure he could have beaten Texas and the :utard: , but he can bring us victories in the rest of our games.

The thread is full of speculation and personal opinions. I personally don't believe we would have been different in the wins & losses up to this point. Riley has looked good, but against poor competition, so only time will tell. Give everyone a break, and let's support the whole team, and expect perfection from everyone on the team, not just one of the eleven on the field.

Are we still having this same tired discussion? Heaps got the job because Riley was hurt last year. Riley has proved to be the more effective of the two when healthy. In games is the only place that matters, and that's where Riley has outperformed Heaps. Jake will get better, and time on the bench will do him good.

Schmoe wrote:
Are we still having this same tired discussion? Heaps got the job because Riley was hurt last year. Riley has proved to be the more effective of the two when healthy. In games in the only place that matters, and that's where Riley has outperformed Heaps. Jake will get better, and time on the bench will do him good.

In a nutshell - This.



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