Poll: Who should be the starting QB?

Pick one...

Nelson needs to heal, sit him for the Hawaii game. Use this week to develop the passing game again, and give Hill and the receivers confidence again. If Hill needs to be subbed, put in Lark, but Nelson sits until he has healed.



There is little doubt Hill has a much greater upside than Nelson. Nelson, for all his grit and toughness is a poor passer, has a weak arm, and can't consistently give BYU 300 yards passing. BYU has some very tough games coming up, and the D will not always be able to throw a shutout. Hill has a stronger arm, if he throws for 400 yards against Hawaii and 5 TDs, Nelson may never see the field again--but so what? BYU isn't about Reilly Nelson, it's about good football and winning games; if Hill does that, then he plays.

I think you go with the safe play. 2/3 of the year is still ahead of us so it is too early to just think of next year.



Start Lark, give Hill some plays and let him throw more when he is in the game, but let Lark handle the game. See what he can do and don't overwhelm Hill prematurely.

From what the media has been saying, Hill and Lark are both really close in how they handle the offense in practice so IMO start the younger guy. I feel sorry for Lark but his time has passed. If he were much better than hill in practice he would get my vote.

Lark is a senior. He's been sitting, watching, and practicing for a long time. Think about LaVell Edward's quarterback factory...he had a bunch of qb's all in a row, they'd sit for two years, learn the program, and then start for two years and do well--except for Detmer, who played a lot from very early on.



Anyway, he should be able to play well. He's got a strong arm, and seems like the best option we have for a drop-back passer. I'm not saying that Hill isn't good, but I think that Lark should be getting some snaps. If Hill plays backup duty until Nelson's healthy and then BYU couaches determine who is best then, he should be getting some experience now, and still be getting time when Nelson comes back.

I would agree all the way up to the point where the younger guy is as good or better than the older guy. Then you go with the younger guy. Paying your dues is only valid if you are the best guy left standing when everyone else around you graduates or is injured.

The "pay your dues" mentality can go too far. IMO, there isn't even a question. There is no doubt now that Hill has the kind of combination of talents (true explosiveness AND an arm) that we have rarely if ever seen at BYU. He gives us the best chance to win now, not to mention we have to prepare for the gauntlet that is next year's schedule. Play HIll.

Play the guy who gives us the best chance to win. The future will work itself out.

Truly good players don't get ruined if they play too early. One of the biggest myths of football in my opinion. Anyone who was "ruined" by playing too early would have sucked when they did get to play.



There is a very good chance that Heaps is who he was his first two years at BYU. If there is any improvement, would be due to coaching, not sitting out.

Oh, and my pick was Hill...although anyone but Riley is my true choice.

Riley - only if 100% healthy. I assume this is not the case.



Someone above said no doubt - Hill. Someone else says if close - go with the younger guy.



Here is the BUTT



I heard that Hill was close or ahead in the context that he is the best at running the offense as designed for Riley to run it and there just was not time to retool things in 2 days of practice. The inability to retool us a big part of why Riley started.



You did not have an option to choose other. If you had, I would have chosen other. Other would look like this - hold the ridicule at least long enough to think about this -



No Nelson unless as healthy as he was Vs Washington State unless some emergency need arises and it just cannot be avoided - emergency means - it becomes clear he is our best chance to win in some situation. Extreme example - Hill and Lark are both injured or get ejected for fighting over who should play or both carry the other's Locker contents to Bronco - and Kuresa is not ready and Munns can't find his helmet. And they don't want to try Falslev or VanNoy. Anyway - U get the drift.



2 QB. Sorry folks - sometimes an audition is just what is needed. UH in Provo would make a good time for such an audition. Someone emerges - then you go 1 QB - with possibly some Wildcat.



That is what The Bibster would do. The same Bibster that wanted a tryout of Lark and or Munns when Riley was injured in 2010 and Heaps was struggling. Wish we had done that then. Hope we do it now.



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

Lark. Have we learned nothing from the past? Beck and Heaps were damaged by playing early in their careers.

This might be harsh but I wish Riley never transferred to BYU. Heaps probably would have figured things out given a whole season. And if not Lark would have gotten his chance. At least our offense would resemble a BYU offense.



Don't get me wrong I like Hill's speed. But he probably would have been coached into an effective passer with an offense build around a passing QB, and his running ability would have been a nice addition, a la Steve Young.



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

Voted for Lark because I think he is capable and has earned a shot. Gave up a year of eligibility and delayed his mission because BYU didn't have a back up. Always had more upside than Riley.



I'm not worried about playing Hill early. He differes from Heaps in these ways.



More mature.

Not afraid to get hit.

Doesn't appear to have a entitlement attitude

Has not alienated his team mates

Has the phsical tools to be successful

Seems to be able to keep his head under pressure

Hill had 72 yards rushing in one and a half quarters. Wow but how long before he gets hurt?

Has anyone else seen how "well" our OL has played? That puts Hill ahead of Lark IMHO.

I thought Lark was supposed to be mobile as well. wasn't he the fastest QB on the team coming into 2011?

BroncoBot wrote:
I thought Lark was supposed to be mobile as well. wasn't he the fastest QB on the team coming into 2011?

And Riley was the slowest.

BroncoBot wrote:
I thought Lark was supposed to be mobile as well. wasn't he the fastest QB on the team coming into 2011?

The last time lark played he had some good wheels if I recall correctly. This guy isn't Heaps--give him a shot! No sense in ruining Hill this early in his career. Let him backup Lark and play on a limited basis.

I agree with starting to Lark and sprinkling in Hill. There is a good chance whoever starts is going to get rocked a few times and we will need the back-up to come in. Let teams prepare for Lark and let Hill come in on occasion. No need to rush Hill in. Let him play the whole second half of the mo-up games too.