Is it a mistake to start Hill--assuming that happens

In Wrubell's article on the QB situation, he writes as follows:



"But regardless of how it came about, BYU's 'quarterback of the future' has been thrust into the pressure of the present, and like Detmer, Miller, Berry, Beck and Heaps before him, Taysom Hill is now poised to take his turn as the latest 'kid' to get the call."



Two of those turned out very well. The other three did not. I can't help but think that with a game like Hawaii, it would be better to start Lark for the first half, hopefully build a lead, and then put Hill in for the second half.



I thought Lark moved the ball better in the Weber State game, although Hill gets mad props for the 95 yard drive. I thought Riley should have been pulled to start the second half of the Boise State game (actually shouldn't have played at all if he couldn't practice) and Lark should have played. Of course Hill came in and scored the aforementioned touchdown a few drives later, so that part worked out. I just don't want to ruin another freshman by throwing him to the wolves at ND, or Georgia Tech. On the other hand, starting and playing against Hawaii would be great experience in case Riley's recovery takes longer than expected.



So, I guess in all my rambling, I would rather Lark start in the easy games, get some points on the board, and then bring in Hill to get his experience. I don't really buy Hill being more like Riley as a very good reason to jump Lark in the depth chart. What plays was Lark running against Weber State? Can't Lark run the same plays. Heaven forbid we abandon the option, but Lark is plenty athletic enough to roll out and make plays with his arms and legs. I think we should let the back up Senior get the start and be careful about where and when Hill gets experience. Maybe I'm in the minority on that.

I am assuming that Hill has looked better in practice and that is why he moved up the depth chart. If that is the case then the coaches are playing the guy who gives us the best chance to win. Always go with the guy who gives you the best chance to win.

Thanks, I was trying to remember an assessment of Lark in that game. I agree let him start the game and see what happens. And Hill needs to play some of it and be told to stay in the pocket and work on passing the ball.

Cougarfan87, I totally agree with you on this one!

Cougarfan87 wrote:
In Wrubell's article on the QB situation, he writes as follows:



"But regardless of how it came about, BYU's 'quarterback of the future' has been thrust into the pressure of the present, and like Detmer, Miller, Berry, Beck and Heaps before him, Taysom Hill is now poised to take his turn as the latest 'kid' to get the call."



Two of those turned out very well. The other three did not. I can't help but think that with a game like Hawaii, it would be better to start Lark for the first half, hopefully build a lead, and then put Hill in for the second half.



I thought Lark moved the ball better in the Weber State game, although Hill gets mad props for the 95 yard drive. I thought Riley should have been pulled to start the second half of the Boise State game (actually shouldn't have played at all if he couldn't practice) and Lark should have played. Of course Hill came in and scored the aforementioned touchdown a few drives later, so that part worked out. I just don't want to ruin another freshman by throwing him to the wolves at ND, or Georgia Tech. On the other hand, starting and playing against Hawaii would be great experience in case Riley's recovery takes longer than expected.



So, I guess in all my rambling, I would rather Lark start in the easy games, get some points on the board, and then bring in Hill to get his experience. I don't really buy Hill being more like Riley as a very good reason to jump Lark in the depth chart. What plays was Lark running against Weber State? Can't Lark run the same plays. Heaven forbid we abandon the option, but Lark is plenty athletic enough to roll out and make plays with his arms and legs. I think we should let the back up Senior get the start and be careful about where and when Hill gets experience. Maybe I'm in the minority on that.

I endorse this post as being correct! :)

frdbtr wrote:
I am assuming that Hill has looked better in practice and that is why he moved up the depth chart. If that is the case then the coaches are playing the guy who gives us the best chance to win. Always go with the guy who gives you the best chance to win.

that is a big assumption to make with the current coaching staff in place. also given their comments that hill is it because he is more like riley and we will prepare with him so if riley can go he can just slip in.

If you're good enough you can play, even as a freshman.



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

It's not that he's "more like Riley." It's that Bronco and Doman have made the conscious decision that they want quarterbacks that can hurt you with their feet as much as their arms, and they have designed a playbook that does it. Nelson, Hill, and Olsen all fit this mold. Heaps did not, Munns does not, Lark does not, and Mangum may not. Hill is getting the nod not because he is "more like Riley," but because he fits the playbook better than Lark.

snoscythe wrote:
It's not that he's "more like Riley." It's that Bronco and Doman have made the conscious decision that they want quarterbacks that can hurt you with their feet as much as their arms, and they have designed a playbook that does it. Nelson, Hill, and Olsen all fit this mold. Heaps did not, Munns does not, Lark does not, and Mangum may not. Hill is getting the nod not because he is "more like Riley," but because he fits the playbook better than Lark.

I am a big fan if mobile QBs, but QBs are not RBs.



My issue with Doman and Bronco's love affair with mobile QBs is that they use the QB like a RB. Half our running plays should not be QB designed runs, sneaks and options.



I get the sense that because Bronco has trouble containing mobile QBs he wants one of his own - "If I can't stop a mobile QB, other people won't be able to either." Remember his man crush on Jake Locker.



QB needs a arm. If the play collapses, a mobile is great to gave. Bad OLs certainly like mobile QBs. But no passing game and we might as well let Alisa take snaps.



I am afraid given the state of Doman's playbook and QB as an RB approach we're going to see Hill carried out on a stretcher.



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

Gunk wrote:
I am a big fan if mobile QBs, but QBs are not RBs.



My issue with Doman and Bronco's love affair with mobile QBs is that they use the QB like a RB. Half our running plays should not be QB designed runs, sneaks and options.



I get the sense that because Bronco has trouble containing mobile QBs he wants one of his own - "If I can't stop a mobile QB, other people won't be able to either." Remember his man crush on Jake Locker.



QB needs a arm. If the play collapses, a mobile is great to gave. Bad OLs certainly like mobile QBs. But no passing game and we might as well let Alisa take snaps.



I am afraid given the state of Doman's playbook and QB as an RB approach we're going to see Hill carried out on a stretcher.



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

Amen.

No

It's all a matter of framing and setting the right expectations. If you tell Tysom to go in, relax, don't worry about making a mistake, gain experience, have fun etc. then he will likely handle the pressure more effectively than if it is communicated to him that he is the future and hope of this program. Let him screw it up a little, fall on his face, get sacked (no problem with this o-line) but then put it all in proper perspective.



Essentially, let the kid know that he has little to nothing to lose at this point but a hell of a lot of experience to gain.

Gunk wrote:

It's not that he's "more like Riley." It's that Bronco and Doman have made the conscious decision that they want quarterbacks that can hurt you with their feet as much as their arms, and they have designed a playbook that does it. Nelson, Hill, and Olsen all fit this mold. Heaps did not, Munns does not, Lark does not, and Mangum may not. Hill is getting the nod not because he is "more like Riley," but because he fits the playbook better than Lark.

I am a big fan if mobile QBs, but QBs are not RBs.



My issue with Doman and Bronco's love affair with mobile QBs is that they use the QB like a RB. Half our running plays should not be QB designed runs, sneaks and options.



I get the sense that because Bronco has trouble containing mobile QBs he wants one of his own - "If I can't stop a mobile QB, other people won't be able to either." Remember his man crush on Jake Locker.



QB needs a arm. If the play collapses, a mobile is great to gave. Bad OLs certainly like mobile QBs. But no passing game and we might as well let Alisa take snaps.



I am afraid given the state of Doman's playbook and QB as an RB approach we're going to see Hill carried out on a stretcher.

BYU really needs to adopt the NFL mentality when it comes to mobile QBs--treat them like an investment rather than a commodity. Save designed QB runs for crucial moments only.

I think we are two games past Lark getting a shot. The coaches basically missed his shot, and now is time to prep for 2013.



So based upon that, I say give Hill all the game reps now. Does it really mater if we go 6-6 or 9-3 at this point? Either way, we are in the Poinsettia Bowl. So unless you want to cheer for another crappy 9-10 win season, I;d rather sacrifice a year and get the young players on the field. And I am not just talking Hill.



TIme for Hll, Williams, Kaufusi, and Peck to get meaningful reps. TIme for the Oline to make major changes, espcially up the middle. Love hearing tha nHansen will play center, Anae at guard and Vitae at guard. Our tackles have been solidd, so time to give new guys a shot to perform up the middle.



And time for DOman to start attacking defenses wit hteh players we have. And I mean attack through the air. LEt's let Hill air it out, learn on the fly, and get him ready for 2013-2015. Just like we did with Detmer.