How long do you stick with Riley?

For me, it's halftime.



I'd give Riley the first half. if he's ineffective (PER below 120) and/or has more than one turnover, he should sit.



I hope Lark has been taking some snaps this week in practice. Because he should be ready to take the reins from Riley when/if he struggles or gets hurt.



Coaches should be deciding what their decision points are and when they would make the move.

Since I no longer believe he gives us "the best chance" to win, I guess I'm done with him. I honestly don't think we have anything to lose by starting Lark.



It's not like Nelson will win the game against Notre Dame and Georgia Tech while Lark will lose it. If we can't win those games with Lark, we can't win them with Nelson either. And we win with either of them in our final three games.

Agreed.

Does it matter?



Riley is ineffective and Doman wouldn't know what to do with Lark's throwing ability. Lark's career is done, so it would just be feel good play time.



Even if Riley is below a 120 PER at the half, Bronco will keep him in there. You underestimate Bronco's bromance with Riley.



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

KingCoug wrote:
Since I no longer believe he gives us "the best chance" to win, I guess I'm done with him. I honestly don't think we have anything to lose by starting Lark.



It's not like Nelson will win the game against Notre Dame and Georgia Tech while Lark will lose it. If we can't win those games with Lark, we can't win them with Nelson either. And we win with either of them in our final three games.

This logic would all make sense if Lark were coming back next year. But he is not. You do not bench a Sr. starter and replace him with a senior for a "equal" chance to win - like any of us or the coaches really know what chance Lark gives us. A younger QB - sure - maybe invest in the future and hope our porous OL does not get him killed.



I think Lark deserves a better debut - but it is a "feel thing" not cut and dried. I FELT Taysom Hill should have been tried at least one series sooner.



But if Riley is ineffective because the OL can't provide reasonable protection - I would not put a Less Mobile QB hanging out to dry. Coaches may not have much choice - that defense is better than any we have faced and that have film on our revamped OL.



If PER is down because of tight ends dropping 4 passes or fluke tipped pass interceptions - no change either.



If we are getting blown out - let Lark come in and hand it off. Wait - if our 17 year-old RB goes down - the cupboard is pretty bare.



We do not have a lot of weapons folks - there will be no magic unless our OL surprises the HECKCK out of me.



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

Well, I would like to see what Lark could do with our passing game. Maybe give our opponents something new they're not as ready for. And I imagine nobody wants to see Lark in there more than Lark himself. I don't think he would feel like he's being hung out to dry.

Uh, I would have pulled him after the air force game in 2010. It was clear he didn't have what it took even back then.



But I have stuck with him this far. What is 3 more games of probable losses and turnovers extraordinare against an above 500 opponent?



What could it hurt?



Sigh. Sometimes it sucks to be right.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Uh, I would have pulled him after the air force game in 2010. It was clear he didn't have what it took even back then.



But I have stuck with him this far. What is 3 more games of probable losses and turnovers extraordinare against an above 500 opponent?



What could it hurt?



Sigh. Sometimes it sucks to be right.

Beat me to it! Sometime in 2010. True Blue offense has been more like Faux Blue facilitated and demanded by Riley and indulged and designed by Doman. :sick:

Go Defense! Please score bc I don't think the O will.

Cougarbib wrote:

Since I no longer believe he gives us "the best chance" to win, I guess I'm done with him. I honestly don't think we have anything to lose by starting Lark.



It's not like Nelson will win the game against Notre Dame and Georgia Tech while Lark will lose it. If we can't win those games with Lark, we can't win them with Nelson either. And we win with either of them in our final three games.

This logic would all make sense if Lark were coming back next year. But he is not. You do not bench a Sr. starter and replace him with a senior for a "equal" chance to win - like any of us or the coaches really know what chance Lark gives us. A younger QB - sure - maybe invest in the future and hope our porous OL does not get him killed.



I think Lark deserves a better debut - but it is a "feel thing" not cut and dried. I FELT Taysom Hill should have been tried at least one series sooner.



But if Riley is ineffective because the OL can't provide reasonable protection - I would not put a Less Mobile QB hanging out to dry. Coaches may not have much choice - that defense is better than any we have faced and that have film on our revamped OL.



If PER is down because of tight ends dropping 4 passes or fluke tipped pass interceptions - no change either.



If we are getting blown out - let Lark come in and hand it off. Wait - if our 17 year-old RB goes down - the cupboard is pretty bare.



We do not have a lot of weapons folks - there will be no magic unless our OL surprises the HECKCK out of me.



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

You make the change for everyone on the team NOT named Riley Nelson. The other players deserve a QB who can make plays and not turn the ball over.



Don't give me PER excuses like dropped passes or fluke, tipped INTs. They weren't allowed for Heaps, they're not allowed now. Players are responsible for their performance. Don't give me poor OL play excuses either.



Riley's PER isn't abysmal since halftime of the Weber St game because of dropped passes or poor OL play. It's because he's made poor decisions that have and are hurting his team and his teammates. Whether it's lying about the extent of his injuries to coaches and trainers or throwing into double coverage inside the 30 and potentially taking points off the board; Riley's PER is poor because of his decision making.



Last year he made good decisions. This year he's not. He is responsible for his play and on-field production.



You replace Nelson when it's clear he's played his way to the bench. For me, that was last week. The coaches have obviously decided to roll with him again. Fine, but just so long as they make the change when it's needed. And I've got one more half in my when it comes to Riley.



I've been a staunch Riley defender for three-plus years on this board. But I've always reserved my right to change my mind. I've always set out the standards that MUST be met for a BYU QB. And Riley hasn't met them consistently enough to warrant his position on the field.

dmcougar wrote:

Uh, I would have pulled him after the air force game in 2010. It was clear he didn't have what it took even back then.



But I have stuck with him this far. What is 3 more games of probable losses and turnovers extraordinare against an above 500 opponent?



What could it hurt?



Sigh. Sometimes it sucks to be right.

Beat me to it! Sometime in 2010. True Blue offense has been more like Faux Blue facilitated and demanded by Riley and indulged and designed by Doman. :sick:

Go Defense! Please score bc I don't think the O will.

As usual. Fire aim ready. Well it is deer season. I saw two small bucks locking horns in my Dad's neighbors yard in Center Creek this morning. Enjoy the beauty and team you are blessed with. It could be much worse. Will be next year.



Your latest logic fail. I am pretty sure Nelson was pulled right after the Air Force game in 2010. Right after. And Heaps was given the keys for more than a full season - losing to not only above .500 teams, but below .500 teams. Lark should have gotten a shot in mid 2010 if not early 2010 with a red-shirt for Heaps.



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

SpiffCoug wrote:

KingCoug wrote:
Since I no longer believe he gives us "the best chance" to win, I guess I'm done with him. I honestly don't think we have anything to lose by starting Lark.



It's not like Nelson will win the game against Notre Dame and Georgia Tech while Lark will lose it. If we can't win those games with Lark, we can't win them with Nelson either. And we win with either of them in our final three games.

This logic would all make sense if Lark were coming back next year. But he is not. You do not bench a Sr. starter and replace him with a senior for a "equal" chance to win - like any of us or the coaches really know what chance Lark gives us. A younger QB - sure - maybe invest in the future and hope our porous OL does not get him killed.



I think Lark deserves a better debut - but it is a "feel thing" not cut and dried. I FELT Taysom Hill should have been tried at least one series sooner.



But if Riley is ineffective because the OL can't provide reasonable protection - I would not put a Less Mobile QB hanging out to dry. Coaches may not have much choice - that defense is better than any we have faced and that have film on our revamped OL.



If PER is down because of tight ends dropping 4 passes or fluke tipped pass interceptions - no change either.



If we are getting blown out - let Lark come in and hand it off. Wait - if our 17 year-old RB goes down - the cupboard is pretty bare.



We do not have a lot of weapons folks - there will be no magic unless our OL surprises the HECKCK out of me.



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

You make the change for everyone on the team NOT named Riley Nelson. The other players deserve a QB who can make plays and not turn the ball over.



Don't give me PER excuses like dropped passes or fluke, tipped INTs. They weren't allowed for Heaps, they're not allowed now. Players are responsible for their performance. Don't give me poor OL play excuses either.



Riley's PER isn't abysmal since halftime of the Weber St game because of dropped passes or poor OL play. It's because he's made poor decisions that have and are hurting his team and his teammates. Whether it's lying about the extent of his injuries to coaches and trainers or throwing into double coverage inside the 30 and potentially taking points off the board; Riley's PER is poor because of his decision making.



Last year he made good decisions. This year he's not. He is responsible for his play and on-field production.



You replace Nelson when it's clear he's played his way to the bench. For me, that was last week. The coaches have obviously decided to roll with him again. Fine, but just so long as they make the change when it's needed. And I've got one more half in my when it comes to Riley.



I've been a staunch Riley defender for three-plus years on this board. But I've always reserved my right to change my mind. I've always set out the standards that MUST be met for a BYU QB. And Riley hasn't met them consistently enough to warrant his position on the field.

How quickly we all forget that Hoffman was supposedly un defendable and could go up and get anything. Hoffman was open. Riley was hit as he threw it and it never got to Hoffman.



Fans whine about boring ball control which is what Bronco serves up with back-up QBs like Lark and Hill and when he turns the gunslinger lose with high risk offense - you whine because he gets hit while throwing.



If that one bothers you do much - wipe off the ones that worked - and you are back to 3 missed field goals and a ton of punts.



Bronco spelled this out week 1 - the reward out weighs the downside.



When he changes his mind - like vs BSU - you will know.



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

Riley getting hit as he threw goes both ways. Could the OL blocked a fraction longer? Probably. But could Riley also have gotten the ball of a fraction sooner? Probably.



I'm not whining about getting hit while throwing. I'm "whining" about not being efficient with the ball. I'm whining about not making plays that are there to be made. I'm whining about a QB who is not meeting the standard. I'm whining about a coaching staff that is still playing a player too much when the standards aren't being met.



And since week 1 - when Bronco apparently spelled this out - the rewards HAVEN'T outweighed the downside.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Riley getting hit as he threw goes both ways. Could the OL blocked a fraction longer? Probably. But could Riley also have gotten the ball of a fraction sooner? Probably.



I'm not whining about getting hit while throwing. I'm "whining" about not being efficient with the ball. I'm whining about not making plays that are there to be made. I'm whining about a QB who is not meeting the standard. I'm whining about a coaching staff that is still playing a player too much when the standards aren't being met.



And since week 1 - when Bronco apparently spelled this out - the rewards HAVEN'T outweighed the downside.

High Risk - High Reward



I hope you were not one of the guys wing about Bronco Ball and the conservative offense Bronco served up with Hill. Because both were appropriate. And neither was nor us good enough to beat Top 10 teams but good enough to chew up WSU, WSU, UH, and Idaho and NMSU.



After the defensive mistakes got us hopelessly behind - Riley went into his desperation heave mode and stunk it up doing it, but the game was lost and OSU D was pinning back their ears. That would have been a good time to put in Lark and go 3 runs and punt. Until then, Riley was fine and we wet in the game ith our defense playing poorly.



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

Even after Braden Hansen - due to Riley's poor leadership made that late hit right before the half - I say let's let Riley start the 2nd half.



:)



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

Personally, I think it is time to look to 2013. We all know that BYU will be bowl eleigible this year, so win or two more is just window dressing. So for me, it is time to bench Riley, but not for hte reasons many might think.



I think it is time to take the crutch away from DOman again. That being a mobile QB who can makes plays on the run vs. crappy teams. And it is time for Doman to learnt o scheme and game plan for a pass first QB, pass 2nd QB, and run as a last resort. I wan to see DOman rework his game plan to match Larks skill sets, instead of just sliding T. Hill in there and run the same sets that we run with Nelson. Sorry, but that is not getting it done.



TIme for Doman to show he can effectively handle a pass first offense, with a QB with enough arm strength to stret the field, and make the throws all over the field, including digs to the far side of hte field.



And then lets see how our Oline performs with a QB who focuses on timing and execution again.



We all know both of these things needs to happen, sonner rather than later.

Lawboy wrote:
Personally, I think it is time to look to 2013. We all know that BYU will be bowl eleigible this year, so win or two more is just window dressing. So for me, it is time to bench Riley, but not for hte reasons many might think.



I think it is time to take the crutch away from DOman again. That being a mobile QB who can makes plays on the run vs. crappy teams. And it is time for Doman to learnt o scheme and game plan for a pass first QB, pass 2nd QB, and run as a last resort. I wan to see DOman rework his game plan to match Larks skill sets, instead of just sliding T. Hill in there and run the same sets that we run with Nelson. Sorry, but that is not getting it done.



TIme for Doman to show he can effectively handle a pass first offense, with a QB with enough arm strength to stret the field, and make the throws all over the field, including digs to the far side of hte field.



And then lets see how our Oline performs with a QB who focuses on timing and execution again.



We all know both of these things needs to happen, sonner rather than later.

Speaking of center. We really do not have one. Fix that. News coverage - if you are interested in facts - yesterday covered 6 injuries on IL and transfer of Tui C from DL to OL so offense would have enough bodies to practice.



Today coverage was about depleted DL being down to 4 experienced guys including a freshman.



Maybe tomorrow we will get one about us not having a full back.



Recently there was one about defenses scheming our wide receivers leaving opportunity our tight ends have not capitalized on to get open in the vacated spaces.



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

Mars wrote:


1- Just give us Lark, for a little bit. Let us see what he can and can't do. BYU scored 0 in the 1st half against Boise State, 0 in the 2nd half against Notre Dame. Just give us some Lark.

his ship has sailed. the time to play him has come and gone.



the coaches can't put him in now even if someone goes down with an injury, because if they put in lark and he plays well and it turns out that the coaches have wasted some talented QB on the bench while trotting out this turnover machine who can't throw and giving away a bunch of winnable games in the process, they will have some serious explaining to do and maybe even some job security issues.

GT Coach on defending BYU's QB:

" If you’re moving the pocket back and getting in his face and pushing him and making him step to the side or step back, sometimes that’s as good as the other kind of pressure, especially with certain types of quarterbacks. With some you’d like to keep them in the pocket and see them throw it instead of pulling it down and running with it."



That's our Riley!



I agree with Spiff's opening post: BD and BM need to have laid out their decision points of when to pull him. I made this point a month ago, that those two knew that RN would be injured at some point, and they needed to have a clear plan in place about when to give Riley the hook. Yeah there's some feel to it as well, but as with all good strategies to avoid temptation, you draw those lines when you're not in the heat of the moment. in football (and all management) you those lines sound a warning to alert you that you to danger; you can make a call based on "feel" at that time, but you're then conscsientiously making a decision instead of getting carried away by the momentum of the moment.

SHIZ wrote:

1- Just give us Lark, for a little bit. Let us see what he can and can't do. BYU scored 0 in the 1st half against Boise State, 0 in the 2nd half against Notre Dame. Just give us some Lark.

his ship has sailed. the time to play him has come and gone.



the coaches can't put him in now even if someone goes down with an injury, because if they put in lark and he plays well and it turns out that the coaches have wasted some talented QB on the bench while trotting out this turnover machine who can't throw and giving away a bunch of winnable games in the process, they will have some serious explaining to do and maybe even some job security issues.

+1 The best thing Lark could give the coaches now is a poor performance and they could say "I told you so". However, that still results in a poor performace and possible loss. The worse thing Lark could give the coaches is a solid performance and a win because they'd have a lot to explain.



Imagine if Riley goes down at the end of the season. Does Lark get the bowl game as his only start? He could be the all time QB legend at BYU! :P