Why Riley started even when injured or playing badly IMO

I am reading a lot of people being unable to explain why Riley started all year this year even though he was injured and/or playing terribly. I am going to offer my opinion. I don't think it is to justify his play or to give the coaches an excuse, in fact I think it reflects a huge coaching blunder by everyone involved IMO.



Think back to last years USU game, BYU had the ball on the 2 yard line, it was 2nd and 12. Bronco said in his post game interview that Brandon Ogletree came up to him and said "remember the spring game". He was referencing Riley's touchdown drive which won the game for his spring team. Riley leads the team on a touchdown drive and we win the game. That drive secured his starting job for the rest of the year and this year, but it wasn't the start of him taking over the team. That happened in the offseason of 2011 when he organized all the off season workouts while Heaps was skipping all of them and working out with his personal trainers. Riley became the leader of the offense that off season while Jake alienated his players (this is not to start a Riley vs Jake argument, just to try to explain how Riley took over the team). Riley played well against most of our competition last season, saved our season by not letting us lose to USU and SJSU and we won 10 games.



Flash forward to this year. Riley did the same thing, organized off season workouts. Him and Ogletree are the leaders of the offense and the defense. After listening to Bronco's final coaches show and his explanation to Wrubell as to why Riley started even when injured, IMO it is because the players (ogletree) demands it. If this is true IMO it is a coaching blunder because it is the inmates running the asylum.



I would hope that Bronco has learned his lesson with this crop of players and changes his coaching style. I think that Riley and Ogletree have way too much power over this team. It isn't too hard to figure out who the players were that turned on Heaps last year. I still think Heaps should have stayed and won over the team by working hard with his teammates instead of a personal trainer, but he is gone now so that ship has sailed.

Heaps was a wuss and wasn't going to win anyone over, but everything else you say I agree with.

The only justification I can think of (including the statement about keeping the offensive identity with Hill) is that Bronco knows how bad our offensive line is and knows that a pocket passer would get eaten alive against the defenses we faced this year. I would still roll the dice and play Lark once Riley's injury cost us a game, but I can see how a coach could expect our inept o-line to mess things up and plan for a qb that buys time with his feet (even when injured).



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

My one significant disagreement is with the "inmates running the asylum" comment.



Teams need leaders. Leadership is one of those intangibles that can take a player with good ability and make him great. It is one of those things that can turn a team from struggling to winning.



Bronco recognized leadership and rewarded it. He should have. He stayed with it too long ... it became clear that Riley couldn't do the job and he and Doman kept him in. I can't fault Riley for wanting to play (even when he shouldn't) ... the kid is a competitor and wants to be in, and athletes are typically the wrong ones to evaluate their ability to perform.

I tend to agree with Sammich. There have been almost countless numbers of times this season where the pass rush is to the QB simultaneously with the snap. A guy like Munns would have been hamburger meat. I think the coaching staff under-estimated Lark though, at least it would have been worthwhile in hindsight to give him a chance against a team with a defense.

I would have agreed with the pocket passer thing if it were referring to Munns but Lark looked very mobile including completing a couple of passes while on the run with pin point accuracy. I don't see how the coaches wouldn't have seen that in practice before. Everyone knows I have been a big Riley Nelson defender, to the point of being called Mrs Nelson on multiple occasions. My only justification for Lark not seeing the field when Riley was playing poorly or was very injured is because the coaches didn't have confidence in Lark. After Saturday's performance, i can't see how that is possible, they had to have known he was capable of that. My new theory is the only explanation I can come up with. I think Bronco thought he had the reincarnate of Beck and Jensen with Riley and Ogletree. The only problem is, Beck was a great leader and kept himself healthy. Riley may be a great leader but played horribly. Maybe he hasn't been healthy all year but that is no longer an excuse when we had a weapon like Lark who IMO could have played better than an injured Riley. This year has been a poorly coached season. The only justification I can come up with as to why Bronco kept making the same poor decision over and over is because of my explanation above.

hawkwing wrote:
I tend to agree with Sammich. There have been almost countless numbers of times this season where the pass rush is to the QB simultaneously with the snap. A guy like Munns would have been hamburger meat. I think the coaching staff under-estimated Lark though, at least it would have been worthwhile in hindsight to give him a chance against a team with a defense.

A lot of people and possibely even doman saw this well before this past saturday. this explained the frustration with bronco. it was obvious riley had a ceiling and lark had talent. i never bough the lark obviously sucks or he would be playing argument. lark should have been given more and more reps to take over riley's job. we all knew riley would be hurt a few games in. why lark wasn't gone to quicker is a big mystery. the chips are stacked against bronco here. he made the wrong decision. hard to not say otherwise.

I'm leaning more and more with the conspiracy theory that Riley must have some black mail on Bronco. Pretty much the same theory I have for the second half of the 2008 :utard: game with Max Hall. :lol:



The O-line play is one of the few real explanations I can wrap my head around but it doesn't explain why we play an injured Riley. I'm pretty sure Lark was mobile enough to give high fives during the SJSU game. I've come to just accept that Riley is Bronco's guy this year and to just enjoy the ride win or lose. Bronco's done enough in the last 8 years for me to give him a pass on this one and I'll just enjoy the bowl game and look to next year when this issue hopefully will be put to bed. With any luck the last 3 years have taught the coaching staff a few things about handling top national recruits and WAC transfers.

Stirfry wrote:
I'm leaning more and more with the conspiracy theory that Riley must have some black mail on Bronco. Pretty much the same theory I have for the second half of the 2008 :utard: game with Max Hall. :lol:



The O-line play is one of the few real explanations I can wrap my head around but it doesn't explain why we play an injured Riley. I'm pretty sure Lark was mobile enough to give high fives during the SJSU game. I've come to just accept that Riley is Bronco's guy this year and to just enjoy the ride win or lose. Bronco's done enough in the last 8 years for me to give him a pass on this one and I'll just enjoy the bowl game and look to next year when this issue hopefully will be put to bed. With any luck the last 3 years have taught the coaching staff a few things about handling top national recruits and WAC transfers.

You have a good attitude about this but bronco's problem favoring rudy types over talent is an issue. it is good in that it fosters a hard work ethic...etc but there is a balance and bronco seems too far on the other side. truth is the best players that give you the best chance of winning should be on the field. bronco often does not follow that principle.

One more thought. how did we get into this Riley mess? By playing 2 qbs. We tried dual quarterback last year and it was an absolute disaster. You could argue that decision alone caused the start of the criticism Bronco is now facing.



So fast forward today, you have a starting qb who may not be 100% but is convinced he can play. Lark has played ok in practice but you have serious doubts about his ability to escape o-line pressure you know is coming. The tipping point could very have been trying to avoid another disastrous qb controversy. that's what we had last year, what do you do when both qbs you trot out play terribly?



basically, when you lose, nothing you did was right.

CougarClaw wrote:
One more thought. how did we get into this Riley mess? By playing 2 qbs. We tried dual quarterback last year and it was an absolute disaster. You could argue that decision alone caused the start of the criticism Bronco is now facing.



So fast forward today, you have a starting qb who may not be 100% but is convinced he can play. Lark has played ok in practice but you have serious doubts about his ability to escape o-line pressure you know is coming. The tipping point could very have been trying to avoid another disastrous qb controversy. that's what we had last year, what do you do when both qbs you trot out play terribly?



basically, when you lose, nothing you did was right.

Yep, the worst decision in 2010 was not making a decision coming out of spring ball. They should have named Riley the starter, red-shirted Heaps and prepared Lark as the backup OR they should have named Heaps the starter, moved Riley to defense and prepared Lark as the backup.

frdbtr wrote:
I would have agreed with the pocket passer thing if it were referring to Munns but Lark looked very mobile including completing a couple of passes while on the run with pin point accuracy. I don't see how the coaches wouldn't have seen that in practice before. Everyone knows I have been a big Riley Nelson defender, to the point of being called Mrs Nelson on multiple occasions. My only justification for Lark not seeing the field when Riley was playing poorly or was very injured is because the coaches didn't have confidence in Lark. After Saturday's performance, i can't see how that is possible, they had to have known he was capable of that. My new theory is the only explanation I can come up with. I think Bronco thought he had the reincarnate of Beck and Jensen with Riley and Ogletree. The only problem is, Beck was a great leader and kept himself healthy. Riley may be a great leader but played horribly. Maybe he hasn't been healthy all year but that is no longer an excuse when we had a weapon like Lark who IMO could have played better than an injured Riley. This year has been a poorly coached season. The only justification I can come up with as to why Bronco kept making the same poor decision over and over is because of my explanation above.

I think you have it right. The only other explanations are much more far-fetched. So bizarre....

I suspect that BM has a weakness of once he makes a decision, it is final and won't change even when the facts have changed. That is my problem when it comes to picking stocks. Facts change everyday and it is hard to change your opinion. Jim Cramer changes easily and nearly ever day. This could explain why we hear the same comments on the team and execution and why he has trouble with halftime adjustments.



If this is the case, he needs assistants to be vocal and help him to adjust. He definitely does not need yes men behind him.

The problem with playing Lark, was that once the pecking order was established: Riley, Hill, Lark, James most likely never received any snaps in practice. He didn't receive much notice as Hill was the backup. Apparently, given the OL's inept ability to provide protection, they felt that Riley's mobility gave them a better chance to avoid sacks and negative yards. Lark only became an option when both Riley and Hill couldn't play. Funny thing, Lark still faced plenty of pressure from NMSU, he had to scramble many times to avoid sacks, etc., and completed passes on the run and on roll-outs. Coaches underestimated how efficient he could be. Diamond in he rough. Ironically, most expected James to play well because he has been in the system so long and has a good grasp of the O as he has been preparing to play his entire career. I would like to see him play in bowl game if Riley is 100% because he is accurate and spreads the ball around to a multitude of reeceivers - which makes it hard on D. While Cody had 12 receptions, JDF had 9, etc. He knows how to find the open receivers and deliver a pass when they are in stride - giving them an opportunity to make positive yards after catch.



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

Well USU sacked SJSU 13 times and SJSU still racked up the yards passing the ball.

Sammich wrote:
The only justification I can think of (including the statement about keeping the offensive identity with Hill) is that Bronco knows how bad our offensive line is and knows that a pocket passer would get eaten alive against the defenses we faced this year. I would still roll the dice and play Lark once Riley's injury cost us a game, but I can see how a coach could expect our inept o-line to mess things up and plan for a qb that buys time with his feet (even when injured).



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

If this is true, then it doesn't make sense that he would stick someone out there injured (broken back) that could barely move, against physically developed grown men looking to do him harm.



The logic doesn't hold.

My honest opinion on the subject: Bronco is a weird dude. Especially when it comes to things like earning trust.



In the FIRST conversation that he ever had with Ziggy Ansah, Bronco flat out told him that he didn't trust him, and that he would have to overcome that and learn how to play football in order to start seeing minutes. That is just weird sauce. Why would you tell someone that you met all of 5 minutes ago, "I don't trust you." ???



He said in his post game presser that he didn't trust Lark the week leading up to the SJSU game, that he wasn't sure if Lark was going to come to the game prepared enough, or not. (Again, a weird thing to say to the national media)



He also mentions how he trusts "Riley" and "our guys" at least 2 or 3 times a post game presser.



He didn't "trust" KVN enough to start him over Frazier... it goes on and on.

That's ironic. Most of Cougar Nation doesn't trust Bronco when it comes to dealing with QBs.

Cougs_Rule wrote:
That's ironic. Most of Cougar Nation doesn't trust Bronco when it comes to dealing with QBs.

That's okay. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

Mingjai wrote:

That's ironic. Most of Cougar Nation doesn't trust Bronco when it comes to dealing with QBs.

That's okay. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.

Thats exactly what his attitude is and what makes this collusive relationship so unnecessary and unfortunate. Fans will be fans. Bronco should have known that when he took the scepter. But when you stoop to petty insults and then back it up with decisions most of the world that follows Cougar football questions, or just flat out ignores the elephant in the room, he creates unnecessary mistrust. Which means he either does not care what people think or is just throwing it in their face, Bronco could change that.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter a whole lot what fans think. But big donors won't be and cant be deemed so irrelevant. And that's what concerns me. I want Bronco to stay.