IT COMES DOWN to THESE 2 REASONS

Regarding what QB o start in the bowl game, WE HAVE 2 choices with 2 very different reasons behind choosing them...



In the right corner -RILEY NELSON

He plays if Bronco is loyal to RN being the starter. He's the team leader, a senior, the starter.. Will Bronco stay true to RN and make him the starter knowing he won't be 100% or AKA the best option to win.



In the left corner -James Lark



He plays if Bronco puts loyalty aside for the sake of giving his team "the best chance to win"

James Lark is better than RN injured PERIOD. It can be argued that James can run this offense better than RN can at 100%.



So Bronco; go for the win or go for pride. What will it be.

stgeorgefan wrote:
Regarding what QB o start in the bowl game, WE HAVE 2 choices with 2 very different reasons behind choosing them...



In the right corner -RILEY NELSON

He plays if Bronco is loyal to RN being the starter. He's the team leader, a senior, the starter.. Will Bronco stay true to RN and make him the starter knowing he won't be 100% or AKA the best option to win.



In the left corner -James Lark



He plays if Bronco puts loyalty aside for the sake of giving his team "the best chance to win"

James Lark is better than RN injured PERIOD. It can be argued that James can run this offense better than RN can at 100%.



So Bronco; go for the win or go for pride. What will it be.

Knowing Bronco and given his decision in the utah, boise state, and then sjsu game i am going to safely say the latter. no question. coaches obviously did not learn their lesson from bsu and utah games. exhibit a in support of that i the sjsu game where riley couldn't even give his teammates high five.

Bronco is Bronco to a fault. I don't expect him to change. We all agree that he was as wrong about Riley Nelson this year as he was to punt at the end of his first game as head coach. I imagine that he still thinks the fans were wrong to boo him then, and that he made the right call then, and we are wrong to question him now about it as well.

Anyone that expects more out of him than what he's given in the last 8 years is only setting themselves up for disappointment. The way I see it, You learn to live with his limitations and enjoy the product that he puts on the field, or you don't, your fretting about it only makes you upset, Bronco simply doesn't care. Someday he may be fired for being too stubborn, but I don't see it happening (nor, do I want to see that happen). As for me, I’m OK to cheer for a great team lead by a good, but flawed man (who has no desire to change because he doesn't see his limitations as such)

what's with the caps?

CougarClaw wrote:
what's with the caps?

IT jumps out at you and screams for you to reply!!! :bug:

I no all to well like the rest of you how Bronco is. For better or worse he digs the RN type and is loyal to those players(even when those player talent hurts the team).. He is a players coach first and head ball coach second.

stgeorgefan wrote:
I no all to well like the rest of you how Bronco is. For better or worse he digs the RN type and is loyal to those players(even when those player talent hurts the team).. He is a players coach first and head ball coach second.

Basically you believe that ether Bronco favors guys who aren't as good simply because they "try" and he digs that, OR those more talented players are lazy and not willing to put in the time and effort to overcome the starters.



Probably some truth to both theories.



The second option (lazy players) would reflect poorly on the players at BYU and I actually think that some of the guys riding the bench are more talented but Bronco wants to see them more committed. There is nothing holding someone back in Bronco's system except "grit". Time for some of these guys to buy into the program, put in the work and get on the field. And I realize this isn't a 100% cut and dry explanation because I really don't believe Lark to be any less hard working than Riley. Riley really is hard to explain, especially playing him while injured. Ugh.

ABYUFAN wrote:
We all agree that he was as wrong about Riley Nelson this year as he was to punt at the end of his first game as head coach.

Or to go for a two against BSU with no timeouts left.

ABYUFAN wrote:
Bronco is Bronco to a fault. I don't expect him to change.

Here's a quote I find relevant to the situation at hand...

Albert Einstein (yes, the real Albert Einstein) wrote:
Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.

I think I'll add that to my signature block.

Ygridiron4ever wrote:

We all agree that he was as wrong about Riley Nelson this year as he was to punt at the end of his first game as head coach.

Or to go for a two against BSU with no timeouts left.

ABYUFAN wrote:
Bronco is Bronco to a fault. I don't expect him to change.

Here's a quote I find relevant to the situation at hand...

Albert Einstein (yes, the real Albert Einstein) wrote:
Problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them.

I think I'll add that to my signature block.

he actually made the right call at BSU. Bronco is right way more often than he's wrong. Which is why I fully support him as the head coach



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

ABYUFAN wrote:
he actually made the right call at BSU. Bronco is right way more often than he's wrong. Which is why I fully support him as the head coach

With a couple of time outs left, yes. But with absolutely no way to control one centilla of the game if you fail to score...I think its best to play the odds. And typically the odds are that a mediocre place kicker has a slightly higher possibility of success than a two point conversion from an offense that had a total of ONE drive that demonstrated they could move the line.



Just my thoughts.

Ygridiron4ever wrote:

he actually made the right call at BSU. Bronco is right way more often than he's wrong. Which is why I fully support him as the head coach

With a couple of time outs left, yes. But with absolutely no way to control one centilla of the game if you fail to score...I think its best to play the odds. And typically the odds are that a mediocre place kicker has a slightly higher possibility of success than a two point conversion from an offense that had a total of ONE drive that demonstrated they could move the line.



Just my thoughts.

I agree with ABYUFAN. Bronco made the right decision. Sorensen was hurt, Stephenson was missing everything he was kicking because he's a punter. Our best chance to win was with a 2 point conversion.

hawkwing wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:
he actually made the right call at BSU. Bronco is right way more often than he's wrong. Which is why I fully support him as the head coach

With a couple of time outs left, yes. But with absolutely no way to control one centilla of the game if you fail to score...I think its best to play the odds. And typically the odds are that a mediocre place kicker has a slightly higher possibility of success than a two point conversion from an offense that had a total of ONE drive that demonstrated they could move the line.



Just my thoughts.

I agree with ABYUFAN. Bronco made the right decision. Sorensen was hurt, Stephenson was missing everything he was kicking because he's a punter. Our best chance to win was with a 2 point conversion.

I was fine with the decision. he had a chance to take the game right there and he took it. brock stringham made sure that the play didn't succeed.

BroncoBot wrote:

I no all to well like the rest of you how Bronco is. For better or worse he digs the RN type and is loyal to those players(even when those player talent hurts the team).. He is a players coach first and head ball coach second.

Basically you believe that ether Bronco favors guys who aren't as good simply because they "try" and he digs that, OR those more talented players are lazy and not willing to put in the time and effort to overcome the starters.



Probably some truth to both theories.



The second option (lazy players) would reflect poorly on the players at BYU and I actually think that some of the guys riding the bench are more talented but Bronco wants to see them more committed. There is nothing holding someone back in Bronco's system except "grit". Time for some of these guys to buy into the program, put in the work and get on the field. And I realize this isn't a 100% cut and dry explanation because I really don't believe Lark to be any less hard working than Riley. Riley really is hard to explain, especially playing him while injured. Ugh.

Yes kinda....... I believe Bronco puts a premium on "grit" more than he does raw/refined talent. In general you could say its an effort based system to a point. It can't always be that way though, you could have 2 guys that have equal effort but 1 has to start and 1 has to sit. I've never heard anything from anyone ( in the lark fam or out) that would suggest that James was not 100% bought in to the program. He had the talent edge over RN too. He just didn't win over Bronco's heart in 2011 like RN did.

stgeorgefan wrote:

stgeorgefan wrote:
I no all to well like the rest of you how Bronco is. For better or worse he digs the RN type and is loyal to those players(even when those player talent hurts the team).. He is a players coach first and head ball coach second.

Basically you believe that ether Bronco favors guys who aren't as good simply because they "try" and he digs that, OR those more talented players are lazy and not willing to put in the time and effort to overcome the starters.



Probably some truth to both theories.



The second option (lazy players) would reflect poorly on the players at BYU and I actually think that some of the guys riding the bench are more talented but Bronco wants to see them more committed. There is nothing holding someone back in Bronco's system except "grit". Time for some of these guys to buy into the program, put in the work and get on the field. And I realize this isn't a 100% cut and dry explanation because I really don't believe Lark to be any less hard working than Riley. Riley really is hard to explain, especially playing him while injured. Ugh.

Yes kinda....... I believe Bronco puts a premium on "grit" more than he does raw/refined talent. In general you could say its an effort based system to a point. It can't always be that way though, you could have 2 guys that have equal effort but 1 has to start and 1 has to sit. I've never heard anything from anyone ( in the lark fam or out) that would suggest that James was not 100% bought in to the program. He had the talent edge over RN too. He just didn't win over Bronco's heart in 2011 like RN did.

the rule is put best player on the field that gives you the best chance at winning. normally talent will trump effort but not always. there is a balance and a decision has to be made without emotional attachment.

jonnylingo wrote:

Ygridiron4ever wrote:

he actually made the right call at BSU. Bronco is right way more often than he's wrong. Which is why I fully support him as the head coach

With a couple of time outs left, yes. But with absolutely no way to control one centilla of the game if you fail to score...I think its best to play the odds. And typically the odds are that a mediocre place kicker has a slightly higher possibility of success than a two point conversion from an offense that had a total of ONE drive that demonstrated they could move the line.



Just my thoughts.

I agree with ABYUFAN. Bronco made the right decision. Sorensen was hurt, Stephenson was missing everything he was kicking because he's a punter. Our best chance to win was with a 2 point conversion.

I was fine with the decision. he had a chance to take the game right there and he took it. brock stringham made sure that the play didn't succeed.

The stupidity was not onside kicking when it didn't work. Kick it deep with only three minutes and no timeouts? Facepalm.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

ABYUFAN wrote:
he actually made the right call at BSU. Bronco is right way more often than he's wrong. Which is why I fully support him as the head coach

With a couple of time outs left, yes. But with absolutely no way to control one centilla of the game if you fail to score...I think its best to play the odds. And typically the odds are that a mediocre place kicker has a slightly higher possibility of success than a two point conversion from an offense that had a total of ONE drive that demonstrated they could move the line.



Just my thoughts.

I agree with ABYUFAN. Bronco made the right decision. Sorensen was hurt, Stephenson was missing everything he was kicking because he's a punter. Our best chance to win was with a 2 point conversion.

I was fine with the decision. he had a chance to take the game right there and he took it. brock stringham made sure that the play didn't succeed.

The stupidity was not onside kicking when it didn't work. Kick it deep with only three minutes and no timeouts? Facepalm.

I think the whole game was mis-managed. In order: Riley starting - using timeouts at non critical moments - going for two with a dominate defense etc etc - not going for onside kick... Now screwed due to not having any timeouts and being behind by 1 instead of being tied. :sick:

I've been very supportive of Bronco all along, and have never criticized his decisions. I was bothered, however, by his post-game interview where he basically refused to admit to ever having made a mistake. He said he wouldn't change any decision he made this year.



For someone to state that they have no intention of learning from mistakes sticks in my craw a little. I would think that he would admit that playing Riley when injured was a mistake, and he would remember those decisions in the future.



I think Bronco is a great coach for this team, and his emphasis on "other than football" is exactly what is needed at BYU, especially after the debaucle under his predecessor. But come on, man up! Admit it when you made a mistake and move on!

Cougarfan87 wrote:
The stupidity was not onside kicking when it didn't work. Kick it deep with only three minutes and no timeouts? Facepalm.

Exactly.