Would you rather? Heaps and Hills editions

Would you rather have Jake Heaps or Taysom Hill starting for you in 2013? Why?

Jake heaps transeferring actually was a benefit by clearing up (somewhat) our logjam at that position

Hill - since he's actually a part of the program. I always favor guys willing to transfer TO BYU as opposed to FROM BYU.



Plus, at this point, Heaps would just be another washed up upperclassman standing in the way of more talented underclassmen. But because he would have more time in the program, he would only be playing because of Bronco's love for upperclassmen and lack of trust in freshmen and sophomores.

I think if Heaps had stayed and Hill still came to BYU, Heaps would only have started another game at BYU if Hill got injured.

Going back in time, and assuming that Heaps did not transfer, and did what I was hoping he would have done last year, and redshirt, and use last year to really up his game, and build cohesion with the team, I think he would've been the clear cut starter this year.

Ungoy wrote:
Going back in time, and assuming that Heaps did not transfer, and did what I was hoping he would have done last year, and redshirt, and use last year to really up his game, and build cohesion with the team, I think he would've been the clear cut starter this year.

It's not who you think or deduce, It's who you prefer. If I'm reading the questions correctly.



I put Hill. There was just far too much discord, blame, failure, divisions, etc, etc. Jake would not have gotten a clean shot at becoming the qb he can become. And this is all based on the absence of clear passing trends and data from Hill.

Further, Heaps was too much the scapegoat and punching bag by teammates and fans. Heaps staying would have horrifically complicated things in 2012--stay on redshirt vs. come off and waste redshirt--all dependent on the Soap Opera drama of Riley's injuries and ego. Not a chance. I'm so glad he transferred. Doman may have gone down in flames hitching himself to Riley, but Heaps would have been still strapped with Domans sins.

What happened is the best for Heaps, Hill, and the players, team, And fans of BYU.

Both?



I think Heaps would be better starting this year than Hill, all things being equal.



If the question was "Who would be a better start for 2013?" then I would answer Heaps without thinking twice about it. But I wouldn't rather him start over Taysom. Things worked out the way they worked out, and I wish the best for both of them.

Olsen - the guy on the bench is always best - especially if he practices really well.



Also curiosity.



More seriously. If Heaps had stayed. Played when needed in 2012, and shown improvement - Heaps - easy choice.



Hill is not 100% and only lasted a couple of games last year. He could be injury prone. According to reports - threw some picks this Spring. He may need a bit more time.



Bottom line - we do not have a very experienced QB or this would be an easy choice.



Heaps has experience. Since he did not stay, he also has a redshirt experience, is a year more mature, and learned from other coaching. If he truly is NFL material it will show this season. Big Time. If not - he was just way over-rated.



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

Heaps needed to go somewhere he was believed in and not scapegoated bc the OC didn't know what he was doing. Where he could be held accountable for his flaws and not the OCs.

My belief is that if Heaps had stayed and swallowed his pride he'd be about where Hill is now. He didn't stay or do much swallowing. I believe Hill is not only as good as Heaps would have been but by mid season he will have passed up the best that Heaps would have been. This is contingent on freedom from serious injury but even that goes for both of them. We got the best qb out this mess and that from little Pocotello, Idaho.

Don't kid yourself. Heaps swallowed a lot of crap. He was a broken young man by the time he left. Yes, some of it was his fault. But definitely needed a reset button-- for his faults and from the flaws of this program.

nuk13 wrote:
My belief is that if Heaps had stayed and swallowed his pride he'd be about where Hill is now. He didn't stay or do much swallowing. I believe Hill is not only as good as Heaps would have been but by mid season he will have passed up the best that Heaps would have been. This is contingent on freedom from serious injury but even that goes for both of them. We got the best qb out this mess and that from little Pocotello, Idaho.

Things always seem to work out. A lot of BYU fans were upset when Ben Olsen transferred. But he wound up having an injury plagued career at UCLA while BYU found Max Hall who won more games than anyone in school history.



Maybe this will be a similar situation?

If Heaps was scape-goated, kicked around, used as a punching bag, it was because he behaved foolishly, even ridiculously. Anybody, no matter how highly prized a recruit, that came in as a freshman, acting like he owned the program, violating the traditions of respect/privilege for upper classmen, and also blowing off summer work-outs, would end up as an object of derision. It also did not help Heaps' prospects, that he initiated rival factions among players that was damaging to team unity. These issues would cause me to want another QB to start, even if not as experienced. Experience will come sooner than caustic memories of bad leadership will fade. I do agree that transfer was best for him. Assuming that he has learned from his mistakes, he would need a fresh start in order to establish respect. And that's all I have to say about that.



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

hawkwing wrote:
Would you rather have Jake Heaps or Taysom Hill starting for you in 2013? Why?

Title edit? Hill vs Hills?



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

Taysom Hill. He has that intangible football leadership x-factor - building camaraderie. It pays dividends in on field team performance. Heaps had the skill potential by the buckets, but lacked the leadership factor. I think a lot of it was due to immaturity and arrogance on the part Heaps.

Ddawg wrote:
Taysom Hill. He has that intangible football leadership x-factor - building camaraderie. It pays dividends in on field team performance. Heaps had the skill potential by the buckets, but lacked the leadership factor. I think a lot of it was due to immaturity and arrogance on the part Heaps.

Agreed. Taysom served the Lord, and came back more mature with the above mentioned qualities. His athaletic abilities haven't deminished either.

nuk13 wrote:

Taysom Hill. He has that intangible football leadership x-factor - building camaraderie. It pays dividends in on field team performance. Heaps had the skill potential by the buckets, but lacked the leadership factor. I think a lot of it was due to immaturity and arrogance on the part Heaps.

Agreed. Taysom served the Lord, and came back more mature with the above mentioned qualities. His athaletic abilities haven't deminished either.

+1. Bingo.

Heaps as a senior this year with Hill as a rs frosh. Of course I hope to be proven wrong at the end of the year.



Btw did anyone catch Pres Uchtdorf's talk about how seniority is no reason to think a person will be more productive? Maybe we can forward the talk to BM.



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

jvquarterback wrote:
Heaps as a senior this year with Hill as a rs frosh. Of course I hope to be proven wrong at the end of the year.



Btw did anyone catch Pres Uchtdorf's talk about how seniority is no reason to think a person will be more productive? Maybe we can forward the talk to BM.



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

Funny I was actually thinking of you and your position taken in the gun violence facts thread when in Conference it was stated that man, by nature, was carnal and sensual... ;) Maybe you and Bronco can take lessons from confernce together...

You're asking for this thread to get locked but I wonder how many people have looked up the meaning of carnal and sensual? If they have they'll realize it doesn't effect my argument. Just because people are prone to gratifying the flesh does not mean they become thieves, rapists and murderers.



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