Developing the Back-up QB and others

I was listening on the local sports radio yesterday about a coach that put in his second team the third series of every game. I suppose the idea was that if the second teamers knew for sure they would be playing, they would practice harder and be prepared to play. By practicing harder, they would get the first teamers more ready. The local sports guy went on to say it was a good thing because many of the second teamers became starters when they were given an opportunity to show case their talents in live games. The coach for this unconventional approach? Paul Bear Bryant.



Too often if BYU gets a big lead the back up comes in and only hands the ball off. I think the better option for development is to bring in the enitre second team and let them run the full offense. Then if they score a couple, bring in the third team. If the third team scores once, then just run the ball.



If Taysom doesn't still need a bunch of yards to be in the Heisman race, I also like the idea of starting Mangum for the Wagner game, and letting Hoge and Detmer in later in the game, assuming they are not redshirting. But, that's probably why I am not the coach.

So, BYU has in the past couple of seasons rotated as many as 4 RBs, 8 WRs, 10 OL (that's going to come down), 10 to 12 DL, 8 to 10 LBs a game. The only position they don't really rotate is their DBs.



Do the 2nd stringers always come in together? no, but a lot of people play.

I agree it would be beneficial playing the backup QB for a series or two each game. I guess the only concern is , against better competition can you afford to not play your best players all the time? It's a slim margin of error in those bigger games. At the same time, it might keep the defense off balance and make it harder to adjust to our primary defense

I think BYU has poorly prepared backups under Bronco. When they do come in at the end of blowouts, I sometimes feel like they come a couple, three series later than they could have. And then all they do is run base defensive or offensive sets. There is not blitzing, hardly any passing; essentially the playbook on both sides of the ball seems to be reduced to half a page.

Bryant coached during an era where there were no scholarship restrictions. His 2nd team was probably better than most of his competitions 1st team. No one has that luxury today especially BYU. You only get so many offensive series in a game and BYU can't afford to throw every 3rd series away putting in a Freshman QB who has only been home from a mission for a few months. What if they put him in during a close game and he throws a pick six that cost us the game? I think that putting in the back up at the end of a blow out is fine, and I agree that Bronco leaves the starter in too long in order to insure victory in some blowouts but I just don't see the logic in playing the second string during games that are in doubt.

Generally, I think the time to play the backup is when you've got a 3 score lead, before the 1st team defense has been yanked, and let him run the offense like it's still 0-0 - with the understanding that if he turns the ball over, he's done. Run the whole offense, but know that throws out-of-bounds, punts, and getting safely to the ground in the backfield without being stripped are all good plays. And keep the rest of the 1st string offense in there, so he's got something to work with.



In our particular situation, though, I'd be tempted to put our second guy in with Hill as a running back. They would have to respect the outside zone read, because Hill is probably our best ball carrier. If they over-commit to him, the second guy can pick up some yards with his legs, or throw it if we've called the play that way and the linemen aren't downfield. He's getting experience making all the pre-snap reads, the coverage reads, and the zone read. And then there's always the possibility that you give to Hill and he throws it. I would hate to be the corner on an island out there that has to choose between covering a receiver or coming up in run support.

frdbtr wrote:
Bryant coached during an era where there were no scholarship restrictions. His 2nd team was probably better than most of his competitions 1st team. No one has that luxury today especially BYU. You only get so many offensive series in a game and BYU can't afford to throw every 3rd series away putting in a Freshman QB who has only been home from a mission for a few months. What if they put him in during a close game and he throws a pick six that cost us the game? I think that putting in the back up at the end of a blow out is fine, and I agree that Bronco leaves the starter in too long in order to insure victory in some blowouts but I just don't see the logic in playing the second string during games that are in doubt.

Yes, I agree in some respects. However, Bryant also played teams that likewise did not have scholarship limits. I wonder if that changed his philosophy. Knowing his reputation, I would guess that it did not, but I don't know for sure. The advantage to such a philosophy is that the second team gets much better because they know they are going to see the field and get some playing time. So, they practice harder which makes the first team better. But as someone else posted, I think most of the second team on BYU does see the field with the rotation in defense, offensive line, and running back. So, I will concede that BYU probably wouldn't necessarily need to follow this pattern if it keeps rotating fresh bodies in.



However, where they don't see the field is QB, and perhaps that is the biggest problem. The next guy up is never ready, and it seems to take two years to get them there. Even if it isn't a blowout, we have to figure out a way to get guys more experience before they become the starters. The benefits are three fold--1. The QB gets real life game pressure, and not just against pansies that are already blown out. 2. The starting QB gets to take a break for a series and see things from the sidelines--perhaps giving them a better perspective of what is going on. 3. You know whether you have a good QB in the pipeline you can work with or whether the pipline is empty pretty early on.



I have never looked up the minutes, but it seemed during the glory days, all of BYUs QBs ended up getting substantial minutes previous to becoming a starter (many times due to injuries of the starters). I know Neilsen filled in for an injured Sheide, Wilson filled in for an injured Neilsen, McMahon filled in for an injured Wilson. I'm not sure if Young came in for an injured McMahon, but I think he got some time due to blowouts. We struck gold with Bosco, because I'm not sure if he got many minutes before becoming the starter in 1984, unless Young had a lot of blowouts. I know Detmer got a lot of minutes due to Sean Covey's concussion problems.

Young started two games in 1981 - he was awful. He lost to UNLV and beat Utah State at home by just 6 pts. He threw 1 TD and 5 INTs in those starts. His passer rating in those two games was 112.11. He did rush for 129 yards, but had no TDs.

Cougarfan87 wrote:

Bryant coached during an era where there were no scholarship restrictions. His 2nd team was probably better than most of his competitions 1st team. No one has that luxury today especially BYU. You only get so many offensive series in a game and BYU can't afford to throw every 3rd series away putting in a Freshman QB who has only been home from a mission for a few months. What if they put him in during a close game and he throws a pick six that cost us the game? I think that putting in the back up at the end of a blow out is fine, and I agree that Bronco leaves the starter in too long in order to insure victory in some blowouts but I just don't see the logic in playing the second string during games that are in doubt.

Yes, I agree in some respects. However, Bryant also played teams that likewise did not have scholarship limits. I wonder if that changed his philosophy. Knowing his reputation, I would guess that it did not, but I don't know for sure. The advantage to such a philosophy is that the second team gets much better because they know they are going to see the field and get some playing time. So, they practice harder which makes the first team better. But as someone else posted, I think most of the second team on BYU does see the field with the rotation in defense, offensive line, and running back. So, I will concede that BYU probably wouldn't necessarily need to follow this pattern if it keeps rotating fresh bodies in.



However, where they don't see the field is QB, and perhaps that is the biggest problem. The next guy up is never ready, and it seems to take two years to get them there. Even if it isn't a blowout, we have to figure out a way to get guys more experience before they become the starters. The benefits are three fold--1. The QB gets real life game pressure, and not just against pansies that are already blown out. 2. The starting QB gets to take a break for a series and see things from the sidelines--perhaps giving them a better perspective of what is going on. 3. You know whether you have a good QB in the pipeline you can work with or whether the pipline is empty pretty early on.



I have never looked up the minutes, but it seemed during the glory days, all of BYUs QBs ended up getting substantial minutes previous to becoming a starter (many times due to injuries of the starters). I know Neilsen filled in for an injured Sheide, Wilson filled in for an injured Neilsen, McMahon filled in for an injured Wilson. I'm not sure if Young came in for an injured McMahon, but I think he got some time due to blowouts. We struck gold with Bosco, because I'm not sure if he got many minutes before becoming the starter in 1984, unless Young had a lot of blowouts. I know Detmer got a lot of minutes due to Sean Covey's concussion problems.

I just don't see how the reward would outweigh the risk. When teams had unlimited scholarships, it didn't mean they were on a level playing field. Teams like ND and Alabama got the cream of recruits and could get as many as they wanted and others had to deal with the leftovers. Also, I don't see how putting Taysom in as a RB will help him stay healthy this year. Aren't we trying to avoid him getting hit? Max Hall never saw a game snap until AZ and he looked great in that game in 07. If we get a chance at letting Mangum go out there and sling it in a blow out fine but I don't see any benefit to putting the second string guy in there while the game is in doubt.

The problem is that Bronco doesn't develop his backup QB's during in season practices by not giving them enough reps. Stewart is a prime example he had spent no real time practicing with the first team in and then when Hill was injured was called on to perform. He looked good when teams hadn't had time to scout him but when they did he struggled from lack of familiarity with the first team.

TheDean wrote:
The problem is that Bronco doesn't develop his backup QB's during in season practices by not giving them enough reps. Stewart is a prime example he had spent no real time practicing with the first team in and then when Hill was injured was called on to perform. He looked good when teams hadn't had time to scout him but when they did he struggled from lack of familiarity with the first team.

I just don't see the logic here being reality.

Central florida stewart threw for 3 td's and 1 interception BYU lost 24-31, I blame that loss on the defense

Nevada Stewart threw for 408 yards with 4 td's and no interceptions, BYU loses 35-42, how is that possibly the fault of anyone but the defense

Boise State was an old fashioned butt whoopin where Stewart threw for 259 yards. He threw for 1 TD and 1 interception but again, that loss is on the defense again.

Memphis BYU threw for 348 yards had 3 td's and 3 interceptions. Yes that is not good but we gave up 55 freaking points.



Last years issues had absolutely nothing to do with not developing a backup QB. Stewart was fine and we would have won many more ball games if the defense hadn't given up an average of 28 points per football game.

TheDean wrote:
The problem is that Bronco doesn't develop his backup QB's during in season practices by not giving them enough reps. Stewart is a prime example he had spent no real time practicing with the first team in and then when Hill was injured was called on to perform. He looked good when teams hadn't had time to scout him but when they did he struggled from lack of familiarity with the first team.

So what you're saying is when Stewart was less prepared (i.e. less game time) he was actually better than when he became more experienced?

With an average Bronco mendenhall coached defense, BYU loses 2 games last year. Utah state and Boise state. And in reality, Bronco Mendenhall is so good at stopping the BSU offense, he may have won that one too. Last year is solely on the defense. My bold prediction for this year is the defense will give up an average of 10pts per game less than last years defense.

frdbtr wrote:
With an average Bronco mendenhall coached defense, BYU loses 2 games last year. Utah state and Boise state. And in reality, Bronco Mendenhall is so good at stopping the BSU offense, he may have won that one too. Last year is solely on the defense. My bold prediction for this year is the defense will give up an average of 10pts per game less than last years defense.

Last year is solely on Nick Howell--to be more specific.

You sure? Didn't Bronco take over after the Nevada loss only to give up 55 to Boise? And didn't BYU finish the season giving up 90 points in the final two games including a second drubbing of 55 points allowed?



There were more issues on the defense than just Howell.

SpiffCoug wrote:
You sure? Didn't Bronco take over after the Nevada loss only to give up 55 to Boise? And didn't BYU finish the season giving up 90 points in the final two games including a second drubbing of 55 points allowed?



There were more issues on the defense than just Howell.

Bronco took over play calling against Boise state, then gave it back after the game. He had no influence on the day to day defensive stuff last year. Didn't take that back until after the season was over.

SpiffCoug wrote:

The problem is that Bronco doesn't develop his backup QB's during in season practices by not giving them enough reps. Stewart is a prime example he had spent no real time practicing with the first team in and then when Hill was injured was called on to perform. He looked good when teams hadn't had time to scout him but when they did he struggled from lack of familiarity with the first team.

So what you're saying is when Stewart was less prepared (i.e. less game time) he was actually better than when he became more experienced?

Yes he was because Bronco and Anae give most of the reps with the first team to the first string QB and not the backup and so the backups don't develop very well. Also Bronco and Anae forget that sometimes just because a player doesn't do well in practice they won't do well at game time. Wilson and Nielson were prime examples of that they were only so so in practice but when put into a game the excelled. they are what is termed a gamer Like Stewart and now Magnum.

Well now Hoge needs to develop. Just in case.

TheDean wrote:

TheDean wrote:
The problem is that Bronco doesn't develop his backup QB's during in season practices by not giving them enough reps. Stewart is a prime example he had spent no real time practicing with the first team in and then when Hill was injured was called on to perform. He looked good when teams hadn't had time to scout him but when they did he struggled from lack of familiarity with the first team.

So what you're saying is when Stewart was less prepared (i.e. less game time) he was actually better than when he became more experienced?

Yes he was because Bronco and Anae give most of the reps with the first team to the first string QB and not the backup and so the backups don't develop very well. Also Bronco and Anae forget that sometimes just because a player doesn't do well in practice they won't do well at game time. Wilson and Nielson were prime examples of that they were only so so in practice but when put into a game the excelled. they are what is termed a gamer Like Stewart and now Magnum.

If you're a coach you can't bank on the fact that a kid will perform well in game but not in practice. Each game is too important to test out which kids will be the very rare in-game kid but not practice kid. In fact, I'd say for every 1000 kids that don't do well in practice, maybe 1 will be able to turn it on in a game. Not good odds.