Redshirting Heaps

I'm really curious about how those fully in the start Heaps now camp answer.



My answer is yes. I think red shirting Jake could be very beneficial for the seasons beyond 2010.



Again, I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time during the summer, fall camp and 2010 season.

I know he has no current mission plans, but that's before he's taken any of his required BYU religion classes. He may very well stay the next four years, but don't think the decision to have him play or red shirt won't play into a future decision to go on a mission.



I think if he's a full-year starter, the current low odds of him going on a mission drop further. (What is the value of a soul anyway?)



If he red-shirts, we have Nelson, Lark, or Munns -- he gets to red-shirt, learn, as well as have time for the two-year maturation chamber in Brazil or Thailand.

There is always value in experience & the maturity that happens with time & exposure.

Now - would Jake be effective as a starter this year? Yes. Would Jake help BYU win football games this year? Yes. But - in the long term - will it help Jake & the Cougs to "Red Shirt" Jake this year? I think so.



I really wouldn't want to be the Coaches making this decision & approaching Jake. No doubt in my mind - Jake wants to play. No doubt in my mind - Jake wants to earn that starting QB spot. He's not cocky - he's confident born out of experience & assessing his skill accurately. He has lots of wins & positive experiences to back up his confidence.



I'm excited to see how this summer shapes up. Whatever the outcome - I will not be surprised. I think all the choices & possibilities are will work. What a predicament eh????

8)

If BYU had the luxury of redshirting Heaps so he could learn from the likes of Max Hall or John Beck there would be great merit to it but that is not the reality we are facing.



Heaps is the best performer coming out of spring by many people and players accounts, he is doing the best so far in the off season workouts.



Now... lets hear the Nelson camps uproar of a response.

I voted no, because I think that if Heaps is the starter this year, and learns during our rebuilding year (I don't have too much hope for this season), that we'd be really good in 2011 and that's when we play Texas and Oregon St. And I believe that if Heaps plays this upcoming year during what might very well be a down year anyway (still think we easily make 8 wins). That he will pretty likely be better come 2011.



To make myself clear I truly believe that if you look short term and want more wins this upcoming year, or at least the chance to (I really don't think there's a big difference in amounting to wins between the 2 of them, but believe that Nelson might have a slight edge) then I would play Nelson, but if I was the head coach and knowing that they have to fill so many positions already and I'm looking long term then it wouldn't hurt to get Heaps into the system now, thus is better for long term. Thus having a better chance at a much more successful season come 2011. So once again to make myself clear, I don't think Nelson will amount to much being a QB at BYU, not saying he won't be descent, but come on folks he's no Max, or Ty, or Jim. So I say let's think long term what is better.



I'd figure I'd also add that I do believe that redshirt years are indeed very beneficial to players, but as I'm said I'm looking to 2011 where we have a great schedule to do some damage. ;)

WestCoastCat wrote:
Heaps is the best performer coming out of spring by many people and players accounts, he is doing the best so far in the off season workouts.

Again, this simply isn't true. The stats from spring ball give a slight edge to Nelson. Bronco and Doman both stated follwing spring ball that the race was still wide open and that neither QB had an edge. The myth being perpetuated that Heaps simply dominated spring ball is just not the case.

Obvious answer to the ACTUAL poll question is yes. That's because it's pretty vague. Of COURSE there is "value." The only way redshirting ANYBODY yields ZERO value is when, during that year, the player suffers a career ending injury (or decides to transfer, etc).



What everybody here is debating is whether the value of starting Heaps this year (or not redshirting him and letting him back up Nelson or somebody else) is GREATER than the value of experience he'd recieve by redshirting this year.



Problem there is further how you define value.



If value means "maximizing wins in 2010" there's no really good answer. It's been discussed ad nauseum of late by the site's heavy-hitters who would be best starter for the team this year. More will go on the shoulders of the QB this year than in many others, simply because there are so few returning weapons. Who would best shoulder that load this year? Beats me. I actually don't think we'd see a difference in wins whether Heaps started every game or whether Nelson started every game (I'm just sitting here PRAYING that Anae and Mendenhall are smart enough not to QB-by-committee/back-and-forth like Crowton did. In almost every instance I've seen that, it's been an absolute CANCER to a team).



If value means "maximizing wins over the course of Heaps' career specifically," I'd say, yes, he'd probably get more wins in 2014 as a redshirt senior than he would in 2010 as a true freshman. I dislike that mentality, however, as it kind of throws the 2010 season (as well as consideration for the rest of the team) under the bus. I'm all for Heaps being the once-in-a-generation quarterback everybody's assuming he'll be, but if we were somehow just as successful with or without the guy, I really don't care about a specific player as compared to BYU Football in general.



Lastly, If value means "maximizing BYU's overall success for the forseeable future," there are so many variables in play here it renders the argument completely abstract. F.ex:



- Heaps starts. Nelson sits. I can't see to where Nelson ever starts a game, barring injury. Big deal? Maybe, maybe not. This also means that Heaps VERY likely plays four years straight, no redshirt. Is this the best scenario? Lots of people are calling this a rebuilding year no matter who starts. If it's really a throw-away, will giving Heaps the starts replace the need for a redshirt year as long as we're not seeing his ultimate potential anyway due to lack of supporting cast? I'd probably say no to that. It'd be irresponsible not to maximize his talent with the most preparation possible.



- Heaps redshirts, Nelson starts, and does reasonably well (3-4 losses). Who is the better choice to start 2011? Heaps, with assertedly the greater talent, who's gained experience running the scout team, or Nelson, who had a decent showing the year before, and would, safe to say, have gained more experience than Heaps, due to actually lacing it up against real D-1 teams? If Heaps starts 2011, it's safe to say he'll have a shallower learning curve as a first-time starter after a redshirt, than he would have if he were to start this year, but that would be at the expense of Nelson, who, if allowed to start this year, would be awfully hard to bench, as a senior following a successful junior campaign, in order to start a redshirt freshman. Problem is, with Heaps' tremendous upside, that'd be burning a year of his eligibility by sitting him. Again, is that such a bad thing? Some say yes, get the kid on the field as fast as humanly possible. Some say no, the best QBs have become the best after waiting and learning.



- Is there a middle ground? Hard for me to think so. I doubt the coaches want two first-time starters 2 years in a row. And as illustrated above, it'd be hard not to start in 2011 the player who started 2010. Bird in the hand, and all that. Further, if Nelson begins the year as a starter, and this season goes south fast, I'm not sure that wouldn't be MORE reason for the coaches to want Heaps to take the redshirt. Why waste a year of his eligibility taking over midstream in a year that could end up a dud anyway? Conversely, what if Nelson starts and has a GREAT year - say, no more than one OOC loss, no more than one conference loss, and a bowl win. Realistically, how many people are going to be clamoring for a redshirt freshman (even one as talented as Heaps) to replace a senior-to-be who just led them to a double-digit-win season? All the more reason the decision on who will start this year is so huge.



So the way I see it, Heaps has at mos 3 years with "unlimited potential." 2010 is really not it. So the question is, does BYU get the most out of Heaps' "valuable" years being 2011-13, or 2012-14? If you know that, you're smarter (or more opinionated) than me.

Kit as usual you are wrong about your spring ball analysis or maybe sno has talked you into his fantasy of Nelson dominating spring ball. I personally saw allot of spring practice with my own two eyes since I know one of the players family members. I am not speculating here I actually saw what was going on and Nelson didnt bring up his numbers till the very very end. It was like the coaches started given him some defensive combinations that he could beat so he wouldnt loose heart and keep the race closer than it actually was. They couldnt let Heaps run away with spring as they wanted to keep the competition going into fall.



I saw the 11 on 11's too and Nelson struggled often to move the ball.



The difference between the two QB"s is glaring and Heaps is just a freshman. Hence Wrubell's comments Keeping Heaps off the field is going to be hard to do... the kid is just that good.

Wait, guys... what's that name people call somebody who's been a member of the board a grand total of 2 days and 8 posts, who invariably claims unverifiable "inside info," and isn't the least bit interested in being respectful of others' opinions? It's just not rolling off my tongue like words usually do...I mean, it's so hard for my mind to control lots of thoughts that fly through it...like, would you find bellbottoms on a retro llama?

;)

Respect is relevant... Just because I dont agree with you doesnt make me disrespectful.

I HOPE you meant relative. Though, humorously, your commentary at respect's relevance is quite appropriate. You'll note I haven't said I agree or disagree with anything you've said. Contrarily, I've stated clearly that my opinion hasn't been formulated yet.



I take exception to you showing up here and rudely calling out respected members of the board community whose opinions are almost always well thought out, and much more worthy of my respect than yours.



And yes, you WERE being disrespectful.

Golf I wasn't responding to you but thanks for the spelling correction...



You really shouldn't be so easily offended just because someone doesn't agree with you or your buddies.

WestCoastCat wrote:
Kit as usual you are wrong about your spring ball analysis or maybe sno has talked you into his fantasy of Nelson dominating spring ball. I personally saw allot of spring practice with my own two eyes since I know one of the players family members. I am not speculating here I actually saw what was going on and Nelson didnt bring up his numbers till the very very end. It was like the coaches started given him some defensive combinations that he could beat so he wouldnt loose heart and keep the race closer than it actually was. They couldnt let Heaps run away with spring as they wanted to keep the competition going into fall.



I saw the 11 on 11's too and Nelson struggled often to move the ball.



The difference between the two QB"s is glaring and Heaps is just a freshman. Hence Wrubell's comments Keeping Heaps off the field is going to be hard to do... the kid is just that good.

Sorry, the logic that "Nelson didn't bring up his numbers till the very, very end..." and then implying that the coaches somehow were fixing the race is very interesting to me.



Point 1) Do stats at the end of the game count less than stats accumulated at the start. Are touchdowns in the 4th quarter worth fewer points? Do passing yards only count for 3/4 of their value. That's bad logic. Nelson picking up his game to a higher level by the end of spring ball is a good thing. It shows he can improve and started making plays. To somehow suggest that his accomplishments mean less because they came in the last week and not the first is just weird to me. No where in any of my posts have I tried to discredit Heaps' stats or accomplishments. I've simply tried to point out that he was not head and shoulders better over the entire course of spring ball.



Point 2) To suggest that somehow BYU coaches were fixing the race implies a lack of integrity and honest competition that I simply cannot see Bronco condoning or encouraging. That's insulting to BYU's program and both Heaps and Nelson. I don't know Nelson, and I highly doubt he would want to win the job in that fashion.

I voted yes. There isn't anyone who couldn't benefit from a redshirt year. It's a year to get a little bigger, let the game speed down a bit, and learn the play book that much better.



That said, you could say the same thing for any one of the guys in this race. Sure some of them have already used their redshirt year. That doesn't mean that another year couldn't benefit them. Do you think that Lark and Munns remember every little thing from before their mission? And we know they certainly aren't in the kind of shape to play to their best nor is their timing as sharp as it has been in the past. But I think it's clear that Riley's days at QB are numbered. Even if he starts this year, I don't think it's a given that he retains his job next year. He has a distinct advantage over all the others by being in the program the longest (current and continuous). That advantage sure didn't give him much if any edge on the job through spring ball. So it's only a matter of time before the other's close the gap and/or pass Riley up. Maybe he could benefit from taking his redshirt year and finding a new position where he could help the team more?



Again, I've made it clear all along that I don't care who starts the first game against UW. I just want the guy starting each week who gives us the best chance to win that game. If that's Riley, I'm down with that decision. If it's someone else... coolio. I'll respect whatever decision the coaches make. They certainly should have earned the benefit of the doubt from the fans for the product they've put on the field the last four years without feeling like they should be second-guessed from game 1 of the season.



That said, I do think the writing is on the wall about who is in the lead for the job. Of all the people who have seen these guys the most (the media and the players), it sounds like the majority favor Heaps. Both Wrubell and Drew have already crowned Jake. While I don't recall others having singled one guy out, they certainly have commented on how good Jake looks and how amazing it is that he looks that good so early. I've spoken to a couple of players that favor Jake and have read/heard of others (who I trust) who have spoken to other players that have said similar things. None of these guys ever make it sound like there will be mutiny if Riley is named the guy but they just seem to think that Jake can take them the farthest this year. Think about the older guys on the team. They just want to have the best year possible this year. I remember Curtis Brown and Matt Berry were very good friends but Curtis didn't really have any qualms about Beck being named the starter over Matt because he knew or believed that John gave them the best chance to win. A junior or senior doesn't want to suffer through a losing or so-so season just to watch the program grow to have a successful future after they've departed. They want the absolute best guys in the trenches next to them, whoever that may be, to make sure they have the best season possible.



If Jake gives us the best chance to win, I want him to start... as soon as possible. But if Riley is the guy, then I think it would be in Jake's best interest to redshirt as opposed to backing up Riley. He would learn more from running the scout team and getting all those reps against a D1 defense than getting blowout reps or second team reps in practice. If Riley is the starter, then Lark or Munns, who have both already exhausted their redshirts would be more than capable backups that we wouldn't need Jake to be the #2 even if he were the second best QB.

The coaches will figure it out and I don't think any of them like losing games and will have confidence tha they can figure out 2011 when 2011 gets here but will focus on trying to win every single game in 2010 as their first priority. Once they have given themselves the best odds for success in any given game, they will look for opportunites to develop other players whent he opportunity is there.



And most years, there is a huge wildcard - INJURIES. They will happen. It might be something minor like a finger, thumb, or sprain - or heaven forbid - somethign worse.



Ask Jake Locker. Ask Bradford. back in the day, you could have asked Ryan Hancock, John Walsh, and Steve Clement all in the sme year. Kevin Feterik played through a foot injury after a miraculous recovery in a very shor time du eot technology. I don't recall every ankle or knee sprain or jammed finger or thumb - but we usually get some of theat stuff every year. Don't forget Detmer getting a shoulder separated and then getting both separated in the bowl game. McMahon lost to Wyoming in a blizzard playing with a knee brace. Don't forget Steve Young's concussion at the hands of USU iirc. And speaking of concussions - Sean Covey. It seems that Matt Berry injured a hand and never came back to full form an dconfidence.



I may have a little of this mixed up - but wouldn't it be nice to have 4 really good QBs when stuff happens. In the year of Hancock, Clement, and Walsh, the 4th string QB transferred during fall camp, and the 5th string QB - Steve Young's youngest brother Tom, started the bowl game and won the MVP award.



McMahon was peeved when he had to redshirt while Marc Wilson went about 12-1, but it all worked out fine. SInce McMahon never went better than 12-1, one could certainly argue it cost BYU nothing to let Wilson start that year and prodduced the benefit of getting an extra great year saving McMahon till later. It worked out ok for Jim, too. I lived in Chicago the year he won the Super Bowl for the Bears. 1986.



Go Cougs

Cougarbib2 wrote:

The coaches will figure it out and I don't think any of them like losing games and will have confidence that they can figure out ....



McMahon was peeved when he had to redshirt while Marc Wilson went about 12-1, but it all worked out fine. SInce McMahon never went better than 12-1, one could certainly argue it cost BYU nothing to let Wilson start that year and prodduced the benefit of getting an extra great year saving McMahon till later. It worked out ok for Jim, too. I lived in Chicago the year he won the Super Bowl for the Bears. 1986.



Go Cougs

There ya go!!!!!

:crazy:

Whatev, I just know we wasted Ben Olson, and in turn he got wasted. Let's use Heaps strengths, give him somoething to improve and get determined to improve, and by 2-4 years, he'll be owing the conference.

Mars wrote:

Sorry, the logic that "Nelson didn't bring up his numbers till the very, very end..."

...Is extremely accurate. Nelson added about 100 yards on 2 throws at the very end of spring camp, both in "show" situations for the public, both against the 3rd string DBs. It made a huge difference on his numbers (about 1/3 of his yards, almost half of his TDs).

Again: So what? Did they not count? And the only "public" showing was the final spring practice. Couldn't I also argue that Riley performed extremely well when the "lights were on"? When there were people watching and eagerly evaluating both QBs, Riley came through for the team? It works both ways. Gee, why did much of Heaps stats come so early in camp when no one was watching and the DBs didn't know his tendencies so he was able to catch them by surprise?



Bottom line, the stats Nelson added COUNTED. Whether they came on two throws or 20. They still count, even if they "made a huge difference on his numbers."