CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

A little bit of video

by BYULV · 8/9/2010

Advertisement
B
Brayden Green
a perfect example of why Nelson won't start (#13) just before midway through.
B
BYULV
His soft pass to the flat?
S
SpiffCoug
Yeah, I didn't see anything either. I saw some guys running. I saw some passes by various QBs. All were complete. I saw some catches. That video showed even less than the QB stats from the first day.
B
Brayden Green
yeah, soft, wobbly, and it hung. It was the perfect camera angle. Chambers was waiting on it for 2 seconds in the air. You don't throw "up" on a pass that is 10 yards away. It needs to level out, hence the term "frozen rope." Did I mention it was wobbly? Then you see a long strike from Heaps a little later in the vid.
Advertisement
S
SpiffCoug
BlueIsBetter wrote:
yeah, soft, wobbly, and it hung. It was the perfect camera angle. Chambers was waiting on it for 2 seconds in the air. You don't throw "up" on a pass that is 10 yards away. It needs to level out, hence the term "frozen rope." Then you see a long strike from Heaps a little later in the vid.

We have zero context of that throw. Was it early in practice? Were the QBs simply just warming up? Did Chambers come out of his break too soon so he had to "wait" longer for the pass, because he was early in the timing?



We learned absolutely nothing from that video other than the team has started practicing.
B
Brayden Green
You're right. I didn't learn anything anything from that video, because it didn't teach me anything I didn't already know. ;)
I
Italics
BlueIsBetter wrote:
You're right. I didn't learn anything anything from that video, because it didn't teach me anything I didn't already know. ;)


All I know is that the people who have been defending Nelson have had to do a lot of excuse making for his numbers, video, stats, etc. It's not like I've got something against the kid, but come on, at this point is it really up for debate who has the most talent?
M
Mars
Italics wrote:
You're right. I didn't learn anything anything from that video, because it didn't teach me anything I didn't already know. ;)
All I know is that the people who have been defending Nelson have had to do a lot of excuse making for his numbers, video, stats, etc. It's not like I've got something against the kid, but come on, at this point is it really up for debate who has the most talent?

No, and it never was. But Nelson was much more experienced at losing many multiple WAC games years and years ago.
C
Cougs_Rule
kitic77 wrote:
yeah, soft, wobbly, and it hung. It was the perfect camera angle. Chambers was waiting on it for 2 seconds in the air. You don't throw "up" on a pass that is 10 yards away. It needs to level out, hence the term "frozen rope." Then you see a long strike from Heaps a little later in the vid.

We have zero context of that throw. Was it early in practice? Were the QBs simply just warming up? Did Chambers come out of his break too soon so he had to "wait" longer for the pass, because he was early in the timing?



We learned absolutely nothing from that video other than the team has started practicing.


Saw more of that play on KSL. it was a floater alright. THe offense was just running through plays. No defense. It looked like a safe throw. Almost like, those stats gets counted as well, not in the official O vs D stats, but they keep stats on everything. AND, it was a floater. If he wasnt known for throwing those it would be easy to dismiss. BUt it did lack crispness.
Advertisement
J
jonnylingo
loved the video. I am glad these forums are all anonymous because its so nerdy to sit here and watch things like this but i can't get enough of them. I am pumped for this year. while we are young and untested there is going to be some major excitement and anxiety that will help us play with more emotion, something we struggled with at times with out last squad.
S
SpiffCoug
Italics wrote:
You're right. I didn't learn anything anything from that video, because it didn't teach me anything I didn't already know. ;)


All I know is that the people who have been defending Nelson have had to do a lot of excuse making for his numbers, video, stats, etc. It's not like I've got something against the kid, but come on, at this point is it really up for debate who has the most talent?

Yeah, sorry for not basing my decision on one throw on the first day of practice during warmups. Gee, what am I thinking?!



Let me restate my position on the QB battle:

- Jake Heaps is an absolute stud and I fully expect him to have a spectacular career at BYU.

- Heaps is a much more fundamentally sound QB. His mechanics are excellent and he throws a great, catchable football.

- I don't think Heaps is the difference between 7 wins and 11 wins this year. In fact, I thing our record will be the same regardless of who mans the QB position. I expect us to be about 9-3.

- I really want to be patient with Heaps and give him more time to develop so we waste as little of his eligibility as possible while he quickly adjusts to the D1 game.

- I think Riley Nelson is fully capable of leading the 2010 BYU team. I think he can win 9 games this year (and with a few breaks maybe 10 [just as I feel Jake can win 9 games and maybe 10 with a few breaks]).

- I haven't seen anything to make me believe Heaps is the only QB who can get the job done, nor have I seen anything to make me believe Nelson can't get the job done.

- I'm trying to take the long view in regards to Heaps. I think he can be good in 2010. But I wonder if we wouldn't be served if we still had him in 2014.

- I am trying to be objective in the race.

- I am willing to change my mind. In fact, I really wouldn't be surprised if Heaps wins the job.

- If Nelson starts slowly in this camp, I don't think the coaches will hesitate to name Jake the starter.



That is my position. I think I've been consistent. Heaps will be a stud. I just think he could be better from 2011-2014 than 2010-2013, if we give him time to further develop.
J
jonnylingo
kitic77 wrote:
BlueIsBetter wrote:
You're right. I didn't learn anything anything from that video, because it didn't teach me anything I didn't already know. ;)


All I know is that the people who have been defending Nelson have had to do a lot of excuse making for his numbers, video, stats, etc. It's not like I've got something against the kid, but come on, at this point is it really up for debate who has the most talent?

Yeah, sorry for not basing my decision on one throw on the first day of practice during warmups. Gee, what am I thinking?!



Let me restate my position on the QB battle:

- Jake Heaps is an absolute stud and I fully expect him to have a spectacular career at BYU.

- Heaps is a much more fundamentally sound QB. His mechanics are excellent and he throws a great, catchable football.

- I don't think Heaps is the difference between 7 wins and 11 wins this year. In fact, I thing our record will be the same regardless of who mans the QB position. I expect us to be about 9-3.

- I really want to be patient with Heaps and give him more time to develop so we waste as little of his eligibility as possible while he quickly adjusts to the D1 game.

- I think Riley Nelson is fully capable of leading the 2010 BYU team. I think he can win 9 games this year (and with a few breaks maybe 10 [just as I feel Jake can win 9 games and maybe 10 with a few breaks]).

- I haven't seen anything to make me believe Heaps is the only QB who can get the job done, nor have I seen anything to make me believe Nelson can't get the job done.

- I'm trying to take the long view in regards to Heaps. I think he can be good in 2010. But I wonder if we wouldn't be served if we still had him in 2014.

- I am trying to be objective in the race.

- I am willing to change my mind. In fact, I really wouldn't be surprised if Heaps wins the job.

- If Nelson starts slowly in this camp, I don't think the coaches will hesitate to name Jake the starter.



That is my position. I think I've been consistent. Heaps will be a stud. I just think he could be better from 2011-2014 than 2010-2013, if we give him time to further develop.


Thought about your valid point given jake more time to prep before getting going. I liked that idea but one issue i have with it is that we have lark and munns lurking. You give them a whole year to get caught up mentally and physically and next year we have uncertainty again. I could see them challenging heaps for the job, not to mention if riley did well enough in 2010, do we just kick him to the curb starting next year. how does nelson hold off the talent level of those three guys once they are caught up. it would seem logical that next year we would start all over with a qb battle. If we start jakes this year he is the presumed starter and planted in that position. then we have af ight for the number two spot really. that is a good position to be in. one mazing qb with an amazing back up. Just seems better for the team in the long run. It is a big deal with the team doesn't know who is going to be qb going into a season. if jake is good enough to start then start him now to avoid that.
B
Brayden Green
kitic77 wrote:

Yeah, sorry for not basing my decision on one throw on the first day of practice during warmups. Gee, what am I thinking?!





- Heaps is a much more fundamentally sound QB. His mechanics are excellent and he throws a great, catchable football.


Yet you argue that they are even and that arm strength, and tight spiral are overrated. That these phantom numbers are close. Anyone that is looking can see that Jake is the better quarterback. Now it just depends on what the coaches want to do. If they call it now, then either Lark or Munns bolts. So they are going to give it a few weeks, and IF Riley wins the second job, then they are going to leave him there. I have said it before, but it bears repeating, Riley is not a BYU qb, with the deep ball type offense we run. He cannot throw a 40 yard pass on the button. I wish that he could, we would have a poor man's Jake Locker. But we don't. So the only way Riley wins the job is if we CHANGE the offense. Not add to it, which we are planning to do anyway (add an option, pistol, cougar, wildcat, whatever you call it). But we are talking CHANGE the offense, which is a huge mistake in my opinion. The Oline is the best part of our offense, and they have already mastered what we are trying to do now. And to feature a running attack offense the year that we have arguably our best WR corps ever? Seems interesting to me. I have nothing against Riley, never met the guy. Never met Jake, just have watched and played a lot of football. Jake is a BYU qb, and Riley isn't. Do we really want to fix something that hasn't been broken for the last 10 years, all so that we can put the highest recruit we have landed in the last 15 years on the bench? Jake seems ready, focused, and able to do the job. Is he as able as he would be with a true redshirt year? Probably not. But that is OUR problem, not his. We are the ones that need him. I don't think starting Riley is the same as starting Jake, unless you change our offense, because Riley can't run last year's offense. We have seen that with our own two eyes, this is not just speculation. And if the wins are equal, you go with the qb that has more potential so that he can use this year as a learning year. What we SHOULD be debating, is does putting in Jake COST us games over the alternative? If he does cost us games vs. what we already have, leave the others in and redshirt him. I don't think you have any idea how easy it is to gameplan against a running qb that can't really throw downfield. (SEE Air Force games, the last 10 years.)
C
CougarClaw
wow. one throw guys. holy crap.
Advertisement
R
redneckjedi
BlueIsBetter wrote:

Yeah, sorry for not basing my decision on one throw on the first day of practice during warmups. Gee, what am I thinking?!





- Heaps is a much more fundamentally sound QB. His mechanics are excellent and he throws a great, catchable football.


Yet you argue that they are even and that arm strength, and tight spiral are overrated. That these phantom numbers are close. Anyone that is looking can see that Jake is the better quarterback. Now it just depends on what the coaches want to do. If they call it now, then either Lark or Munns bolts. So they are going to give it a few weeks, and IF Riley wins the second job, then they are going to leave him there. I have said it before, but it bears repeating, Riley is not a BYU qb, with the deep ball type offense we run. He cannot throw a 40 yard pass on the button. I wish that he could, we would have a poor man's Jake Locker. But we don't. So the only way Riley wins the job is if we CHANGE the offense. Not add to it, which we are planning to do anyway (add an option, pistol, cougar, wildcat, whatever you call it). But we are talking CHANGE the offense, which is a huge mistake in my opinion. The Oline is the best part of our offense, and they have already mastered what we are trying to do now. And to feature a running attack offense the year that we have arguably our best WR corps ever? Seems interesting to me. I have nothing against Riley, never met the guy. Never met Jake, just have watched and played a lot of football. Jake is a BYU qb, and Riley isn't. Do we really want to fix something that hasn't been broken for the last 10 years, all so that we can put the highest recruit we have landed in the last 15 years on the bench? Jake seems ready, focused, and able to do the job. Is he as able as he would be with a true redshirt year? Probably not. But that is OUR problem, not his. We are the ones that need him. I don't think starting Riley is the same as starting Jake, unless you change our offense, because Riley can't run last year's offense. We have seen that with our own two eyes, this is not just speculation. And if the wins are equal, you go with the qb that has more potential so that he can use this year as a learning year. What we SHOULD be debating, is does putting in Jake COST us games over the alternative? If he does cost us games vs. what we already have, leave the others in and redshirt him. I don't think you have any idea how easy it is to gameplan against a running qb that can't really throw downfield. (SEE Air Force games, the last 10 years.)


Having grown up watching Ty Detmer play, I have to agree that a tight spiral and arm strength are overrated. I specifically recall a 50-yard pass he threw out of his own endzone in the 52-52 SDSU game. He had to put everything he had into that throw, and it wasn't pretty. But he had a receiver in single coverage two steps ahead of his man 50 yards down field on a post, and it didn't matter how it looked as long as it got there. Contrast that with John Beck, who we saw launch a 70-yard bomb as a freshman. The difference with Ty and John - or freshman John Beck and senior John Beck, for that matter - is an understanding of the offense and how to read a defense and make good decisions, and the confidence to do so under pressure.



If you watch the Miami game, Ty doesn't win it by slinging the ball 40 yards down field and hitting guys right in the numbers. He does it by staying alive in the pocket and exploiting what the defense gives him. There are countless times he pump fakes, sometimes multiple times in one play. That's because he's seeing something, about to take a chance, then thinks better of it, and waits for something else to develop. If all you have is a cannon with pinpoint accuracy, you'll think, "I can fit the ball in there," and just do it. You don't see the safety waiting on the route, who jumps it, and now you have to chase him down before he turns your pass into six the other way.



Max Hall didn't have a cannon, either. He won games by running the offense as designed and taking what the defense gave him. When he got desperate and played outside of that, that's when things got bad, fast.



Now, I'm all for someone that knows the offense, reads the defense, AND has a laser-guided rocket launcher for an arm. I hope Jake has that. But if I have to choose between a guy with the mind of a BYU QB and an arm that's only good to about 30 yards down field, and a guy with an arm that's good for "literally 100 yards" but who can't read a defense like TCU's or New Mexico's well enough to run the BYU offense, I'm going with the first one. I think both Heaps and Nelson can be that guy, and I'm excited to have so many capable guys learning and working and competing to be that guy. It can only be good for us, and I trust the coaches to pick what is the very BEST for us.
B
Brayden Green
Well, it's not one throw. What it means to me, is that Nelson has not improved this mechanics, arm strength, his technique, etc. It means that the Nelson this year is the Nelson that hasn't made starter or two deep for the last 2 years he's been with the team - for much of the same reason - but I might be overreacting. I hope the best for BYU, and not any one individual. Do we really trust Anae to break from an offense that he still hasn't really figured out, to do an entirely new offensive set, for 60 mins? That's what it means to me.
B
Brayden Green
Agreed Jedi, you have very insightful posts, and you nailed it again. If you don't have a tight spiral, you better have arm strength to get it down field. It's simple physics. Ty had arm strength, and spiral action. Max had adequate arm strength, and some of the best spiral action I have seen. Now, if you have neither arm strength, or a tight spiral, any pass farther than 25 yards in the air looks like LUNCH to a free safety and most coverage units. You talk about good decision making, and that is a more important factor. I agree with you there. I think that is a big factor. I give that edge to Heaps as well. Nelson doesn't throw long, and is constantly checking down. We can't win games in our current offense without a 30 yard threat in the air. Checking down and scrambling for 10 yards at a clip won't win us games. Sooner than later, the defensive coverage will press hard on the line, and spy. Then it's game over. Simple man coverage will beat that any day of the week.
R
redneckjedi
BlueIsBetter wrote:
Sooner than later, the defensive coverage will press hard on the line, and spy. Then it's game over. Simple man coverage will beat that any day of the week.


The beauty of it is that if they do this, all anyone would have to do is lob a wounded duck over the press coverage and let a bigger, taller receiver (Ross Apo, anyone?) go get it. BYU's offense has always worked that way. You defend the deep ball, we hit you with a TE curl. And when you suck up on that, we hit the RB out in the flat. And when you're sucked in on both of those, as well as a decent run game / mobile QB, we run a play action and lob it over your head, which isn't really that far now that you're so sucked in. Nelson will have no problem with that gameplan. Neither will Heaps.



Of course, if they can both do it equally well... :evil: That's when you have to decide, "Do I want them fearing the deep ball every play, or a QB scramble every play?" And in BYU's past, we've done a little of both. Of course, if you play Heaps, you can have the deep threat and use the draw to accomplish exactly what a scramble does, too. Then again, with Nelson, the distance required for the deep ball will be less since the safeties and LBs can't just read pass and forget about the run...



I think this is a good problem to have. Especially given our wealth of talent at RB, WR, and the offensive line, I think we'll score plenty of points. That's why my biggest concern is how well our front 7 comes together, and how much pressure they can get on the QB (and off the secondary).
B
Brayden Green
agreed jedi, and I LOVE your tagline!!! I don't think it is as simple as that, though. To have a decent play-action you have to establish the run, and to establish the run you have to have accurate down field passing. It's all an ebb and flow. Although the scramble/option is effective, we have never oriented an offense around it. The closest we have come in the last 10 years is with Doman, and he had a great arm as well as being fast (There is a reason he is the qb coach, after all). So teams had to respect the deep ball, which left the side to side open. Especially if they were going a zone defense. Again, I point to Air Force. The reason that they are having success recently, is that Coach Calhoun is incorporating a deep ball passing attack into the option run. It is really easy to gameplan against a one-sided offense. Even one against such a technical option attack like AF or Georgia. And you have to remember, that in a spy, the "spyer" (usually a LB) is watching the side to side motion of the qb. If he drops back to pass, he is blitzing. Same thing with the guy going man on the tailback, if he goes into coverage-mode, then his man is blitzing the qb. It is 50/50 on the guy covering the tight end, if he is sold on the block, he will blitz too. The FS and SS are covering the wideouts, normally, or alternately blitzing. So it isn't something as simple as just lobbing a pass over someone's head 9 times out of 10. There will be a lot of "3 and outs" and sacks for losses before we get that one big play.
Page 1 of 2
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.