And the Plot Thickens

Reports on Friday were that the defense was in "unanimous" support of Nelson.



Then Heaps lights up the defense on Saturday.



What is Bronco saying?



http://byufootballtalk.blogspot.com/2010/08/byu-qb-race-update-and-plot-thickens.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Y12 wrote:
Reports on Friday were that the defense was in "unanimous" support of Nelson.



Then Heaps lights up the defense on Saturday.



What is Bronco saying?



http://byufootballtalk.blogspot.com/2010/08/byu-qb-race-update-and-plot-thickens.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BYU has struggles with a running QB for years, so no surprises with those comments really. Does not bode well for UW, FSU and TCU if the D thinks they struggle with Riley, because he is worse than Locker, Ponder and Dalton. So not sure what to make of those comments, to be honest.

I believe you are referring to the article that only quoted one defensive player. Not exactly a unanimous decision, and that article was written purely to get webhits. There was no news, no decision, just a players words taken out of context. The defenders don't like to defend against Riley, because they can't hit him yet. Trust me, I loved it when the quarterback would come out of the pocket. I'd make him earn those six yards. Much harder to go get him through and around the big uglies. There is nothing better in life than hitting the qb blindside, when he thinks he has a clear path to 8 yards. Well, marriage was, I guess (just in case my wife has a user account :) )

And one other thing, you can tell me that they are on the same team, that they don't hate Riley, etc. etc. And that is bull. Any good defensive player (especially lineman) hates quarterbacks. I hated our qb when I played (guy was a complete jerk, so it was easy ;) ) . That goes back to the thread a while back when we hurt Sam and people were like, well they weren't trying to hurt him... Yes, they absolutely were, if they were any good. You as a person don't want to hurt someone, and hopefully you won't cheat, but you absolutely want to hit someone hard for daring to go against you. Ask Jan during the season if he likes Max, and he would say yes, but with some hesitancy. Running qb's are worse, because they DARE come onto your turf with their feet, when they don't belong. I'm not sure if I'm explaining this coherently, so I'll shut up... It's just this territorial/primal place inside that you go to perform. Much in the same way that the O-line LOVES the quarterback, and would do anything to protect him, take a bullet for him, etc.



What I am trying to point out is that, some of the most annoying days for me were during training camp, twos and three a days, because I couldn't hit the qb. Especially if he runs on you, and you can't answer back. It is like getting slapped with your hands tied behind your back. So of course Riley is more frustrating for defenders right now, he is running and running, and all they can do is get close to him, and two hand touch him at best.



p.s. I am not advocating violence against Riley. I like the guy. and no quarterbacks were harmed in the typing of these messages.

And again, something positive in the news for Nelson, and it is immediately pooh-poohed by the Heapsists.



- "This article was only written to get webhits!" -- Congratulations. You've discovered the economics behind posting articles online and having blogs. You could say the same thing about anything on the internet. But, since this is Nelson we are talking about, the economics are now nefarious. Blogs on Heaps, by contrast, are paragons of truth and wisdom free from economic taint.



-"It's not unanimous, he only quoted one player!" -- Silly Franchuk. Doesn't he know that in order to claim something is unanimous, you have to quote each and every person within the unanimity? What a douche! Come on--you really expect the team to go on the record with a reporter as to who they choose in a quarterback battle? You don't think he could have talked to someone off the record?



-"They aren't saying they hate playing against him more, they're saying they want to hit him more!" -- This one is an exercise in reading comprehension. Here's the full quote from So'oto: ""I just wish they were in blue jerseys, not green, so we could make contact with them," defensive end Vic So'oto joked. "The tough thing with Riley is, you feel like you have the play completely covered...and then if he gets running on you, it can get frustrating." For those who struggle to read in general, the hitting comment referred to all quarterbacks, whereas the comment on frustration in defending a quarterback was Riley-specific and said nothing about hitting anyone. I don't know how you read that into the defense being frustrated because they can't hit him--he's talking about frustration in plays breaking open at that point.



While Franchuk is likely engaging in the literary device of hyperbole in calling it unanimous, I am still amazed how Heapsists try to (yet again) spin a positive for Nelson into a negative. They take "the defense would choose Nelson" and turn it into "the defense hates Nelson and wants to knock his block off."

snoscythe wrote:
And again, something positive in the news for Nelson, and it is immediately pooh-poohed by the Heapsists.



- "This article was only written to get webhits!" -- Congratulations. You've discovered the economics behind posting articles online and having blogs. You could say the same thing about anything on the internet. But, since this is Nelson we are talking about, the economics are now nefarious. Blogs on Heaps, by contrast, are paragons of truth and wisdom free from economic taint.



-"It's not unanimous, he only quoted one player!" -- Silly Franchuk. Doesn't he know that in order to claim something is unanimous, you have to quote each and every person within the unanimity? What a douche! Come on--you really expect the team to go on the record with a reporter as to who they choose in a quarterback battle? You don't think he could have talked to someone off the record?



-"They aren't saying they hate playing against him more, they're saying they want to hit him more!" -- This one is an exercise in reading comprehension. Here's the full quote from So'oto: ""I just wish they were in blue jerseys, not green, so we could make contact with them," defensive end Vic So'oto joked. "The tough thing with Riley is, you feel like you have the play completely covered...and then if he gets running on you, it can get frustrating." For those who struggle to read in general, the hitting comment referred to all quarterbacks, whereas the comment on frustration in defending a quarterback was Riley-specific and said nothing about hitting anyone. I don't know how you read that into the defense being frustrated because they can't hit him--he's talking about frustration in plays breaking open at that point.



While Franchuk is likely engaging in the literary device of hyperbole in calling it unanimous, I am still amazed how Heapsists try to (yet again) spin a positive for Nelson into a negative. They take "the defense would choose Nelson" and turn it into "the defense hates Nelson and wants to knock his block off."

It goes both ways sno. its obvious franchuck is taking statements and making overblown conclusions which you hint at yourself. You should apply your strict standards on how message board threads need to perfectly reflect reality to those who are actual reporters. Why don't you give me a pass like you are giving franchuck? I feel betrayed.



by the way, in bradley's interview with tbs he says in his own words that one thing nice about having riley in is that he can cheat because he knows its not going deep. With that comment according to farnchuck i should make a post that states, its unanimous according to the defense riley is easier to defend against when he is in.



It just doesn't add up and people are pointing it out. You would be doing the same thing if it were said about heaps and you know it. You pride yourself in "keeping people honest" but it seems that that is applied only selectively.

jonnylingo wrote:

And again, something positive in the news for Nelson, and it is immediately pooh-poohed by the Heapsists.



- "This article was only written to get webhits!" -- Congratulations. You've discovered the economics behind posting articles online and having blogs. You could say the same thing about anything on the internet. But, since this is Nelson we are talking about, the economics are now nefarious. Blogs on Heaps, by contrast, are paragons of truth and wisdom free from economic taint.



-"It's not unanimous, he only quoted one player!" -- Silly Franchuk. Doesn't he know that in order to claim something is unanimous, you have to quote each and every person within the unanimity? What a douche! Come on--you really expect the team to go on the record with a reporter as to who they choose in a quarterback battle? You don't think he could have talked to someone off the record?



-"They aren't saying they hate playing against him more, they're saying they want to hit him more!" -- This one is an exercise in reading comprehension. Here's the full quote from So'oto: ""I just wish they were in blue jerseys, not green, so we could make contact with them," defensive end Vic So'oto joked. "The tough thing with Riley is, you feel like you have the play completely covered...and then if he gets running on you, it can get frustrating." For those who struggle to read in general, the hitting comment referred to all quarterbacks, whereas the comment on frustration in defending a quarterback was Riley-specific and said nothing about hitting anyone. I don't know how you read that into the defense being frustrated because they can't hit him--he's talking about frustration in plays breaking open at that point.



While Franchuk is likely engaging in the literary device of hyperbole in calling it unanimous, I am still amazed how Heapsists try to (yet again) spin a positive for Nelson into a negative. They take "the defense would choose Nelson" and turn it into "the defense hates Nelson and wants to knock his block off."

It goes both ways sno. its obvious franchuck is taking statements and making overblown conclusions which you hint at yourself. You should apply your strict standards on how message board threads need to perfectly reflect reality to those who are actual reporters. Why don't you give me a pass like you are giving franchuck? I feel betrayed.



by the way, in bradley's interview with tbs he says in his own words that one thing nice about having riley in is that he can cheat because he knows its not going deep. With that comment according to farnchuck i should make a post that states, its unanimous according to the defense riley is easier to defend against when he is in.



It just doesn't add up and people are pointing it out. You would be doing the same thing if it were said about heaps and you know it. You pride yourself in "keeping people honest" but it seems that that is applied only selectively.

I have been completely honest about what I am doing here, you guys just keep forgetting: http://www.cougarcorner.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2839&p=21500#p21500" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



And I'm sorry, but if you make posts that something is "official" when it's not, or that a certain individual has said something when in fact they didn't, I'm going to correct you.

I read that the defense is using basic defensive schemes at this point and are not taking into account whether the QB is mobile or sits in the pocket. That, in addition to no contact on QBs may make it harder to defend against Nelson at this point. Not saying he wouldn't be hard to defend otherwise, that is just what I have been reading. The idea is that they are working on consistency in the base defensive schemes before adding new wrinkles which would adjust for QB styles.

I don't know about you guys but one of the main reasons I'm glad to be on CC is: NO MORE JASON FRANCHUCK! Some may remember my rant on my dislike and hate for franchuck on CB ( took some flak for it of course) but I figured I'd just like to remind everyone here that Jason Franchuck is a tool and is most certainly very narrow minded and anything written by him is probably a lie and his columns would be worth more as toliet paper used by afghani militants in the middle east... Or do they use their hand... I can't remember...



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

jmvcougar wrote:
I don't know about you guys but one of the main reasons I'm glad to be on CC is: NO MORE JASON FRANCHUCK! Some may remember my rant on my dislike and hate for franchuck on CB ( took some flak for it of course) but I figured I'd just like to remind everyone here that Jason Franchuck is a tool and is most certainly very narrow minded and anything written by him is probably a lie and his columns would be worth more as toliet paper used by afghani militants in the middle east... Or do they use their hand... I can't remember...



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

Amen jmv. Franchuk is stuck in the Peter-Principle--its the lowly daily Herald for crying out loud.

And Sno, it does seem to me that you are better at defending Nelson than the truth as you or others are perceiving it. JohnnyL has some merit to what he wrote. I would be interested in reading your response if you did apply your analytical rigor to the other side of the argument,you know, like a lawyer who is mandated by law to advocate for his client. Certainly you must be better able to argue for the side of Heaps than the other Heapites who certainly couldnt possibly see the truth. Hopefully that request makes sense. Because quite frankly I think some folks, maybe you excluded, are hiding behind a pretty thin veil of neutrality or total trust in coaches, kind of cop out. Sorry if that ticks off some of you who do this on a regular basis.

dmcougar wrote:

I don't know about you guys but one of the main reasons I'm glad to be on CC is: NO MORE JASON FRANCHUCK! Some may remember my rant on my dislike and hate for franchuck on CB ( took some flak for it of course) but I figured I'd just like to remind everyone here that Jason Franchuck is a tool and is most certainly very narrow minded and anything written by him is probably a lie and his columns would be worth more as toliet paper used by afghani militants in the middle east... Or do they use their hand... I can't remember...



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

Amen jmv. Franchuk is stuck in the Peter-Principle--its the lowly daily Herald for crying out loud.

And Sno, it does seem to me that you are better at defending Nelson than the truth as you or others are perceiving it. JohnnyL has some merit to what he wrote. I would be interested in reading your response if you did apply your analytical rigor to the other side of the argument,you know, like a lawyer who is mandated by law to advocate for his client. Certainly you must be better able to argue for the side of Heaps than the other Heapites who certainly couldnt possibly see the truth. Hopefully that request makes sense. Because quite frankly I think some folks, maybe you excluded, are hiding behind a pretty thin veil of neutrality or total trust in coaches, kind of cop out. Sorry if that ticks off some of you who do this on a regular basis.

Click on the link above. Back in March, I announced I would be taking upon myself the cause of keeping the Heaps-hype grounded (as much as possible) and to provide an alternate view. It's just my way of trying to keep debate up, but most seem to have forgotten that and instead get angry. I've made no bones about taking the anti-Heaps side of things as there are more than ample voices on his bandwagon to take up the other side.



I want the guy under center who is going to lead us to the most wins in 2010. I know a lot about quarterbacks, but I don't pretend to know this team better than the coaches, and the team as a whole is half of the equation in picking a quarterback. For that reason, I personally don't have a preference for any of the 3 (sorry Munns, you're too late to the party) quarterbacks to start. I have yet to see this coaching staff make a personnel decision that I thought was injurious to the team or program, and that's all I care about. When they announce their choice, that's my man 110%. Until then, I will remain a staunch advocate for the underdogs.



But be honest with me: if this blog post was about Heaps, do you think it would get the same reception? ;)



p.s. absolutely agreed that Franchuk is a total bag of douche.

anything out of the daily herald isn't worth being posted