If injury happens

Thought I would start this as a new thread instead of resurrecting the 2-QB thread.



I for one hate the 2 QB situation, in fact Lavell said a few years back that if you have a 2 QB situation that means you don't even have 1 QB, but this aside.



The question I have and, this I think is the measuring stick....if and I am hoping only "IF" for discussion purposes, if one of the QB's goes down do you still employ the 2 QB system? For example if Heaps goes down does Nelson now become the solo QB or do you now plug in Lark or Munns to continue the strategy? What if Nelson goes down, does Heaps take over full time status? I think the answer to these questions would go a long way to etermine who should be the starting QB.

Good question. I still think this situation is temporary until either Nelson does amazingly well and we're winning games or until Heaps gets his college legs under him after the first several 3-4 games and then Nelson is just coming in for situational purposes. I even expect to see both out there at the same time. Why not? Nelson can run just about as good as JJ in multiple sets, not as durable as JJ, but would really mess with the D with both out there. But then again, we might get flagged for intentionally "attempting to deceive the defense" :-)

IMO we only have a 2 QB system because they aren't comfortable with either as a full time starter yet. IMO we will no longer have a 2 qb system as soon as one of 2 things happens. Either Heaps shows in game situation that he is better then Nelson or Nelson proves to the fans that he can lead the team until Heaps is ready. Having said that, if one of them gets injured, then we now have a 1 QB system. The only reason you have the statements in the media by Nelson that he likes it because it is going to be harder to defend is because that is what BYU has decided is going to be the standard line to the media to keep the fans happy until on of the two scenario's above plays itself out.

I think the reason we are playing 2 QBs is simply because Bronco places value on seniority and earning spots, and he does not want to give it to Jake right off the bat. Jake is the better QB, will prove it on the field, and it will be easy for all to see. But Bronco does not want an entitled true freshman when a key aspect of his program is for guys to work hard and earn a spot. Look at guys like Jameson Frazier, Vic So'oto and others through the years, and the culture is that hard work and perseverance is rewarded. By giving Riley the starting spot, Bronco upholds that value and tradition, but also allows Jake to continue to work hard and win it on the field.



I think the move makes perfect sense for the culture of the program, bu also to take some pressure off a true freshman. it is wisdom here, not the fact BYU has no QB. Long term gain for BYU with this decision, all the way around.

Lawboy wrote:
I think the reason we are playing 2 QBs is simply because Bronco places value on seniority and earning spots, and he does not want to give it to Jake right off the bat. Jake is the better QB, will prove it on the field, and it will be easy for all to see. But Bronco does not want an entitled true freshman when a key aspect of his program is for guys to work hard and earn a spot. Look at guys like Jameson Frazier, Vic So'oto and others through the years, and the culture is that hard work and perseverance is rewarded. By giving Riley the starting spot, Bronco upholds that value and tradition, but also allows Jake to continue to work hard and win it on the field.



I think the move makes perfect sense for the culture of the program, bu also to take some pressure off a true freshman. it is wisdom here, not the fact BYU has no QB. Long term gain for BYU with this decision, all the way around.

I agree. The point I was REALLY trying to make is that we don't have a 2 qb system because Bronco woke up this fall and decided that it was harder to defend. We have one because he wants one of the qb's to take command of the offense in games enough that the fans accept the new qb as our full time starter. If he named Nelson starter, all the Heaps worshippers would be booing him the very second he throws an interception or misses a wide open reciever. If he annoints Jake Heaps the starter and he struggles in a game, the BYU fans start booing because we started a true freshman and he loses confidence. I think it is a matter of time before Heaps is the full time starter but if Riley comes out and plays really well and we redshirt heaps next year while Riley playes his sr year, no one will compain when Heaps is the full time starter for 3 years.

frdbtr wrote:
IMO we only have a 2 QB system because they aren't comfortable with either as a full time starter yet. IMO we will no longer have a 2 qb system as soon as one of 2 things happens. Either Heaps shows in game situation that he is better then Nelson or Nelson proves to the fans that he can lead the team until Heaps is ready. Having said that, if one of them gets injured, then we now have a 1 QB system. The only reason you have the statements in the media by Nelson that he likes it because it is going to be harder to defend is because that is what BYU has decided is going to be the standard line to the media to keep the fans happy until on of the two scenario's above plays itself out.

I understand that, but what happens if one of them goes down before, as you say, BM becomes comfortable with one or the other? Would an injury all of a sudden make the other QB seem as if he was the guy all along or does BYU have a big problem in that situation?

What happens is you reassess when the situation occurs. Football is about making adjustments on the fly, and this would be just one more. You evaluate where the healthy qb is in his progression and you evaluate where the other backup qbs are in theirs and if there's a role that needs to be filled. There's no clear cut answer, you just have to reassess and adjust when it happens.

It's quite easy. If Jake Heaps goes down with an injury, Riley Nelson will become the full-time starter. If Nelson goes down, Jake will get all the snaps. It won't even be a decision for the coaching staff.



Lawboy, I don't think once the lights go on that somehow Jake is going to start outshining Riley from the get go. I could the separation being gradual over the course of the season. I doubt we see it immediately.

kitic77 wrote:
It's quite easy. If Jake Heaps goes down with an injury, Riley Nelson will become the full-time starter. If Nelson goes down, Jake will get all the snaps. It won't even be a decision for the coaching staff.

Perhaps this is why I am confused with the 2 QB system. If it is such an easy decision if injury happens, why is it such a tough decision right now? What am I missing?

blue42 wrote:

It's quite easy. If Jake Heaps goes down with an injury, Riley Nelson will become the full-time starter. If Nelson goes down, Jake will get all the snaps. It won't even be a decision for the coaching staff.

Perhaps this is why I am confused with the 2 QB system. If it is such an easy decision if injury happens, why is it such a tough decision right now? What am I missing?

Because neither Jake nor Riley are currently injured, they are both good, and we can play them both. Take one of them away, and of course the decision is easy. The other two QBs haven't established themselves like these two, or had the reps these two have.

blue42 wrote:

It's quite easy. If Jake Heaps goes down with an injury, Riley Nelson will become the full-time starter. If Nelson goes down, Jake will get all the snaps. It won't even be a decision for the coaching staff.

Perhaps this is why I am confused with the 2 QB system. If it is such an easy decision if injury happens, why is it such a tough decision right now? What am I missing?

Somebody once told me that there were no stupid questions. They were wrong.

redneckjedi wrote:

kitic77 wrote:
It's quite easy. If Jake Heaps goes down with an injury, Riley Nelson will become the full-time starter. If Nelson goes down, Jake will get all the snaps. It won't even be a decision for the coaching staff.

Perhaps this is why I am confused with the 2 QB system. If it is such an easy decision if injury happens, why is it such a tough decision right now? What am I missing?

Because neither Jake nor Riley are currently injured, they are both good, and we can play them both. Take one of them away, and of course the decision is easy. The other two QBs haven't established themselves like these two, or had the reps these two have.

I know neither one is injured and both are good, but trying to play both equal amounts doesn't work. If you are using a 2 QB system that usually means both get close to equal amount of time. I know usually players don't like this, I know everyone on the team is saying they like it and don't have a problem with it, but it messes up the offense. If this systems stays in place all year I would expect more illegal procedures and more dropped balls, fumbled snaps etc because it gets the offense out of rythm and that would kill a couple of drives a game.

IowaCougar wrote:

kitic77 wrote:
It's quite easy. If Jake Heaps goes down with an injury, Riley Nelson will become the full-time starter. If Nelson goes down, Jake will get all the snaps. It won't even be a decision for the coaching staff.

Perhaps this is why I am confused with the 2 QB system. If it is such an easy decision if injury happens, why is it such a tough decision right now? What am I missing?

Somebody once told me that there were no stupid questions. They were wrong.

okay smart one tell me what is so stupid about this question? A 2 QB system usually doesn't work and most players don't like it, so if the coaches and everyone else thinks one of the QB could run the offense if the other went down, why not make that decision from the start of the season?

We won't know if it messes up the offense or not until we've seen it in action. We do know the QBs and players are fully invested in the program and in this decision.



The fact is, the coaches think it WILL work, the players ARE behind them, and there's no good reason to choose one QB over the other right now, and to do so arbitrarily now would undermine the growth of at least one of your QBs, and possibly both. Plus, by having both, you are adding an extra dimension to the offense that the defense now has to account for.

Because the entire premise of the thread is "what if injury happens". You can't make one player a starter because the other is unjured when there is no injury. If the coaches honestly think that either quarterback could run the offense should the other go down, then keeping them both playing does a better job of maintaining each QB's readiness.

redneckjedi wrote:
We won't know if it messes up the offense or not until we've seen it in action. We do know the QBs and players are fully invested in the program and in this decision.



The fact is, the coaches think it WILL work, the players ARE behind them, and there's no good reason to choose one QB over the other right now, and to do so arbitrarily now would undermine the growth of at least one of your QBs, and possibly both. Plus, by having both, you are adding an extra dimension to the offense that the defense now has to account for.

I agree, and believe me I am not trying to argue anything at all. This was the main reason I stayed away from all the QB threads before because everyone was so entrenched behind their QB. The whole idea of Spring and Fall ball is to find out who your starters are and who would be backing up.



Of course the team and the coaches are saying it will work otherwise they wouldn't be doing it, but I don't fully believe they believe it. I could see starting Heaps and having Nelson come in for a couple of plays, not splitting time or the other way around. Saying both will play tells me they are more concerned about the position than they want to let on.

IowaCougar wrote:
You can't make one player a starter because the other is unjured when there is no injury.

????? isn't this what coaches do across the country every day? This is starting to sound like everyone has to be a winner and nobody loses. I understand Heaps will be a good QB and I understand Nelson will be a good QB, and I also understand Nelson is talented in other areas as well and could help BYU at different positions perhaps when Heaps is at QB, but playing both at QB will make things a lot harder.



Are the coaches afraid of hurting someones feelings? I don't think so, and if that is the case pick one starter and let the other back up.

blue42, I'd like to point out that we are only fans of the game. I'm sure the coaches do have this all sorted out in their mind, but speculating here isn't going to affect those decisions at all and basically you know as well as I do, or anyone else for that matter, what would happen IF someone is injured.



But I believe the coaches would first turn the ball over full time to the other QB whether it be heaps or nelson and life would go on.

declocoug wrote:
blue42, I'd like to point out that we are only fans of the game. I'm sure the coaches do have this all sorted out in their mind, but speculating here isn't going to affect those decisions at all and basically you know as well as I do, or anyone else for that matter, what would happen IF someone is injured.



But I believe the coaches would first turn the ball over full time to the other QB whether it be heaps or nelson and life would go on.

Well said and I understand, but I also know that some on board here are a little more connected to the program then the rest of us and I was hoping one of them would give us a little bit of insight to the decision.