What did Bronco Say?

I was on my way home from work today and caught the tail end of a conversation on the radio.

I think it was Ben Bagley saying that he and the media loved what "Bronco said" because it gave them something to talk about and that it was the truth... blah blah blah.. He went on to say that it wasn't what a coach SHOULD say...



Anyone know what it was?

They made a big deal about comments Bronco said about losing Nelson really hurts because the plan was to insert him in the most critical downs/situations.



They felt like he should've talked Heaps up more.



Once again a non-issue I think.



The media sucks sometimes.

Hmm... I didn't hear the comments and without hearing tone and context etc...

BUT, it does(from your words) seem like he is saying he doesn't trust Heaps as much in critical downs... which when you know he is going to be the guy, might not be the best thing to say IMO.

So, was the critism because he didn't say the expected... "It hurts BUT we are fully confident in the capabilities and skills that Heaps brings to the table etc..."?

Matty-B wrote:
So, was the critism because he didn't say the expected... "It hurts BUT we are fully confident in the capabilities and skills that Heaps brings to the table etc..."?

I think that is the gist of what they thought he should've said.



He also said he hadn't even spoken with Heaps since the news of Nelson's shoulder.

Bronco has been known and has admitted to using psychological games to see how players respond. He did it in fall camp with sacks, quick whistles, penalties, and I think he is doing it now. Bronco likes to test the mettle of his players to see how they respond. I think he is doing it now with Jake. Jake is about to get throw into the deep end at a young age, with less reps and experience than any of us would like to have seen. Jake needs to be mature and ready to handle it. Bronco knows it and is basically calling him out without actually doing so. I have zero problem with. I mean, come on, BYU is now in the hands of a true freshman. That is pressure.

I remember in HS when we had two tailbacks get injured in a matter of minutes and the freshman kid who was 3rd string had to find his helmet (cost us a timeout after the injury time) and get out on the field. Coach grabbed him by his earhole before he went out and said, "you weren't good enough to play five minutes ago, but you have to be good enough now." Sometimes it's better not to say anything.

snoscythe wrote:
I remember in HS when we had two tailbacks get injured in a matter of minutes and the freshman kid who was 3rd string had to find his helmet (cost us a timeout after the injury time) and get out on the field. Coach grabbed him by his earhole before he went out and said, "you weren't good enough to play five minutes ago, but you have to be good enough now." Sometimes it's better not to say anything.

Hmmm. Brings back echoes of my dear (and departed) mother-in-law. Before the wedding: "You're not good enough to marry my daughter." After the wedding: "I love you, son."

Matty-B wrote:
Hmm... I didn't hear the comments and without hearing tone and context etc...

BUT, it does(from your words) seem like he is saying he doesn't trust Heaps as much in critical downs... which when you know he is going to be the guy, might not be the best thing to say IMO.

So, was the critism because he didn't say the expected... "It hurts BUT we are fully confident in the capabilities and skills that Heaps brings to the table etc..."?

I don't think the comment was any big deal. I think it would be using Nelson in goal line and short yardage plays when you want him to option pitch or run/pass option. It wouldn't be because they trust him more but because those plays are his specialty. Think Tebow his freshman year.

I've said this on other threads, but if the receivers had not dropped so many balls in the first three games (the majority were thrown by Heaps) Heaps would be looking pretty decent, and the offense would be looking much better, and we would have sustained more drives, and scored more points.



My bet is, now that Heaps knows it's on him, and the coaches are only coaching one QB, and the receivers are catching (hopefully) balls from one QB--things will start looking way better with the offense. Yes, Heaps has some learning to do, somehow I just believe he's a very fast learner, and with real game experience, he's going to start looking pretty good. Remember Detmer was no whiz as a frosh either.



Here is my list of small things I saw Heaps do that must be changed:

1) puts too much heat on short throws

2) steps back in the pocket instead of up into the pocket, thus he gets sacked too much

3) throw the ball away instead of taking a sack

4) after a short scramble out of the pocket, square up and throw on target

5) keep your eyes downfield, even when there's pressure and even when you're scrambling



I'm excited to see him perform for a whole game, and I'm excited to maybe see a little bit of Lark too.

Isola wrote:

Hmm... I didn't hear the comments and without hearing tone and context etc...

BUT, it does(from your words) seem like he is saying he doesn't trust Heaps as much in critical downs... which when you know he is going to be the guy, might not be the best thing to say IMO.

So, was the critism because he didn't say the expected... "It hurts BUT we are fully confident in the capabilities and skills that Heaps brings to the table etc..."?

I don't think the comment was any big deal. I think it would be using Nelson in goal line and short yardage plays when you want him to option pitch or run/pass option. It wouldn't be because they trust him more but because those plays are his specialty. Think Tebow his freshman year.

This is what I thought he said that they were going to shift to using jake as the main qb but put rilye in on critical situations like third and short or in the red zone. just like tebow was used.

bball wrote:
I've said this on other threads, but if the receivers had not dropped so many balls in the first three games (the majority were thrown by Heaps) Heaps would be looking pretty decent, and the offense would be looking much better, and we would have sustained more drives, and scored more points.



.

Not to mention that now they can expand the playbook given the fact that they don't have two completely different offenses to try and execute.

jonnylingo wrote:

I've said this on other threads, but if the receivers had not dropped so many balls in the first three games (the majority were thrown by Heaps) Heaps would be looking pretty decent, and the offense would be looking much better, and we would have sustained more drives, and scored more points.



.

Not to mention that now they can expand the playbook given the fact that they don't have two completely different offenses to try and execute.

If by 'expand' you mean 'remember.'



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

snoscythe wrote:
I remember in HS when we had two tailbacks get injured in a matter of minutes and the freshman kid who was 3rd string had to find his helmet (cost us a timeout after the injury time) and get out on the field. Coach grabbed him by his earhole before he went out and said, "you weren't good enough to play five minutes ago, but you have to be good enough now." Sometimes it's better not to say anything.

Wow!! Interesting way to motivate a player your team now depends on.

:bug: