Well you're absolutely right. I think people do not understand that Colt is not built for the kind of offense Davis is comfortable running. Chiles, is. Another thing, I've heard others on here say that they think Colt is just not getting a fair shake and that we are quick to look past 29 TD's. That was also behind an experienced and national championship-winning offensive line protecting him. (Oklahoma's Sam Bradford has something similar to that this year.)It can't be understated that Colt played a nice game on Saturday, but this offensive line of ours is at least a year, maybe, two away from being solid. We must make adjustments according to the talent we have to work with. If we stick with Colt, which is what we will do, the same thing that happened to a talented quarterback from New Jersey will happen to Colt. He will take a lot of unnecessary blame from fans because of a coach who isn't qualified, honestly to coach him. I once remember Chris Simms saying something to the effect that he thought the offensive schemes that GD ran back then were too predictable and unimaginative. I truly feel thats why he never really succeeded here. And ultimately why Colt won't succeed here with Greg Davis either. Sadly, I'm really feeling bad for McCoy. I just don't see his experience at Teas turning out to be a pleasant one in the future. And it won't even be his fault.

I think McCoy played a great game on Saturday.  (19/26 - 73% - 324 yds, 2 TDs, 1 INT).  He has definitely been hindered by an inexperienced OL, I don't think anybody would argue with that.  Now it turns out his best receiver has been playing injured for half the season.

However, given the current situation, I would like to see Chiles mixed in there more often.  But I still have a lot of faith in McCoy, and I think he should remain #1.  Maybe put in Chiles for certain situations, just to mix it up, or go for the Chiles/McCoy tandem package.  Whatever works.

And let's not forget, Sherrod Harris is a great runner as well.  He's had an extra year in the system, plus more overall experience playing the position.  I'd assume his passing is a little more consistent than that of Chiles, but of course I have no evidence to support that.   Let's give Sherrod a chance to show what he can do, provided that he is 100% healthy.

So get back to me on that

I definitely agree that Chiles/Harris are a better fit for Davis' offense. However, if Davis just threw one of them into the starting role, would we really get to see what they could do? I ask this not because of John or Sherrod's shortcomings (we haven't seen enough yet), but because of this year's offensive line's shortcomings. Is this line capable of being proficient in a 2004/2005 VY style offense? I should say, would they be more proficient in a VY style offense this year than with Colt and the current offense? I don't know the answer to that, but I would love to know it. However, I still strongly believe that this team is capable of going on a second half run and finishing 10-2. Obviously, Texas' NC and Big XII title hopes are gone, but I still think that a BCS at-large bid is possible (don't laugh; look at what's happened so far this season across the country). Now, is that type of run possible with Chiles/Harris at the controls? Or would we just have to settle with 8ish wins, Alamo/Independence bid, and the satisfaction of knowing we'll have a killer offense in '08? I still think that Colt gives us a better chance at a run THIS SEASON, but damn, it sure is tempting to see what the future could hold with John Chiles or Sherrod Harris and the multitude of weapons at their disposal. Bottom line is, I'm truly torn. I don't know what I want. All I know is that the second half of this season could have a profound (positive or negative) impact on the next couple of seasons.

More experienced qb who didn't quite fit the coach's system, but wasstill capable of leading the offense.  Still used a freshman qb who was quite capable of running on running downs.  How did that situation work out for florida?

Did anybody watch the game? He just proved that he is our guy. I honestly now believe that we will run the table with Colt. We don't need a change at qb we need a change in scheme and offensive philoshpy. Just like when GD changed the offense to fit VY's abilities he needs to do that for Colt. Go back to the pre-VY offense.

We kind of got a glimpse of that against OU. We need a more two back offense and utilizing the tight end with play action. I can't believe now that we are questiong who is going to be our qb. If Colt stunk it up then it would be a reasonable question but he played brilliantly and was done in by JC.

We need to question who is going to be our running back, why we don't make any plays on D, and where the fuck is Limas motherfucking Sweed.

both better offensive teams than 2004, so I really disagree with that point.  In fact the 2003 team with Roy Williams was actually a more explosive offense than the 2004 team that really had to grind it out.

I think Colt can succeed if he plays play he did last week (and last season.)  But Davis absolutely has to call some pass plays aimed at the middle of the field (not just the sidelines,) and the running game needs to become a lot more consistant.  Everyone points fingers at the so called "vince young offense," but if you actually watch the game there are lots of under center sets and even quite a bit of I formation, but the running doesn't improve that much.  The issue lies with JC and the Oline more than the scheme.

I expect Colt to be the starting QB for the immediate future - he has the experience, the decision-making skill and the on-the-field game management capability much greater that both back-ups lack.

That being said, I think most any coaching staff would be so smart to say "we must develop our back-ups and must devote at least a quarter per game for the #2 and some time to #3 over the next three games, minimum."

And explain it to Colt and the team like that: this team must have experienced back-up QBs. There are too many dangers to not do this. And if things break out way, then we're so much more able to take care of our business with the security of knowing we have experience at #2 and some at #3.

In developing those QBs, many of the questions raised here might then be more obvious and more easily addressed in light of the play on the field. Colt works best right now because there is no other experienced QB. But John and Sherrod have plenty to offer and suit this offense much better; developing their judgment is an on-the-field exercise, there's no other way. And it must happen from here on in to avoid the kind of disaster we had last year where there were no real alternatives.

This team has a range of problems; a young O-line that will get better with time and can't be pushed much faster than it is going; DB's in much the same boat; a seemingly solvable but somehow intractable problem with the LBs; a weak running game and not much deep threat (due to lack of time or confidence).

You can add in that Colt is not the most suitable QB for this offense but it is a moot point in terms of experience; the back-ups have virtually no experience in any system, right or wrong.

When a team has so many problems, you don't add more; you stabilize what you can. Starting Chiles would add something but would also extract a cost. These coaches just won't do that.

There is no clear and sweeping answer to the QB question, no magic bullet. This team will get better with each game it plays. The real question is whether they'll make a commitment to really developing the depth and experience they need for next year.

And in light of the loss of Sweed, with Quan as the only back-up, start cross training JCharles out there now.  

If we had an offensive coordinator who was COMPETENT enough, he could run an offense no matter who was at QB. That's what offensive coordinators are paid for, not to run an effective offense only when an insanely gifted athlete is our QB.

Hell, Colt is as gutsy and talented as they come. The fact that Davis is still employing ineffective plays and schemes is a reflection on him, not our QB. As long as he stays, we'll be having the same discussions every season (barring the emergence of a VY-like QB).

   Colt is a good college quarterback with limitations. Not highly recruited and the limited ability with the deep ball for example might be just one reason.
   Can Texas with the current staff win with a QB like Colt? Remembering that he loses a good chunk of his WR corp next season ( and maybe even Quan.) The inability to run the ball against better competiton while not new will plague him as well IMO.
   Texas needs to recruit two stud QB's this year and then RS both. The lack of depth, experienced depth at QB has been an issue for most of Brown's tenure at Texas. Simms needed a RS, Chiles needed one as well. Yet Texas simply could not afford to do tis. Even in the NC season we were fortunate that Vince was never injured.
   The loss, and my opinion mishandling of Sneed, cost Texas a shot at the conference title last season. had Texas played him in blowouts earlier and let him run the offense, his attitude and development may, may have been different. Even if Chiles or a stud recruit McCoy will be the starter without much development of a backup if history is any indicator. Only a punter loses his job under Mack Brown.