The Million Dollar Question

by PB @ BON on Apr 20, 2008 12:43 PM CDT in Football

In writing the preview for this year's offense, there was one inescapable question that could have an enormous impact on literally everything else: what to do with John Chiles?

To start, let's accept the premise that Colt McCoy is the starting quarterback. There are some who think he shouldn't be, but it's a moot point, given what we know. For the purposes of this post, it's Colt.

We can go one of two ways from there. First, we can keep Chiles at quarterback, and get a QB/WR depth chart that looks something like this:

POSITION	Player 1	Player 2	Player 3
Quarterback	McCoy	Chiles	Harris
Flanker	Shipley	Collins	Grant
Split End	Williams	Webber	Buckner
Sub B Wideout	Cosby	Hales	Kirkendoll

Alternatively, we can decide to use Chiles as a receiver, with a QB/WR depth chart looking something like this:

POSITION	Player 1	Player 2	Player 3
Quarterback	McCoy	Harris	Chiles*
Flanker	Chiles	Kirk/Collins	Grant/Buckner
Split End	Shipley	Williams	Webber
Sub B Wideout	Cosby	Hales	Kirk/Collins

*Emergency

(You can quibble with some of the ordering and positioning, but we just don't know what we've got with most of these kids yet. Still, feel free to revise as you see fit.)

Which is preferable? It seems to me that if you're the offensive coordinator and you go with Option A, you're committed to using John Chiles in a not insignificant role at quarterback. A repeat of last year would be a waste of Texas' best playmaker on an offense that desperately needs them. Don't forget: Texas lost its three top weapons from a B+ 2007 offense.

Option B appears to make a good deal of sense. For starters, by almost all accounts, Harris is further along as a passer/game manager than Chiles. Moreover, he's perfectly capable of running the zone read, which means you don't lose the ability to have a back up come in for a change of look/pace. And you get Chiles on the field where he can affect the game from the get-go.

On top of all that, it's worth noting the secondary effect such a move would create by forcing opposing defenses to gameplan for a diverse unit featuring a flanker like John Chiles. All those nifty trick plays we've run with Jordan Shipley would be run through Chiles, who's not only a better athlete, but also can be used as a second quarterback on the field. The opportunities to be creative are limited only by your imagination.

Am I missing something, or does this not make a lot of sense?

--PB--

Poll

Keep Chiles as #2 QB or get him on the field as a WR?

0 recs | Comment 31 comments

Read Related

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Maybe this was a rumor, I don't even remember anymore

But what about Chiles making it clear to the coaches that he wants to play QB and only QB? That, more than anything, could be affecting their decision regarding a position switch. If he’s taken a strong enough stance, their choice is “use Chiles at QB” or “watch him transfer,” in which case, I’d be inclined to keep him at QB and get at least some use out of him.

Of course, that wouldn’t prevent Chiles from being moved to #3 on the QB depth chart—admittedly a remote-seeming possibility now, but Harris could make a case for himself in practice if he continues to widen his lead over Chiles.

by a0nyme on Apr 20, 2008 2:09 PM CDT 1 recs

I also heard

that Chiles is not interested in changing positions. I wonder if his outlook would change if he lost the competition for #2 QB—a very real possibility based on spring game performances.

by mikey 4 on Apr 20, 2008 2:20 PM CDT up 0 recs

or...

If they put Chiles on punt coverage for a few plays, might persuade him WR is a better fit.

...a University of the first class, to be located by a vote of the people of this State, and styled, "The University of Texas,"...

by Art.7-Sec.10 on Apr 21, 2008 10:14 AM CDT up 0 recs

Excuse my button pushing.

None of them mean anything wrt your post, a0nyme. The buttons weren’t on/off as I expected, so when i get time I’ll hit the FAQ and correct, if possible.

by whills on Apr 21, 2008 4:36 PM CDT up 0 recs

Harris

Don’t forget that Harris ripped some big runs in the 2007 Spring game.

If I am elected mayor, my first official act will be to kill the lot of you and burn your town to cinders

by 98horn on Apr 20, 2008 2:22 PM CDT 0 recs

Oh, I know Harris has talent

I referred to the possibility as “remote-seeming” only because the coaches appear to be committed (understandably, to an extent) to giving Chiles a long time and a lot of chances to secure that #2 job.

by a0nyme on Apr 20, 2008 2:31 PM CDT 0 recs

true

given that the coaching staff played the 3 worst LBs in school history based on seniority, I don’t think they have to stomach to tell JC “Son, you can’t throw, and you’ll never be a QB.” I know he wants to be the next Vince, but Vince worked his a$$ off all summer to become a better passer his jr. year. Chiles just hasn’t improved his passing game enough to play at the college level(as a passing QB, he has sick talent running the ball).

If I am elected mayor, my first official act will be to kill the lot of you and burn your town to cinders

by 98horn on Apr 20, 2008 2:38 PM CDT up 0 recs

On College Football live (ESPN)

Yesterday Mack made a point of emphasis that Chiles needs to be on the field, will get plenty of plays — and we will probably see both McCoy and Chile on the field together.

Chiles willingness to play WR/TB during spots is a good sign that he can be flexible, even if it means taking baby steps.

Cats and dogs sleeping together.

by EYESofBEVO on Apr 20, 2008 2:32 PM CDT 0 recs

Chiles to WR?

I didn’t know he used to play as WR in high school. Funny thing is he has as many yards passing as he did running and receiving his last 2 years in high school (wiki).

If he has the talent of catching, then why not use him as a WR occasionally and convert him into a triple threat QB – passing , rushing & receiving :]

Does anyone know if Chiles can kick a ball?

P.s. Site looks a lot better than rudimentary now. I will comment on its functionality once I’ve tested everything out.

More than just 10 wins?

by Ultra Horn on Apr 20, 2008 2:38 PM CDT 0 recs

Darren Mcfadden

use him like darren mcfadden let him play all around the field and some times at QB. This will give us a game breaker and allow chiles to be on the field more.

by Hook'em13 on Apr 20, 2008 3:04 PM CDT 0 recs

We are forgetting a very important point..

The GD factor.

If we put Chiles at WR, is there any guarantee that he will even get the ball anyway? No. He will probably get a WR screen or two, but that’s about it..

Does anybody here honestly think GD can properly use a decoy? If he could, why hasn’t he been able to so far?

Also, with UT’s inability to sign (or keep) QB recruits, we need Chiles to take as many snaps at QB as possible. Mack has to want to red-shirt Gilbert, so assuming he does, Chiles is locked into the #2 role for at least the next two years. Colt hasn’t exactly been a model of consistency, or injury free, so we need to have an able backup.

by the1austin on Apr 20, 2008 3:31 PM CDT 0 recs

I would love

to see Chiles around the field more. He has a great set of legs. Harris looks pretty good as well. Having two backups and with JC (wow.. feels weird using those intitials and not talking about Jamaal Charles) able to move around the field in different positions would confuse a lot of defenses. I hate waiting!! I am ready for some football!!

Hard work beats talent when talent fails to work hard. OU SUCKS!!

by LadyLonghorninOK on Apr 20, 2008 3:36 PM CDT 0 recs

Hey why not both?

I definitely want him to remain a QB though, seeing that Colt has had his share of injury problems.

by goingforthecorner on Apr 20, 2008 4:20 PM CDT 0 recs

it would require a departure on GD's part

but I agree that the most effective use of Chiles would be as a single wing TB, i.e. what Arkansas did with Darren McFadden in their single wing motion series, aka the Wild Hawg.
There is no point in putting Chiles at WR, unless you want to make things easier for the defense.
As a single wing TB, who can run the ball, hand-off to a motion man, or pass to a WR, you’ve got yourself a monster of an offensive threat.

by Beergut on Apr 20, 2008 5:43 PM CDT 0 recs

he needs to get on the field anyway possible, wr, tebow style, returns, he is electric

Heres to the nastiest defense in college football 2008-2009

by Olemissreb451 on Apr 20, 2008 6:18 PM CDT 0 recs

I have no problem

with the deportation of GD. He has been a hangnail on this team since Mack stepped through the front door. its time for him to say goodbye and let someone else have a shot at the job…. someone with an imagination.

by Hook'em13 on Apr 20, 2008 6:38 PM CDT 0 recs

The playcalling may take a while

As the non-hybrid #2 QB (#1 is off the table), effectively utilizing Chiles would require giving him more meaningful playing time at the expense of Colt. As a WR/TB/hybrid, it would require more innovative playcalling. Since this staff can be frustratingly conservative with both its QB substitutions and its playcalling, there’s a chance that Chiles will be underutilized no matter where he is.

That said, I personally think the staff has been more consistently willing and/or able to shake things up on playcalling than on substitutions. Since (1) we need playmakers on the field and (2) Chiles may not even be our best option at #2 QB, I’m inclined to move him to some kind of hybrid position even if it means waiting for Greg Davis & Co. to come around. All things being equal, that’s where his talent is most likely to be exploited.

by a0nyme on Apr 20, 2008 8:50 PM CDT 0 recs

Greg Davis

The optimist in me says Chiles is capable of being a huge playmaker, doing end arounds, receiving, at QB etc.

The realist in me says we’ll see a few plays here and there against Florida Atlantic, UTEP, and Rice.

Every year we here the same old story about opening up the play book.

So far it has been nothing but hot air.
Why are we soo vanilla? Florida turned Percy Harvin into a superstar. LSU used a 2 QB system. Hell even Frank “mr conservative” beamer at Va Tech throw his mobile QB on the field.

by owenh on Apr 20, 2008 9:24 PM CDT 0 recs

A lot riding on fall practice..

If he shows up and really works hard during summer workouts and if that work pays off during fall practice, I think he will stay at QB.

If his passing game is still a project, I think Greg & Mack may seriously think about moving him to a different role.

So my response is to keep him at QB, but if he can’t be a difference maker by this year, then it is a blatant waste not to use him in another role.

My adopted son Sergio Kindle does not sleep; he waits.

by mvplonghorns on Apr 20, 2008 9:30 PM CDT 0 recs

a buddy thinks Chiles should be a TB

His reasoning is simply that texas doesn’t have a Jamaal Charles or Cedric Benson-type back returning, no ‘electric’ star offensive player, and Chiles could be that guy at TB.

If he tru;ly is a better runner than passer, and doesn’t improve at all in the passing game, this might not be a bad option.
It would work well in the whole “McCoy and Chiles in the same backfield” scenarios, too.

by Beergut on Apr 21, 2008 12:29 AM CDT 0 recs

Agree with inVINCEable below...

...Remember we had this same sort of filling in the hole thing after Benson left, no proven TBs, and we ended up with Ramonce, JC, and Selving Young. Now we’ll end up with Hales, Fozzy, and Vondrell. I do not worry about having the talent, I worry about Mack and GD farting around and having five “co-starter” RBs. Until we score 10 against OU, that is, then we’ll get serious about this whole you-have-to-commit-to-one-thing idea.

--Horn Brain--

by Horn Brain on Apr 21, 2008 10:24 AM CDT up 0 recs

I recall...

that we one a national championship with 4 running backs getting significant playing time and no commitment to one of them above the rest. There are some RB’s (like Benson and Ricky) that need to be “the guy” in order to succeed at a high level, and there are some (Selvin, Jamaal and Ramonce come to mind) that don’t. I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that we HAVE to name a starter lest the entire running game fall apart. It didn’t in 2005.

by billyzane on Apr 21, 2008 10:33 AM CDT up 0 recs

Re: NC with committe RBs

Vince Young helped them produce just a little, you think? JC and Selvin had very blah years in ‘06.

--Horn Brain--

by Horn Brain on Apr 21, 2008 11:37 AM CDT up 0 recs

that's a cop-out

Yeah yeah, Vince made everyone from Greg Davis to the peanut guy in section 245 look better at his job. You don’t think having a solid running game in the zone read as well as RB’s who could go out for passes reliably made Vince better? It’s a 2-way street, HB.

Regardless, I can understand why you might think Vince made his running backs better (and he probably did), but your idea above was that running back by committee doesn’t work and you need to pick “a guy.” I’m curious to know how you think Vince changed this dynamic. And if Vince DID change this dynamic, then you agree that it’s not ALWAYS beneficial to have one RB be “the guy.” It depends on the circumstances. Which was exactly my point in the first place.

by billyzane on Apr 21, 2008 2:00 PM CDT up 0 recs

I'm just saying...

... in ‘05, Vince was “the guy”. Colt is not a “the guy” kind of player, so we’ll need one at RB. The offense needs a centerpiece, someone who can put pressure on the defense even when they know what’s coming. Right now we’re looking at A.) passing game – pretty ok Colt who has shown us nothing but the ability to win games and be productive when it’s not up to him to win the game, or B.) running game – pretty ok Colt who can exploit gaping fear-of-Charles-sized holes in the D, but isn’t going to be able to create his own offense, and McGee, Fozzy, and Chris O, none of whom are proven as “the guy” who the defense is going to watch first. Maybe Colt gets back to form behind the (hopefully) improved O-line, and the offense will go on the pass, but that’s what we hoped for last year. I’m hoping for a ground guy to carry the load.

Also, I called Selvin Young “Selving” Young earlier. My bad.

--Horn Brain--

by Horn Brain on Apr 21, 2008 4:40 PM CDT up 0 recs

I think I am

among the few because I believe that Vondrell Mcgee can step up to the position well. He’s got the speed and the strength to do it. Let’s see what he does with the reigns before we state we don’t have a Jamaal Charles or Cedric Benson.

Living vicariously through Deon Beasley

by inVINCEable on Apr 21, 2008 6:45 AM CDT 0 recs

Chiles

Yesterday Mack made a point of emphasis that Chiles needs to be on the field, will get plenty of plays — and we will probably see both McCoy and Chile on the field together.

I, for one, cannot wait to see GD pull out his trickeration and put McCoy at wideout to do absolutely nothing, then have Chiles run the one play he actually knows, the zone-read. GD is an absolute trick play genius.

by jc25 on Apr 21, 2008 11:29 AM CDT 0 recs

Ghosts of snark past?

Or your future fear and dread?

Or, indeed, are you lost in the near past altogether?

by whills on Apr 21, 2008 4:49 PM CDT 0 recs

Does anyone ......

......want to discuss the possibility of Mack/Davis having made a decision about the future offense when they offered GG over R.Shepard? If my prediction is correct, then does Chiles wait with GG behind him? With a RS to give, we have to acknowledge a transfer is a real possibility…......

--- All roads to the Big-XII Championship lead through OU/RRS. It's not just another game! We're all about championships here. ---

by HornChamps on Apr 21, 2008 8:24 PM CDT 0 recs