was a great Longhorn moment.  But when I think of him, the first thing that comes to mind is that every snap he took was another play where VY was somehow on the bench.

And I think of that first Arkansas game that killed the nation's longest home winning streak where he was throwing passes into the dirt.  

Usually it's Wells who points out such obvious changes in the facts.  Allow me to give it a try:

Or maybe it is the joy you get walking around the State Fair after the land theives beat the shit out of us?

Ummm, we beat OU in Colt's frosh year (2006).  And we lost by 7 points in a close game last year.

If you want to have an intelligent debate/discussion regarding an issue like this, then it is usually helpful to stick to what actually transpired.

I never said we should start Chiles.  After watching the Orange/White game, I am thinking that Harris is the best choice, but I do believe either choice is better than Colt.

Saying that Chiles and Harris aren't ready is partially true.  It is true that they dont' have the experience that Colt does, but that alone isn't a reason to keep Colt over one of our other options.  These guys can't develop like they need to while sitting on the bench.

As I have said before, I am not declaring that Chiles (or Harris) will win us a Big 12 or MNC, but I am positive that Colt will not.  Ther is no potential left for Colt.  He has peaked.  He can do no better.  That is not the case with Chiles or Harris.

They both have room to grown and develop.  Colt does not.  So, the simple answer to your question of why we should start Chiles or Harris: because they have the potetial to be excellent QBs.  If want to go to the Big 12 or MNC again, then we have to get a decent quarterback some experience.  Sticking with Colt only delays the inevitable.

We have two options:

1. Stay with Colt for the next 2 years and continue to be mediocre, while neglecting the development of QBs with talent, which would then put us in the same situation we are in today: talent without experience.  The difference is, in 2 years, these guys will only have a year (chiles) or two (Harris) left.  Not a lot of development time, servin only to delay development and our ability to compete for a title.

2. Bench Colt, give Harris or Chiles some playing time, and give them the chance to develop.  This season may be rough (although I think it will be no worse than if we stick with Colt), but we will actually have a shot at the title in a year or two.  

And, as a side note for Shake, I know we beat OU in 2006.  I was there.  That doesn't change the fact that we loose to them all the time, and that we lost to them last year (was there for that too), and I am fairly certain we will loose to them again this year.  While 1 victory against OU is good, it doesn't excuse Colt's other spectacular blunders and failures.  

I will admit that my frustration is still primarily with the coaching staff, well, mainly just GD.  I hate this attitude that because the guys are older, they should be playing.  We all know that is not necessarily the best option.

I have no hatred for Colt.  He seems like a nice kid, and I know he tries hard when he plays.  But for me, that is not enough to justify keeping him as the starter.  I care about winning.  I care about beating OU and A&M (and K-state).  And I want Texas to have another Big 12, and yes, another MNC.

With GD at the helm, Colt isn't good enough to get it done.  He doesn't have the raw physical ability to overcome GD's misserable coaching ability.  Whether or not you want to say VY overcame GD's retardation, or that GD adapted to VY, it just isn't going to happen with Colt.  Colt is average, and when already playing with the deck stacked against him, average just isn't going to get it done.  Since we can see he won't get it done, why not give someone else a chance?

Your next two diaries should be about a) Greg Davis sucking/not sucking and b) our football team's SOS sucking/not sucking. You will have then completed the trifecta of most divisive issues in the Burnt Orange Nation.