Mack: Chiles to get looks as WR
Here's an article by everyone's favorite AAS writer where Mack says Chiles will stay at QB, but they'll look at ways to get him the ball as a WR.
I'm wondering what this means for Sherrod Harris. Does he get a better chance at playing? How much are they looking at playing Chiles at WR? I love that Mack is looking to get the best 11 on the field no matter what. Its encouraging.
Thoughts?
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
0 recs |
100
comments
Read Related
Comments
I rewatched Chiles' high school highlights today
And I would love to see him get some time at WR, working some of our bubble screens. Like Ive said in other posts, I think he could be the most dangerous if we dont pigeon hole him into taking snaps, which I dont think is where his offensive talent is going to lie.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jun 19, 2008 4:53 PM CDT 0 recs
Just came in and saw the AAS release.
I think Harris is probably the most stable choice as the back-up QB.
But, as I mentioned before, a team must have three ready. It’s rare that you might need all three in one game, but it can happen (Randy McEachern vs. OU, 1977 and broke six-game losing streak, too). The more likely case would be if Colt should go down, the Horns have one ready and a prepared back-up.
Quite simply, we’ve understood here for some time that with 4.3 speed and explosive ability, Chiles has to be on the field in some role. So I’m glad the Longhorn staff finally endorses this. Let’s hope it sticks.
With the earlier rumors of Curtis Brown, perhaps they’re reassessing everyone to discover where their best potential lies.
And does anyone have any insight into this evaluation process (from AAS):
Brown each year asks his staff to rank the players in terms of their athletic ability on both sides of the ball, and Chiles and incumbent quarterback Colt McCoy rank as two of the top offensive playmakers.
by whills on Jun 19, 2008 8:31 PM CDT 0 recs
Can we change our Vote
On the featured poll if Chiles is moving to WR?
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Jun 20, 2008 9:30 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Could be good if the coaches actually follow through
I seem to remember Mack saying something prior to the 2007 season about the importance of getting the backup QB meaningful snaps. I know this is “new look” Mack and everything, but fool me twice….
by a0nyme on Jun 20, 2008 12:32 PM CDT 0 recs
How this affects the back-up position
I agree, as most have said, that it’s a great move, and we’ll have “the best 11 on the field no matter what”. BUT, it’s important to remember that Mack has made it abundantly clear that JC is still first and foremost a QB (“He is a quarterback, period.” – Mack).
This means JC will probably continue to hold the #2 play-caller spot whether he runs a few routes on the side or not. I might agree with whills that Sherrod Harris is the most stable back-up, BUT my pick would be to keep JC as the 1st runner-up for several reasons:
Successful game (and bowl!) experience: Maybe not with his arm, but one way or another he got the job done. Furthermore, I’d take a QB with several unsuccessful possessions under his belt than a QB with none. I don’t trust a QB’s stats until his third or so all-time possession anyway. (That being said, two important notes come up: 1) JC’s possessions WERE successful 2) his arm was unimpressive regardless of ‘first-time-on-the-field-jitters’)
NOWness: Most importantly a back-up needs to be the most ready RIGHT NOW, and I’ll give that card to JC. SH has shown he can be calm and fairly consistent, but other than spring games and what-not, he’s fairly untested. Keep him at #3 and continue development. (maybe that’s too similar to the first)
Development: With the RIGHT NOW card given, remember the back-up is not playing an important possession while Colt stands (looks to heaven prayerfully), so the staff will hopefully be working on JC’s weaknesses (ARM) until his day comes. I’ll take JC’s raw talent, athleticism, and explosiveness over SH. I LOVE Harris and think he’ll be great, but let’s build on JC’s foundation and see what sort of hell we can unleash.
Explosiveness: A back-up comes in after #1 stunner goes down, which is really freaking depressing. You want someone to run onto the field who’s gonna light fire under some asses, and JC will absolutely do that, if nothing else than by example. SH might be able to do it too, though the only fire-lighting I’ve seen from him were a few break-out runs in the ‘07 Spring Game. I KNOW JC can.
Having said all that, I think JC will make a stellar addition to our air game. I watched those high school highlights and couldn’t help but smile. But lets remember that he probably won’t get that many looks, and I’m A-okay with that so that we focus on his arm. Whether you’re in the ‘look-ahead-to-09’ group or not, you have to hope we spend more time making him the BEST QB HE CAN BE than working his athleticism into the line-up, as tempting as it is. There’s room for disagreement there, but those are my thoughts. Keep PB’s Option A but add Chiles as an asterisk Flanker. Hit me with thoughts, particularly about SH as #2, cus I need to look into that more. And if that’s the case, then it gives more weight to JC spending more time spinning those wheels.
5 days til my return to the Greatest City in the World, Hook ‘em!
by DKR-is-home on Jun 20, 2008 1:35 PM CDT 0 recs
I don't usually write replies like this, but...
SH has shown he can be calm and fairly consistent, but other than spring games and what-not, he’s fairly untested.
Until the Holiday Bowl, Chiles was pretty untested, too. All Harris needs is a chance.
Keep [Harris] at #3 and continue development.
As you pointed out, Chiles has his own development to work on. I hear arms are important for QBs.
I’ll take JC’s raw talent, athleticism, and explosiveness over SH.
In this case, you’re just saying the same word (“athleticism”) three times. Moreover, Chiles can run around, he hasn’t demonstrated “raw talent,” athleticism, or “explosiveness” with, say, decisionmaking or throwing the ball.
His brand of athleticism can be just as effectively utilized in a Ramonce Taylor-like role. If Colt went down, Harris could step in, Chiles would stay where he is, and then it’s pick your poison.
Having said all that, I think JC will make a stellar addition to our air game.
Uh, no. Chiles underthrows way too often and just hasn’t shown himself to be an effective passer. That makes the Chiles offense, as it stands, one-dimensional—a change of pace at best, but not sustainable.
Could he become a complete QB? Sure. But I’ve seen enough from Harris to know that he could, too. At the very least, that tells me that the backup QB spot should be wide open.
by a0nyme on
Jun 20, 2008 2:22 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I think he mean a stellar addition at the RECEIVING end of our air game.
I fully agree that Harris deserves a chance. From everything I’ve observed, he’s a better all-around QB. He can throw, plus he’s dang athletic himself and can probably scramble/tuck and run better than Colt.
by crocodile235 on
Jun 20, 2008 3:40 PM CDT
up
0 recs
a0nyme's is a good clearifying reply
Agreed Chiles was untested also, but now he’s not and Harris is. Let’s get them both snaps as many have said.
Agreed they both have development to do.
‘raw talent’ and ‘athleticism’ may be the same (oops), but ‘explosiveness’ is unique, and JC’s got it. SH might.
Think Longhorns84 sums it up right here: “I would split the time with Harris and Chiles, and have Chiles practicing with the 1st team at WR and with the second team as a QB.”
Representing the Longhorn greatness in the cold Northeast.
by DKR-is-home on
Jun 20, 2008 5:37 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Explosiveness!
Talk about an aggressive upfield cut for a QB.
Representing the Longhorn greatness in the cold Northeast.
by DKR-is-home on
Jun 20, 2008 5:39 PM CDT
up
0 recs
my thoughts
Get both Chiles AND Harris a bunch of snaps in 3 of the first 4 games (non-conf foes minus Arkansas). Then we’ll know what we’re looking at.
I can see them using Chiles at WR a little bit, but I think it will be special plays, not in the regular rotation. And defenses will probably sniff it out unless he’s a decoy.
by SelimSivad on Jun 20, 2008 1:42 PM CDT 0 recs
I'd include Arkansas.
Need to see them against tougher competition, too.
I realize there will be a certain inclination for the coaching staff to protect the QBs and that may have played a role last year. But we’re really in a sink-or-swim situation. They both need the competition, especially with the game on the line and the opposition defense somewhat fresh.
by whills on
Jun 20, 2008 8:19 PM CDT
up
0 recs
yay!
wr screen, wr pass, jet sweep yay!. considering we have no deep threat whatsoever at the moment i say this is good news. perhaps the wr screen will finally be useful this comming season.
TEXAS LONGHORNS #16 Jermichael Finley 36 rec 500 yards 2 td
by clra2 on Jun 20, 2008 2:43 PM CDT 0 recs
What are you talking about?
The bubble screen is a tour de force both so expected from a Greg Davis’ orchestrated offense you can’t possibly see it coming.
by WorstFan on
Jun 20, 2008 8:23 PM CDT
up
1 recs
#2 is very important
The #2 will be very important, because Colt has been known to take some shots. I hope the O-line protects him better, and we don’t have to worry about a #2. I am also hoping Colt cuts his INT’s in half.
I would split the time with Harris and Chiles, and have Chiles practicing with the 1st team at WR and with the second team as a QB.
Honestly.. Harris has been hurt already in his short career, and he hasn’t even played with the 1st teamers. I would keep him at #3. Chiles will get better throwing the ball, he really can’t get much worse! He’s a great athlete and they pick up fast. I said it before, Chiles can move the ball down field just running the ball, imagine when he learns how to pass(unstoppable).
If Texas is going to stick with Colt, then they definitly need to get Chiles in at WR.
by Longhorns84 on Jun 20, 2008 3:16 PM CDT 0 recs
Longhorns News
I found this page I thought you would like it – it has Longhorns football news from sports news sites and blogs
by drodd on Jun 20, 2008 3:37 PM CDT 0 recs
Watch this guys posting history
He’s already posted several of this nice messages for mysportsPoop on other Big 12 SBN blogs
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
by Speedway on
Jun 20, 2008 3:56 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Spambot or
some strange traveler from the past who just unearthed the RSS feed aggregator?
by learned hand on
Jun 20, 2008 4:19 PM CDT
up
0 recs
has anyone considered moving him to RB?
Keeps him and McCoy in the same backfield, and you don’t know who is getting the snap every play.
My texas fan friend is convinced this would give texas a difference maker at RB on the level of Jamaal Charles. I haven’t seen Chiles enough to comment.
by Beergut on Jun 21, 2008 1:09 AM CDT 0 recs
I've heard
that Chiles has specifically stated that he doesn’t want to play RB.
But that would be sweet if he played some RB this year.
I think Hales should get some RB looks this year too
by texasfan05 on
Jun 21, 2008 3:46 AM CDT
up
0 recs
That's about enough...
Chiles has specifically stated that he doesn’t want to play RB.
Can you find a link or something? I am so sick of Chiles’ ego. I don’t want to play RB, I want to play QB, deal with it, coach. I know this isn’t confirmed yet, so we can’t really 100% say that it’s Chiles’ ego and not Greg and Mack letting him choose whatever he wants to do instead of being firm, but geez. This guy could be a good anything, and if he wants to make some money on Sundays, he’s going to have to do it from wideout or running back anyway, I don’t see what the problem is with him moving around, especially while there are no minutes at QB anyway. Will someone please mention Darren McFadden to him?
by Horn Brain on
Jun 21, 2008 8:15 AM CDT
up
0 recs
I once read a scifi novel long ago
which started out on one side of the universe with two matched, incredibly well-armed adversaries, all with the latest weaponry. The war that ensued stretched across the galaxy and wound up on the other side in hand-to-hand combat with swords, knives, hatches and rocks as the remnants of once great armies struggled to survive another few minutes.
Football season is like that, too. What starts out with gusto and hype and plenty of options ends up in the trenches with slobbering, panting protagonists in mano-a-mano combat. Teams wind up using everything in their arsenal wherever they need it, as the grand idealism of summer fades into the cold realities of winter.
In the end, teams do whatever they need to survive – and sacrifice is a normal part of that consequence.
by whills on
Jun 21, 2008 12:52 PM CDT
up
1 recs
level of Jamaal Charles
Texas has 3 RB at the same level as Jamaal Charles(hopefully without the fumbles). McGee, Whittaker, Hills are all 4 star RB recruits. I think they graded McGee at a 6.0 (almost 5 stars).
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 21, 2008 12:06 PM CDT
up
0 recs
So that's where you've been coming from
The rivals rankings. We’ve already disagreed whether they’re as good as a junior year JC (still do), so no need to rehash that.
SMQ though does have some evidence that one of the three will become an All American and have a chance to be drafted. Whether they’ll achieve that with a better or worse career than Jamal Charles, we’ll find out. Better would make me a happy fan.
by learned hand on
Jun 21, 2008 2:01 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Rivals rankings
I don’t like going by rivals rankings, but that is all we have to go by on Fozzy and really McGee too. McGee really only played in short yardage situations.
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 22, 2008 5:54 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Agreed, the rivals rankings
aren’t adequate to justify much more than optimism. I could have misinterpreted, but I read your first statement as saying: considering their relative overall scouting evaluations are similar, there’s reason to hope that one of new kids could have a career somewhere on the level of Charles.
SMQ makes a fairly interesting case for such optimism as far as being an All American or NFL caliber. Though many 4 stars don’t quite pan out, quite a few do, and our RB position is loaded with them. We’ll just have to wait and see which one of them is able to transform potential into production.
Hills potential as a playmaker particularly intrigues me, considering his similarity to JC size/speed wise, but he’s evidently a better student (honor roll, all district academics). Hopefully that will translate well onto the field.
by learned hand on
Jun 23, 2008 4:21 AM CDT
up
0 recs
McGee hasn't shown the breakaway ability of Charles
saying he is a difference maker on the level of Charles is asinine. We’ll have to wait and see on Whitaker. I think the best bet for texas is Hales.
by Beergut on
Jun 21, 2008 5:29 PM CDT
up
0 recs
You think the best bet for Texas weighs 160 lbs?
I weigh 160 lbs, dude. Do not even try and tell me that I could survive 12 games, let alone one, against a college defense. Hales shouldn’t get much more PT than Trindon Holliday, but I hope that he does carry the same level of explosiveness.
by Horn Brain on
Jun 21, 2008 9:07 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Also...
... 165. That’s five pounds of scar tissue in my brain.
by Horn Brain on
Jun 24, 2008 12:15 AM CDT
up
0 recs
asinine?
I think Charles made more mistakes than exposive plays. McGee hasn’t had the chance to show his abilities yet. He only got a chance in goal line or short yardage situations.
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 22, 2008 8:46 AM CDT
up
0 recs
You are wrong.
I think Charles made more mistakes than exposive plays.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Jun 23, 2008 8:37 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Huh?
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
by Speedway on
Jun 24, 2008 7:05 AM CDT
up
0 recs
A quote box..
Means it is not my words but someone elses. In this instance, it is used to signify that part of your statement which is most blatantly incorrect. I do not agree with you, I think your are wrong, and I believe that perhaps have no idea what you are talking about at all.
When Beergut calls your opinion asinine, and hes completely, unequivocally right, its time to start thinking about your posts a little more before you post them.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Jun 24, 2008 8:46 AM CDT
up
0 recs
curiouser and curiouser...
When Beergut calls your opinion asinine, and hes completely, unequivocally right, its time to start thinking about your posts a little more before you post them.
I also share his opinion on Hales. What is the world coming to?? The 160 lbs concerns me, though. But he does run fast and doesn’t get tackled, so there’s hope.
by jc25 on
Jun 24, 2008 9:36 AM CDT
up
0 recs
BiC explains quotes.
What was confusing (& humorous) to both me and Wells is that ‘84 was agreeing with you when you were disagreeing with him.
‘84 should read your instructions on quote box.
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
by Speedway on
Jun 24, 2008 9:44 AM CDT
up
0 recs
agreement
I agreed with what BoddickerIsClutch said about Charles making more mistakes than explosive plays. I’m not sure why your so confused.
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 24, 2008 10:35 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Ha ha ha ha ha! And How You Guys?
Dearest ‘84,
BiC was positioning a quote from you just below the words, “You are wrong.” So he is obviously disagreeing with you.
But since you agree with him that “You are wrong”, then you must be disagreeing with yourself.
Are you insane in the membrane?
--Speedway
It's a Horns' world. Even Aggies play hoops with a burnt orange ball.
Is it football season YET?
by Speedway on
Jun 24, 2008 11:37 AM CDT
up
1 recs
Let me clear this up for you
I think Charles made more mistakes than explosive play by Longhorns 84.
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 24, 2008 1:46 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Interesting
I would imagine that Jamaal made more mistakes than misterserious had explosive plays too. But, seeing that I don’t play for the Horns, the comparison isn’t really valid now is it?
by Misterserious7 on
Jun 24, 2008 2:22 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Agreed.
I have yet to see one explosive play by Longhorns 84.
by BoddickerIsClutch on
Jun 24, 2008 2:30 PM CDT
up
1 recs
see what i don't get...
is that you just wrote your response in the little box (showing you know that words can go there), but you didn’t read “you are wrong”..and he was quoting what you were wrong about
by vy til i die on
Jun 24, 2008 11:07 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Same level?
I’d sure hope so, but I don’t see it. Jamaal has elite explosiveness that NONE of our current RB’s have, although they certainly can show superiority in other aspects of being an RB.
As far as JC making more mistakes than big plays, I’d love to see some sort of stat on that. Let’s blame JC for the OU game where he was responsible for two huge turnovers in a close game. We’ll grant that. Then again, we aren’t beating Nebraska and OSU without him. He also contributed big against Texas Tech with a huge first half, one that gave us offensive momentum and some cusion so that our defense couldn’t blow it (although Akina tried to). Furthermore, he was one of the few players to step up and play well against A&M, which was about one of the worst games I’ve seen our players and coaches have in my short life.
Basically, while Charles made his mistakes, I can see that without him last year, Mack might have had his worst season ever at Texas. If I had a choice, I’d most certainly take JC over any of our current playmakers, including Chiles.
by TheElusiveShadow on
Jun 23, 2008 9:51 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Charles
You haven’t seen McGee or Fozzy play as an every down back, so I can’t see how you can really compare the two. If Jamaal Charles only played on short yradage situations, he wouldn’t have any explosive plays either.
Where was Jamaal Charles in all the games before Nebraska? Hell, where was he at during the first 3 quarters against Nebraska? I think Chiles had a part in Jamaal’s run against Nebraska. He did play great against OSU, and had his best run of his career against them (my opinion). I can’t count how many times Charles bounced it outside when he should have stayed inside, not to mention the turnovers.
Texas will be fine at RB next year. I’m looking forward to the change at the RB position. I want to see the bulldozer run some DB’s over! I’m worried about the QB and safties though.
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 23, 2008 12:00 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Jamaal
actually ran very well before Nebraska. Look at his stats. The turnovers just overshadowed it for some.
As far as Nebraska is concerned, it’s not his fault our offense was inept for the first 3 quarters. Look no further than Greg Davis. It took a Eureka moment provided by Chiles (because Colt was briefly knocked out) to set everything loose.
I’m not saying Fozzy or McGee can’t be good, but they simply don’t have Charles’ explosiveness and big play ability. Of course, there’s a lot more to being an RB than that, but that’s just a fact that I think is undisputed. I’m hopeful that our RB’s will step up and fill the void nicely, but by no means are we “better” without Charles. I think anyone would take a senior Jamaal Charles over any of our new runningbacks for now. That’s no shot at our current guys, whom I’m hopeful about, but Charles was becoming one of the elite big play threats in all of college football. You just don’t replace that easily.
by TheElusiveShadow on
Jun 23, 2008 12:44 PM CDT
up
0 recs
turnovers
Jamaal is a great talent, but he turns the ball over too much. He’s had the problem since he’s been at UT, and he never fixed it.
I’ll take a slower RB that is more reliable.
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 23, 2008 12:50 PM CDT
up
0 recs
re:
...so you’re saying you would want chris OG over Jamaal?..chris is very reliable, but he doesn’t bring what JC can bring you
by vy til i die on
Jun 23, 2008 1:33 PM CDT
up
0 recs
NO
I want McGee and Fozzy. I consider Chris O. a fullback, but he is reliable.
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 23, 2008 1:54 PM CDT
up
0 recs
If I remember correctly
In the earlier to mid-part of the season, it was noted here and then by the coaches during the “correction,” that JC was swinging wide and going for the breakaway a little too often instead of taking what the blocking was giving him, usually inside the tackles. He was told to follow his blocks, hit the hole and the big runs would materialize.
In the first half of the season, teams were hyper sensitive to his ability to go wide and did a relatively good job stringing him out before he could cut upfield. We were complaining that JC needed to be in space more – the period where it was suggested he move to flanker or WR occasionally – and then came the adjustment and the subsequent game breakers against Nebraska.
These were “running errors” and errors of commission when there were choices. Some of his best runs did come between the tackles (OU in particular), so once that adjustment was made, he started making longer runs. (This is more memory than concrete stats.)
My one regret for him is the injury that precluded his playing the second half against Tech; he would have cracked 300 yards; it was there for the taking. So, to me, his running ability was never the question, just his judgment in choosing where to run. Some may quibble that they are one in the same, but they aren’t…if you don’t have the ability, judgment plays a lesser role.
The other Horn RBs exercised better judgment most of the time, and had less opportunity; they typically came in more spot situations.
Just as Kyle Russell showed us in baseball, home run hitters have to rein in their tendency to blast the ball and make solid, hard contact to become consistent. Likewise in speed burners there’s an overt tendency to hit the jets that pushes their judgment in the wrong direction. Just as home run hitters have to hit the ball where it’s thrown or patiently wait for their pitch – and not get down in the count, so do runners like JC. And when the timing is not there, it can get frustrating to everyone concerned.
No one of this current Horn squad has demonstrated the breakaway speed of Charles, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be damn good backs in their own manner.
JC’s TOs are very much a function of swinging the ball away from his body, using that as a balance mechanism, especially in the open field (the fumble at the OU 5 was his classic syndrome). That can be corrected in the pros by holding his hand over the nose of the ball and tight to his chest; he’ll have to adjust his running style and gain different balance points. The pros have stronger methods of focusing his attention and greater leeway for punishment. Plus, the fumbler label is one of the worst in all sports and that is highlighted at the pro level because it costs everyone money and victories. JC is liable to have some turbulence early on – and a lot of bruises.
by whills on
Jun 23, 2008 1:44 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Charles
I think most will agree that Charles made a fair share of mistakes, but the complaint is that you haven’t given Charles fair credit for his share of successes (i.e., explosive plays) as well.
I agree with whills’ assessment that Charles is an imperfect running back and has some work to do before he can succeed in the League, but he was also our best offensive weapon and a lot of fun to watch. And I definitely agree with BiC’s sentiment that your statement is incorrect.
by jc25 on
Jun 23, 2008 2:12 PM CDT
up
0 recs
He was exciting to watch, jc
And even when he wasn’t blasting long runs for whatever reason, Charles’ presence forced defenses to cover the whole field all the time and that helped the offense every single play he was on the field, one of the unspoken assets of his presence.
JC’s fumbles were a lesser concern to me, a cost of production. Sure, the OU fumbles hurt, but even Ricky and Earl had their fair share of fumbles. He was a long way from the worst fumbler the Horns ever had. Selvin fumbled his fair share, too. You don’t get something for nothing. JC always wanted what we wanted, to run that pelote into the EZ. I’ll miss my own pleasure at watching him doing that.
And I will personally take credit for the Nebraska game. That game was the weekend that my close group of friends from school from back in the day got together (we do this yearly) at a lake house and the Nebraska game was the center of attention.
We moaned and groaned the first half. When the second half started looking bad, I adopted something from this site because we were so desperate: we all changed our UT clothing, even the non-UT husband in the bunch. I was the last to get changed and as I came up from downstairs, I donned a brand new pair of leather UT flipflops. Within 30 seconds JC broke away. Everyone proclaimed it had to be the flipflops and we proceeded to drink heavily and celebrate lustily.
So there you go. JC, naw; Co-op leather flipflops, yeah. It’s all in the timing.
by whills on
Jun 23, 2008 2:38 PM CDT
up
0 recs
You haven’t seen McGee or Fozzy play as an every down back, so I can’t see how you can really compare the two.
This is my problem with your RB evaluation. You say that both these guys will be as good or better than Jamaal without having seen either one. Then when someone else says Charles is better based on a 3 year body of work you immediately dismiss them saying you can’t say cause you haven’t seen them play. Its rather contradictory.
'Til Gabriel blows his horn...
by mattyj on
Jun 23, 2008 3:57 PM CDT
up
1 recs
nothing great
I don’t necessarily think they will be better, but I can almost promise they will do a better job protecting the ball. I also get sick of hearing people say Texas is going to struggle because Charles is gone. If Texas does struggle, it won’t be because Chrarles is gone.
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 23, 2008 4:48 PM CDT
up
0 recs
couldn't say it better!
If I remember correctly
In the earlier to mid-part of the season, it was noted here and then by the coaches during the "correction," that JC was swinging wide and going for the breakaway a little too often instead of taking what the blocking was giving him, usually inside the tackles. He was told to follow his blocks, hit the hole and the big runs would materialize.
In the first half of the season, teams were hyper sensitive to his ability to go wide and did a relatively good job stringing him out before he could cut upfield. We were complaining that JC needed to be in space more – the period where it was suggested he move to flanker or WR occasionally – and then came the adjustment and the subsequent game breakers against Nebraska.
These were "running errors" and errors of commission when there were choices. Some of his best runs did come between the tackles (OU in particular), so once that adjustment was made, he started making longer runs. (This is more memory than concrete stats.)
My one regret for him is the injury that precluded his playing the second half against Tech; he would have cracked 300 yards; it was there for the taking. So, to me, his running ability was never the question, just his judgment in choosing where to run. Some may quibble that they are one in the same, but they aren’t…if you don’t have the ability, judgment plays a lesser role.
The other Horn RBs exercised better judgment most of the time, and had less opportunity; they typically came in more spot situations.
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 23, 2008 4:50 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Whills’s summation is more nuanced than I think you’re acknowledging. With apologies, I will mutilate his baseball analogy, because as you say ‘84, I can’t say it better.
While you lament Jamal Charles issues with fumbling and earlier issues choosing the wrong running lane, you’re not acknowledging that these problems were largely the side effect of a rare ability to hit a home run, i.e. score a touchdown, on any given play.
Singles and doubles hitters, like Vondrell McGee or Chris O., are less prone to taking chances. They must take what they are able in order to make any impact at all. If that means one, two or five yards, that’s all they will take. The odds of them hitting it out of the park, or in this case running 80 yards, are slim enough to not factor into the backs decision making process. These gents running 80 yards would be the equivalent of an infield home run, the result of a defensive catastrophe rather than their own physical talent.
Jamal Charles demonstrated the ability to run the length of the field on any given play, and he was confident in his ability to do so. Like a young home run hitter, he tried to knock every ball out of the park. The coaches had to be, and were, careful in reigning in this instinct. You don’t tell your home run hitter that you want nothing but singles from him, but you have to teach him discipline in order to maximize his potential. And like Kyle Russell before him, he was demonstrating an ability to choose his spots last season. Like baseball fans who miss the opportunity to see Russell abuse outmatched college pitching, there is the feeling on the part of many that we’re missing Jamal Charles run right by the big 12. Now we have to find, and polish a new home run hitter, who will have to learn the same lessons (whether he learns faster or slower there’s no guessing).
As Whills noted earlier, his fumbling problems were also somewhat a side effect of this talent. Had he lesser talent, he would have ridden the pine until he could learn how to hold on to the ball. Because of his talent, the coaches were willing to gamble the odds of a turnover, versus a big play. Considering that Oklahoma is the only loss which could largely be laid at his feet (though that would be unfair, there’s enough blame for a small banquet), their gamble proved successful.
by learned hand on
Jun 23, 2008 6:35 PM CDT
up
1 recs
riding the pine
Charles did ride the pine until last year, and thats only because he had a freshman behind him. The coaches didn’t trust Jamaal on short yardage situations, thats when they put in McGee. I think Jamaal didn’t start a game or two also. They put Romance in front of him his freshman year, Selvin in front of him his sophmore year, and he split some time with McGee (short yardage) his Junior year.
I think Jamaal is a very fast athlete, not so much a great running back. I think Kansas City might use him as a kick returner. I can’t see Jamaal blocking NFL LB’s either. I think your putting Jamaal on a Reggie Bush level, and he isn’t. Reggie Bush isn’t even doing well in the NFL.
by Longhorns84 on
Jun 24, 2008 8:22 AM CDT
up
0 recs
No...
I think you’re blinded by your overly negative views of the 4th most productive running back in the history of Texas football. You can argue all you want against Jamaal not being a great college running back, but his production in just three years says otherwise.
And as for being a starter, are you serious? Did the staff start the best linebackers last year? No. Why? Something about “spilled blood” and “seniority”. Freshmen very ra


