Jamaal Charles - Net Plus or Negative?

I do remember! Falls under the “roll the dice” outcome, IMHO, though. Can be really, really great, or can blow up on you. That was one of his really, really great moments at UT, and I don’t mean to take that away from him and that accomplishment.

“Colt DOESN’T make inopportune mistakes.” Did you forget that interception he threw late in the OU game.? If McCoy doesn’t tackle the guy himself, it’s an OU TD and probably an OU victory. And which game was it McCoy was about to score but fumbled near the 5? I guess, since we won you discount those errors. Every player fumbles, throws interceptions, misses tackles, misses blocks, etc., because they are all human. (I heard a rumor that even VY was semi-human himself.)

I seem to remember a pick six thrown a year ago when we were down 22-13. Was that an opportune time?

A point I made in one of these comments was that Charles and Simms both carry a similar burden to their Longhorn legacy. Both were key parts in the success their teams enjoyed. Both had amazing games with amazing stats and delivered great winning seasons, of the kind we had missed on the 40 Acres during the years that preceded them.

But championships are earned by teams that have the same caliber of talent that UT has been blessed with under Mack but make fewer mistakes. JC and CS both delivered in the games they should have, but faltered in the big games, making critical mistakes. At least in 2005 Texas had VY to go with JC in the backfield and were able to overcome any mistakes JC was responsible for. After VY with a young QB at the helm and an inexperienced line UT still had great seasons, just not championship ones. And before VY, CS had great seasons, just not championship ones. And the few losses they suffered could be largely traced back to costly RZ turnovers by both JC and CS.

Yes, they gave us great wins – the roll the dice theory again shows you can come up big when you take on risk, but you can lose to. The less risky the better, IMHO, when you already have a solid, quality team around you and don’t need to roll the dice as often.

Don’t care about who was needed where to do what to win the games. The fact is the games were won without JC. If you add him to the mix in the backfield does he make the difference in the TTU game? Perhaps. But does he adversely make the difference in one or two of the other games? Perhaps as well. That’s the nature of a player who has a mistake propensity mixed with a game-breaking propensity; it could go either way.

And with that being a toss-up in my estimation there is more downside risk than upside risk to having JC or a similarly afflicted RB on the team – in my estimation. The poll results tell me that 100 fans disagree with me and only 5 agree. Oh well, I still have my perspective and don’t mind being in a small minority.

Everyone knows that RZ turnovers hurt far more than turnovers on other parts of the field. Blowing it in the RZ means either points being scored against you or points you fail to score. Turnovers in the rest of the field means losing a field position advantage but you still have a buffer to recover from scoreboard consequences. Yes, all turnovers are bad. But RZ turnovers are more consequential to the outcome of a game.

He also didn’t fumble in the Neb game.

Crap. I was typing and my post got deleted.

The games we lost that year:
Kstate – Colt threw FOUR ints. FOUR. No fumbles.
OU – yes, a large part of it was JC’s fumble. He shoulder’s a lot of the blame. However, it’s not entirely his fault. 1) Colt throws a pick at the 28 when we’re going in to tie it. 2) The D did not step up that game. We held OU to 28 but didn’t cause any TOs.
A&M – Colt accounted for both of the fumbles that game along with an INT

So if you REALLY look at those games, JC played a big part in only one of those losses (with his mistakes). You should retitle this post to say “Is McCoy a net negative: he cost us 2.5 games in 07 and 1 in 08.” Then you should read that title to yourself and realize it’s absurdity. Then realize the same applies to saying that about JC.