Should Garrett Gilbert have been utilized more this season?
by goingforthecorner on Jan 10, 2010 6:14 PM CST
Email
PrintTo be clear, I'm not talking about simply more snaps for Garrett Gilbert in lopsided games. I'm not suggesting Mack Brown should've taken Colt McCoy out earlier. I don't really believe snaps in those situations really help develop a player compared to practice.
What I'm saying is should we have utilized Gilbert more in meaningful situations. Could we have used him as an extra weapon? Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have him running the "Wild Horn" over John Chiles.
I think about the situations in which we could have used him. Recall Urban Meyer's first championship at Florida. Chris Leak was his starting QB, but freshman Tim Tebow was utilized as a weapon in short yardage and goal line situations. I believe it would have been a reasonable idea to use Gilbert in similar situations. I can think of a few advantages:
1) If you're going to burn his redshirt, might as well give him meaningful snaps throughout the entire season. Allowing him to run some plays in certain scenarios gives him meaningful experience not only for the future, but if Colt does get injured.
2) Gilbert would have been a tremendous weapon. It's been well documented that he's even a faster runner than McCoy. Wouldn't be a more logical option to use in a gimmick play than Chiles (someone who would not normally be playing QB under any circumstance)? Gilbert is a prototypical QB who can do it all. Similar to Tebow, I believe Gilbert would have been a great weapon to use in red-zone situations.
3) Saving McCoy's body. What's so unfortunate about the McCoy injury against Alabama was the play-call. It is clear Brown and Greg Davis did not learn the first time they tried this play against Kansas State in 2006. Gilbert's bigger body is more conducive to taking a big hit in that situation than McCoy. If you're going to run the option directly into Bama's massing defensive line, would you rather use your bigger quarterback who's the backup? Or the starting QB, who's absence would cripple the offense, given Gilbert's complete lacking of meaningful snaps.
Hindsight is 20-20 obviously, but even if Colt doesn't get hurt and we won the championship, I still think we missed a golden opportunity to mold the young freshman into a mature quarterback ready to lead the team next season. I believe giving him more opportunities in meaningful situations not only would've benefited the team in 2009, but in the near future.
Your thoughts?
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
it was discussed at the beginning of the year and determined that even if gilbert got more snaps he wasn’t going to lead us to a NC. I still believe that now, and finger pointing isn’t going to do anything for anyone. if the super star QB on any team goes down… it’s going to be hard to replace him no matter who is backing him up.
by Displaced Longhorn on Jan 10, 2010 6:38 PM CST reply actions
Gilbert almost did lead us to a national championship.
I don’t think questioning philosophy is finger-pointing. You have to ask questions as to whether mistakes were made in order to correct them in the future.
The underlying question goes much deeper, more like ‘How much emphasis (pressure) should be placed on one quarterback?’. Answers might lead to many of the discussions we’ve had here about the running game, formations, blocking scheme, the role of the backup quarterback. I personally thought McCoy showed the effects of too much pressure at different times during the season, especially at the beginning of the year and during the Nebraska game.
Sure it was difficult to replace McCoy but had other positive variables been in place it might have changed the outcome. I’m almost certain.
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Jan 10, 2010 6:58 PM CST up reply actions
…one of those being more real game time for the backup quarterback.
by SpiritOfTheFedora on Jan 10, 2010 7:24 PM CST up reply actions
I had hoped
When it was announced that he would be the backup, and would not redshirt, I had hoped he would see a lot more time than he actually got. Actually, it wasn’t so much the amount of time, but the way that time was used, that bothered me. I wanted the coaches to try running him in the offense like the score was 0-0, not a blowout.
Overall, though, I can’t complain too much. UT made it to the national championship, and was within a FG with just three minutes to go. I think it’s hard to gripe about that.
by burntorangehorn on Jan 10, 2010 6:40 PM CST reply actions
I had hoped after last year, that Mack would be less “polite” to other teams. I wanted him to put in the second strings once the game was decided, like he has always done. But, I wanted him to keep running a normal offense so that GG could gain experience. I can remember only a handful of times where this happened before going to the 3 handoff and punt strategy.
To be fair, there were a couple games that were closer than they should have been in the 3rd quarter (Colorado, Wyoming).
The Point Was Made Earlier In The Year
That not just more snaps, but significant snaps with the first unit. Here’s the link to that post.
It is a fair question as review on coaches and players alike is done constantly on how to improve and get better. I am not pointing any fingers at anyone, but do earnestly suggest that more significant reps with the starters and full intent on managing a drive and scoring would be helpful in Gilberts developement in case Colt went down.
GG
if he RS then he would’ve been running the scout defense at practice. He didn’t RS, so he ran the 2nd offense and got to learn the offense. I have no problem.
Tebow got to play because Chris Leak was the QB and he wasn’t near as good as McCoy. It wouldn’t be smart to take one of the best players out of the game. Florida didn’t have that problem.
Giving Slack on the GG Issue
I think Mack would have given more time to GG if the offense would have clicked. Therefore, Mack had to invest time into Colt to develop timing with some pretty mediocre WRs. Think about the Big XII schedule, Colorado – out of synch. OU – worse.
Hindsight of course, says we should have played him more.....
Saban said after the game, that he would have to have taken the redshirt off his backup QB, if McElroy had gone down….which tells me that going 13-0 is a lot harder than being able to work your backup qb into games still in question.
If Mack Brown and Nick Saben were in this backup qb position, it must be more difficult than it appears.
Can't get enough of that cowbell !!!
by MeatchickenHorn on Jan 10, 2010 11:58 PM CST reply actions
I think he should have had more playing time during the regular season.
How many reps did he have before this game? It’s obvious he’s going to be a playmaker, but a little more experience would have helped him out tons. On a couple of running plays, I noticed, the RB was dragging GG with him for a few feet, kind of like he wasn’t releasing the ball once the handoff was made. I’m sure his nerves where shot at this point. I can’t imagine my first game being the NC. All in all, he did a good job. Should be a big force in the years to come.
Here’s to September.
" Answers -- Become Resources."
Without Questions; There are limited Resources...
Gilbert's bigger body?
He was on my flights home and his listing on MB-TF (6’4" 207) is generous. They probably weighed him right after a 3rd helping of Thanksgiving turkey :)
McCoy outweighs GG by 10-20lbs.
I would be as pissed at them taking snaps from Colt while the game in question with Garret
As I was with them doing it with John. Swapping one for the other doesnt make it better, it still makes it terrible.
If the game in in question, you play to win, which means putting your best personnel. Colt isnt a Chance Mock thats just ushering in the Gilbert era, hes one of the best QBs we have ever had.
We didnt lose because Gilbert didnt get enough playing time, theres no amount of snaps that would have had him properly prepared for what happened. And if the games in question, you are damned right that I want Colt McCoy leading our Texas offense.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jan 11, 2010 8:20 AM CST reply actions
Best personnel
As GOBR showed, McCoy isn’t exactly great at running the speed option. If we allowed Gilbert to get some redzone opportunities during the season, I think we would be more likely to convert at least 1 early touchdown.
I want Colt leading the offense, I never suggested otherwise. I don’t want him being forced to run plays he has no business running given his past injury history from the same exact play. Gilbert was more apt to running the speed option.
by goingforthecorner on Jan 11, 2010 10:02 AM CST up reply actions
Thats an indictment on the OC then, not the QB
Colt was our best QB, period. He gave us our best chance to win, at all times. Theres no reason he shouldnt be on the field if the game is in question.
We score if Cody went to the outside instead of the inside, Ill take the power formation anytime over the speed option on the goal line.
Wasnt his previous pinched nerve from a QB dive, over 3 years ago?
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jan 11, 2010 11:15 AM CST up reply actions
Obviously you wouldnt...
insert Gilbert into the game while the game is in question. Theoretically if he were to get one series every first quarter in the non-conference games with real actually plays. Not RB dives. How about letting him run real plays with the backups when he was inserted into the game? That’s not running it up IMO. That would have helped a lot. It’s very dangerous to field a Championship team with such a woeful lack of experience at backup QB. One bad break and the whole season is down the drain. That was the gamble that UT’s coaching staff took and it came up snake eyes. Especially in this offense that is so heavily predicated upon the QB. I know I’m a fan, but we win that game if GG is even serviceable in the first half. I believe he was 1-10 with -4 yards. He was great in the second half but he was a deer stuck in headlights in the first half. I believe real game experience would have prepared him more for the unthinkable.
Vince Young >Tim Tebow.
Which first quarter was a game’s outcome not in question?
Also, as I think everyone tends to, I feel you are mis-remembering the quality of his snaps. This takes me back the this conversation – http://www.burntorangenation.com/2009/11/2/1110928/should-gilbert-keep-the-mop#23758948
Gilbert did everything a QB is asked to do in a game, including leading scoring drives. He passed, he handed off, he rolled out, he had designed runs. It wasnt just hand off hand off hand off like some people wish to remember it.
I still cant believe that people think we would have been fine if Gilbert just had some more experience. Is being a 4 year starter, winningest QB ever, 2nd in career completion percentage, really not worth anything anymore?
Our offensive gameplan for the past 2 years has been Colt-centric. We didnt lose cause Gilbert was inexperienced, if anything pin it on the coaches for being so reliant on a great player in Colt.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jan 12, 2010 10:49 AM CST up reply actions
Let me re-phrase.
Obviously it wouldn’t be wise to insert GG in the game in the fourth quarter against Nebraska or OU. But why not let him come in against live fire in the first quarter against Wyoming, UCF, or UTEP. One or two drives against an obviously inferior opponent when the game actually still matters, (and no, I wouldnt consider the outcome to be in question) when the other team’s defense still believes that they have a chance. I believe that would have beneficial. This is all speculation because we could have very well lost had Colt played the entire game. But, I do think it’s impossible to argue that more experience for GG would have been a bad thing given the circumstance.
Vince Young >Tim Tebow.
by PineypointG on Jan 12, 2010 11:20 AM CST up reply actions
In theory, more experience for GG is a good thing.
In practice, we are working with a limited amount of snaps. Its not impossible to make an argument against Colt losing snaps to Gilbert, Ill even do it right here and now. Every snap Gilbert gets comes at an expense of Colt. We needed Colt pretty badly to win against a fired up Aggie team. As well a Colt with less reps quite possibly makes one more mistake against NU, or OU, costing us the game and a shot at the MNC altogether.
My position is if the game is in question, you have your best players play. If we argue over the definition of a game in question so be it, but I cant imagine any first quarter of a football game not having the outcome in question unless the entire other team is visibly ill, and we are getting TDs on every play we run, easily.
All that aside, do you really think, Wyoming, UCF and UTEP are the missing ingredient to a true frosh coming out strong against Bama in the MNC?
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jan 12, 2010 11:30 AM CST up reply actions
Take a look at the poll.
Not to suggest that the poll it is at all scientific, in any sense. If we were gonna burn his RS, we should have involved him more in the offense and not just in mop up duty.
Vince Young >Tim Tebow.
by PineypointG on Jan 12, 2010 11:27 AM CST up reply actions
I thought he should have redshirted
But the point has been brought up, and I dont disagree, that GG will most likely be gone in three-four years no matter what. So do you want to spend one of those years redshirting, or one getting some gametime snaps to prepare for next year?
A talent like GG isnt sticking around for 5 years.
by BoddickerIsClutch on Jan 12, 2010 11:32 AM CST up reply actions
The poll is retarded and should not be used as proof of anything
It is like going up to someone after a meteoroid hit his house and asking if he should have bought meteoroid insurance. In hindsight yes, he should have, but if you over insure low probability events you are wasting your money.
Gilbert paying time
Unfortunately Colt and the offense never really hit on all cylinders this year. Under any circumstance It would be a tough to sit a player like Colt who worked hard and bleeds orange. The trifecta of a team in an offensive hit or miss- the coaches rewarding maximum playing time to the bell cow and coaches realizing we would never get to the MNC without Colt finding a groove just reduced playing time to mop up for Gilbert. The offensive coaches staff would have mandated Gilbert get 1 2 series per game when it mattered. Hope the offensive coaches learn from coach boom and show we won’t play to score media points or lead the heisman poll but to make this team as good as it possibly can overall. Hope that lesson is learned next year with either Wood or McCoy 2 seeing lots pf quality time.
Rick Champion
Silly question
Maybe it would have been better to start Gilbert in the championship game so that he would have been injured instead of McCoy?
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. If they get mad, you're a mile away AND you have their shoes.
More like
would it have been better to use Gilbert in the speed option so that he would have been injured instead of McCoy he would have been able to survive that hit possibly and is a little faster.
by goingforthecorner on Jan 11, 2010 1:28 PM CST up reply actions
Gilbert was utilized just fine
1 – The best player in college football for the 2008 & 2009 was repeatedly pulled early in 2nd half blowouts and UT fans got irked – because of meaningless Heisman reasons.
2 – Chris Leak being pulled at the goal line in Tebow’s freshman year was because Leak was not a good runner or running decoy and had a toughness issue.
3 – Colt getting hurt on that running play was NOT at all the same play as what happened at KState 3 years ago. That was a quarterback sneak. This play was an option where Colt should have pitched. Freak injury – Fate reared it’s ugly head.
4 – Gilbert may have had a rough 1st half start but he excelled in the 2nd half. ANY backup QB placed in that postiion is going to have a rough start.
5 – The question shouldn’t be about Gilbert. The question should be, “Did we play our WRs enough during the season to keep them from freakin’ droppin’ big passes all night long?!” The WR drops in the game were, by far, a bigger reason why the game was lost. And every one of these WRs are man enough to tell you the same.
WR drops at least partially due to lack of chemistry with Gilbert
by goingforthecorner on Jan 12, 2010 10:39 PM CST up reply actions
At that I think is at the core of the issue...
Gilbert’s ball has a much different trajectory, timing, and spin than Colts does. The biggest problem I had with the whole mop up duty was Gilbert not taking snaps with the first unit for at least 1 or 2 series when the games were in hand. He very well could have worked the 3rd quarter with the first unit in at least 3 games this year.
This shouldn’t be an issue next year as the whole receiving corp will be catching Gilbert passes, but I truly feel it was a big difference maker this year.
by orangetower on Jan 13, 2010 11:56 AM CST up reply actions
Totally agree
I think he was in with the 1st teamers a few times but mostly was in with the scrub O-linemen. But this year, the “1st team” was described as Shipley, Williams, Kirk, Buckner, Goodwin, Chiles, & all 4 RBs. I don’t know where to find the stat for that but I guarantee you that 90% of the passes he threw in mop-up duty and the thousands thrown in practice were thrown to that crew mentioned. Besides Shipley, the rest of those guys surely were runnin’ around on offense whenever Gilbert was in too. Either way, they need to catch the ball regardless of who’s throwing it. The ball he threw to “Stone Hands” Williams in the end zone in the NC was exactly where it needed to be and thrown perfectly.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
