Chiles at RB?

Mandingo

Let's see, our stud TB just left early for the NFL leaving us only 1 (that's 1 total) true tailbacks who have ever even played in a college game and he's still all of a redshirt frosh as of today and while a good kid and hopefully solid longterm player, he wasn't exactly a game dominator last year on his few carries. We also have our FB who sometimes plays TB on goal line or for pass protection. We have an unproven and not that nationally highly rated HS recruit who is small and just redshirted along with a fellow redshirt who wasn't a blazing speedster even before he balooned up to his current 255 lbs. Then we have 2 incoming frosh, both solid hopefully but were certainly not National top 100 bluechips. Did I miss anybody?

Well, maybe I should re-think my original comment. On second thought, it looks like even USC and their five 5 star RBs are probably creaming over our roster and wondering why they can't do as well as us in recruiting.

Lastly, I think we all agree that Chiles can run the ball well and is dangerous with the ball. I think we can also agree that Chiles did not have much success passing the ball this year. If he is such a great runner, let him run it. But instead of taking off the only guy on the field who can pass the ball, take off somebody else.
 
Mandingo,

Yes, we are very young. Very young, inexperienced and not proven. None of them were Darrell Scott level bluechips either so we're not expecting them to dominate young, but to develop and season as the years go by. Unfortunately, they are young now but we need them to dominate now b/c we have nobody any older and further along the development curve. I'm not saying our guys are bad. I'm just saying we are quite thin there already and those we have have not proven they are good either.

Then we have a masses screaming that Chiles IS proven good. They say he is unbelievably amazing and is such a threat running the ball that it would be worth giving up our passing game just to have him on the field. It seems then that he must easily be a "proven good" runner as we just established the other RBs are not yet.

1 + 1 = ?
 
Chiles is a QB.

We have kick *** running backs. Who gives a **** if they're young? It doesn't matter at that position. We won a MNC in 05 with two true freshman rb's and an injury prone, inexperienced junior.

Whoever said this is why he hates the offseason had it right.
 
We need playmakers on the field. Chiles is that. If putting him in at RB is one way to get the ball in his hands, then so be it. He's been a full-time QB for all of one year in HS, as well as this past year. This past year showed absolutely nothing when it comes to running the Texas passing game.

I see no reason why this is a crazy offseason idea. People have talked about Chiles playing everything from QB to WR to RB ever since he first committed to this school. If I remember right, even Chiles said that he'd like a shot at QB but would be open to something else if it didn't work out.

Fans get it in their heads that they are right about a certain player and then will go to absurd lengths to prove themselves right, even after clearly being wrong. Jamaal this season was a great example. As often as it's quoted on here, Redding to LB was another. Cedric Griffin "sucked" to many people because of primarily one game (OU), and it took the 205 season to redeem himself. There's still people who think that Henry Melton should be a running back, for christsakes.

I hope Chiles makes a huge impact on this offense. Watching him, I think he can. I don't give a **** what position it's at. He's exceptionally fast, possibly the fastest player on the team at this point. I had heard at one point that he and Jamaal were basically neck and neck, that the one with the better start always won between them.

I'd just like to see the guy on the field.
 
Well, my hunch is Mandingo can't add and subtract.

Truck, you need to learn to read English. I never said the RBs in-house can't play young. I said they are young and coincidentally, they are also not dominating yet. I also connected the dots that many think Chiles IS DOMINATING NOW as a runner!

1 + 1 = 2.

Chiles may very well be a QB. That may be the best position for him to develop his skills for years in. That may also mean he may NEVER plays consistently because he has a guy ahead of him who can't be beat out and then he may also have a guy behind him who is the second coming of John Elway. Chiles never playing consistently would be very, very sad. Sad for the program and sad for Chiles.

Given his immense talent, especially for running the football, some on this board (including myself) have sad perhaps, maybe he should be given a chance to win the starting job at RB, where we have NO PROVEN DOMINATORS at this time and where all our players are very, very young.

done.....
 
Son,

Maybe I need to learn English. I don't see the relevancy of your post, well at least not as much as you see too.

First off, we don't have kick-*** running backs. They have never done anything remotely close to kick-*** in college football game. I have not even heard of them looking kick-*** in college practices. They were not the bluest of blues out of high school and we have no reason at this time to believe that has changed (hopefully it will). Secondly, we don't have very many of them, either, which makes us thin. They are also young, which means they are not fully developed.

As far as winning an NC without a great RB, well, you are absolutely correct. A team wins a NC every year without great players at various positions. You don't have to be great a t every position to win an NC. In fact, I would argue that there were several positions where we were not only "not great", but actually not even good when we won that NC.

So I don't get your point. Are you suggesting the coaches stop attempting to field the best 22 players because we proved you don't have to be good everywhere to win a NC? Should we keep a QB on the bench for his career when he might be better at another position than the existing incumbents? Should the team live with less productive players at a given position when a solution may be available, just b/c we don't have to do it to possibly win a NC?

By the way, I agree about Chiles no yet proven as an RB. I'd like to see it b/c it might work, but I'm certainly not yet sold on that either.
 
It is just not gonna happen. We get these "so and so" player to "so and so" position every off season. Does anyone really think for a minute that Greg, Mack, and co. will move John Chiles to running back, or that he even wants to play running back? From what I remember about his recruitment is that he said he wanted to play QB, not WR or something else. If I recall correctly that was one of the reasons Brantley went to Florida.

He is our backup QB and one hard hit on Colt away from being the starting QB. There's gonna be significant competition at any position at UT and I doubt he'd want to learn a completely new position and try and beat out a group of really talented players just b/c he's not the starter as a sophomore.

And we aren't thin at RB. We've got 6 guys on scholarship (Mcgee, Ogbonnaya, Whittaker, Johnson, Newton, Hills). So, yes we are young, but no we are not thin. And Chiles would do nothing but contribute to the youth and inexperience at the position.

I don't want to blast anyone and I certainly can't find fault with anyone for wanting to get a guy with such amazing athletic ability on the field. I'm all for getting the most talented guys on the field, by the way. But whatever happened to coming in as a freshman and spending a few years learning and mastering a position while the more qualified and experienced guy started and got the majority of playing time? Hell, A Ross (to use as an example) didn't play a whole lot until his senior year and then he won the Thorpe Award. He spent his first few years behind guys on the depth chart that were better and more experienced than him. He learned the position and by the time his senior year rolled around, he had become one of the most dominant CB's in the country. Lord knows we could have used his speed and athletic ability at WR in 04, but the point is that he was/is a CB and that is where he needed to be. Now I'm just rambling, so I'll shut up.
 
And thanks for calling me Son. My dad (Truck is his nickname) reads these boards and would be pissed at me if he thought I was trying to steal his thunder.
wink.gif
hookem.gif
 
OrangeClad -

I regret to inform you that your argument is a pile of ****. It DOMINATES as a funny item though. I almost died laughing. Please refrain from talking football so that I may continue to live. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.

hookem.gif
 
Son,

Seasoning and maturing used to be the norm, even for the great prospects. Unfortunately, that's not the case anymore. MB & Co. at UT were one of the last holdouts but I think Jamal Charles leaving as a junior and J-Mike leaving as a sophomore has changed the landscape for them. The rose is off the bloom for MB, now. Warehousing scholarships in great players who don't want to get on the field, "help the team", play for this team" (to take a couple of quotes from MBs press conf last week) isn't going to continue for MB. Chiles is a great prospect, but if he is never going to significantly contribute at QB he is not only taking up a scholly, but he is taking snaps away from someone who might someday. I think the coaches are going to start getting much tougher about guys playing "where they can help the team the most" instead where where they want to play. This would never be an issue for Stoops like it is for MB. I think is done molly-coddling these guys.

As far as Chiles at QB, please keep in mind that he was the 3rd team QB out of 3 QBs going into last season before Harris got hurt. Maybe it was b/c he had only been there a semester, maybe not. We are only speculationg of all this.

WASHU-Horn - glad to be able to entertain you. Keep smilin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top