The Q Package

not a big fan. You can see this coming from a mile away, especially with Davis. If they really want to have success doing this, they need to look no further than UF and the way Myer used Tebow his freshman year. Tebow had issues throwing the ball early on in his career but the way Myer gave him confidence through running the ball was genius.
 
offenseov2.jpg
 
From what I've heard on some other sites, McCoy won't always be playing the QB position in these packages. I can see Chiles:

*Playing a traditional wideout/slot
*Lining up in the backfield as a RB and running wheel routes and or being an option on the zone read
*Running the zone read as a QB with McCoy split out at WR
*Throwing from the gun (hear Chiles passing has improved)
*HB screens, WR screens, QB screens are all options
*Chiles strictly as a decoy to create matchup problems

There is a lot of promise...
 
Chiles and Tebow are not different types of QBs. They're almost the same exact player.

Florida offense was not very good? They only won the national championship and we're pretty much unstoppable. What exactly were you watching?
 
I was watching a pretty much unstoppable defense and a mediocre offense. I'm not gonna get into a huge statistical breakdown, but just looking at some team numbers, in 06 they averaged 29.7 pts and 396.1yds per game. In the Mack Brown era, we have exceeded that point average every year - our 10 year average is over 38 pts/game, and is still almost at 37 even if you throw out the 05 season's 50.2 pts/game. We have also exceeded that yds/game average in all but 2 seasons - 2006 (391.5) and 2002 (385.6). Our 10 year average is 438.53 yds/game.

All this is to say that our average offense is 40yards and 9 points a game better than that "vaunted" Florida attack.

As far as Tebow and Chiles being the same player - that is ridiculous. Tebow is 30 pounds bigger and at least an inch taller than Chiles. He runs people over like a bowling bowl, he is Florida's goaline offense. While he didn't throw much as a freshman, he did put it up over thirty times and completed 67% of them. Chiles, meanwhile, went 1-9. While his average yards per carry weren't any different than Tebow's, I think we can all agree that he has much more potential as a runner. Tebow is a much bigger player, a much better passer, and Chiles is a far more gifted and athletic runner. They are not even close to the same player.
 
Maybe he was watching last season, not the season before that, but it still seems like a bit of an overstatement.

Last year Florida was the #3 scoring offense in the country and the #14 yardage offense. Stats don't tell the whole story but that seems like a reasonably successful offense.
 
I question the entire situation with Chiles. He is a stud of an athlete but he has to find a role on this offense and this is not it. We have a stud pocket passer comming in next season (probably redshirt b/c Colt will be a senior) and Chiles will be a junior behind Colt the senior. This means that Chies senior season is the only chance he will have as a starting QB, and that is if he gets it over Shepherd. This is a waste of his talent. First of all I don't think he will have the experience to be the starting thrower at this point given that he, unlike Shepherd, is not a renowned pocket passer.

Chiles is not Vince. I like him but he is not going to be able to win like VY did through the air and on the ground. If we don't find a role other than QB for this kid fast then we are wasting his talent. We have a solid backup QB, move Chiles to something else and stop wasting his eligibility. Make him our new Ramonce Taylor with the added threat of a pass from the wingman (or whatever you call his position) and get the ball in his hands, and I don't mean from the center.

I have held off from saying it but this is rediculous. We cannot waste this talent. If Chiles is reluctant to move from QB then Major needs to sit down with him and give it to him straight. Chiles does not look like an NFL QB and so he is wasting time by staying in the position. If anyone thinks otherwise look at guys like Matt Jones (this list goes on forever) who were probably better or equal pocket passers to Chiles but in the NFL are something else. Just imagine if guys like that made the switch in college. They would be drafted higher and make more money in the end and probably be more productive for their college team.
 
p_town_Horn - I think you meant "Gilbert", as in Garrett and not "Shepherd". Regardless, I agree with the premise of your post about Chiles. Mack will carry through with his promise to let Chiles play QB and not move him permanently to another position at least for now. Chiles did not play QB until his Sr. season in HS - he has a lot of ground to make up to stay in this position and eventually be drafted as a QB in the NFL. THAT is a very tall mountain to climb for this kid IMHO. I too think he needs to be the new Ramonce Taylor in this offense... he can greatly help the team in that position AND he increases his future draft stock, if he can execute well and show his natural athleticism.

I wish him nothing but the best.
 
my concern is that when chiles is in, the playcalling will be as predictable as the handoff to tony jeffery while he was in motion EVERY time he was on the field.

And actually, I will also say that we should never use this Q package until the OU game. of course, we COULD use it earlier, and then change things up a lot to really give the OU defense some deception/different stuff to think about, but that is clearly a pipe dream.

And statalyzer, colt faking a handoff and running with it does not mean the play was a 'zone read". Also, halliburton says we used it "heavily" which is simply not true and has not been true since colt took over at QB.
 
ptownhorn analysis is dead on. Mack promised the guy he would be a QB, but to anyone who has seen him attempt to pass can see he isn't a passer. He consistantly throws the ball into the ground 3 to 5 yeads in front of the receiver.

No way is he a NFL prospect at QB. The best thing Mack and Major can do for the young man is to sit him down and attempt to reason with him. He would be a hell of a receiver threat in the NFL. Gain 15 pounds and he would make some team a fine RB.
 
The Q will be shelved again after a few games. It's simple math: you bring Chiles in to play QB and move Colt to WR = one less WR on the field and one less REAL QB on the field. A net loss of 2 players. 9 vs. 11. We lose.

If Chiles comes in as RB or WR, great. But him as QB is extreme fail.
 
Everything I have heard suggests that the Q package will mostly consist of Colt remaining at QB (in the scrimmage, apparently every time they used it Colt remained QB). I think there are some plays where Chiles may play QB, but it sounds like that will not be the emphasis.

I also heard a clip of Greg Davis saying we have to put Chiles in the game often enough when the ball doesn't go to him, so as not to telegraph that it will go to him when he comes in. At least GD gets the problem, now let's see if he can keep it in mind when calling plays.

I'm not sold that the package will work, but neither am I willing to say it is doomed to fail. Call me cautiously, hopeful.
 
First off let me say that I am not sold on the Q package either. Certainly not as it was run last year. Evidently Brown and Davis weren't sold either though as it was scrapped.

What I will say is that the ONLY way it will really work is to not have an offense with 1 QB. Line Colt and Chiles SIDE BY SIDE, and leave both of them in for most plays that way. We basically have to snap the ball to each about an equal number of times as well. This way defenses don't even know who the QB is, much less if it will be a run or a pass. I mean if you put Colt at WR with Chiles at QB, the D is going to read run, and well they should. Colt at QB & Chiles at WR, it will be some type of pass play. Those are just the odds that D's can key on.
So you line them up side by side.... The ball is snapped to Colt and Chiles is basically a running back.... could block, could run, could go out on a pass route.... or an option with Colt.
Chiles gets the snap, and Colt will have those same things at his disposal.... Colt is a decent runner... at least decent enough that he has to be respected to do either... If the call is for Chiles to keep it and run out of the snap.... then the play better go opposite field of Colt... Of course Colt could go out on a pass route in that case, and then the RB does what an RB does...
Does this sound crazy? Probably, but it is the only way that I see both working.

Heck, with that scenario, but in Chiles and Harris... they BOTH can do BOTH... or should be able to anyway.

The big deal is there can be NO PRE SNAP READS by the D because they don't know where the snap will go... after the snap is made to Colt or Chiles, it really will be too late to change the D....

I hope that makes some sense.
 
I never really understood the point of putting Colt at WR, because we never did anything to take advantage of his skills. He was essentially just a mediocre WR that never got the ball.
 
Aside from the predictable comments which are true regardless of what offense the team is running, getting a playmaker ont he field is never a bad idea. As mentioned, the key is to utilize them effectively.

Second to just getting a playmaker ont he field is the issue of causing substitution problems for the defense. When UT runs on their goalline offense, the opposing team runs on their goalline defensive personnel. We put in 4 WRs, the defense sends in it's nickel or dime package personnel. With both Colt and Chiles ont he field, the opposing team doesn't know who to send in. Split out Chiles as an extra WR with Colt at QB and they need nickel personnel. Line him up as a deep I formation TB and they need more LBs and bigger DL in the game. Split out Colt (as a decoy to occupy the CB on that side) and you need defensive personnel to defend the zone read or option. The problem for the defense is that they don't know what personnel to send in until Texas breaks the huddle and lines up, too late to send anyone in. It's a DC's nightmare regarding personnel.

Quan and Shipley are good WRs, but neither one are Michael Crabtree or Roy Williams. Malcolm Williams is obviously improving but isn't one of those either. I don't think pulling one of them here and there for Chiles is going to kill us.

Regarding the Tebow = Chiles comment, I don't think Tebow runs a 4.39 40. Tebow could not be used interchangeably at WR, QB and RB. Maybe QB and FB, or QQ and TE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top