DRC Wilson best option at QB for NT

OldTimer · September 18, 2006

Brett Vito: Wilson best option at QB for UNT

07:26 AM CDT on Monday, September 18, 2006

(See quote below DD we may need to water down what we expect from players also coaches need to teach wilson the proper "reads")

Brett Vito

The difference one game can make was evident on Woody Wilson’s face as the junior quarterback trudged into the media room late Saturday night at Skelly Stadium.

North Texas head coach Darrell Dickey had come and gone. So had Jamario Thomas, Brandon Jackson and Korey Washington before Wilson straggled in to give his assessment of a rough night for the Mean Green.

The Golden Hurricane kept Wilson and UNT under wraps and ran away with a 28-3 win. UNT managed just 89 yards of total offense one week after putting together an adequate offensive performance in a win over SMU.

“I can’t say too much other than we have to get better as a team, including myself,” Wilson said succinctly to cap the night.

If UNT has any hope of reaching that goal, Wilson will have to lead the way.

UNT has three quarterbacks, all with different strengths and weaknesses.

It’s not that Daniel Meager and Matt Phillips don’t have ability. There just isn’t a better fit for this UNT team than Wilson, the speedy former Coffeyville (Kan.) Community College standout with an accurate arm and the ability to get out of trouble when the pocket collapses.

Wilson’s talents were evident in the Mean Green’s win over SMU two weeks ago, when he accounted for 177 yards of total offense.

Wilson connected on 4-of-5 passes against Tulsa, but never got on track while finishing with 37 yards passing. The Golden Hurricane made a point of keeping Wilson contained and threw him for 17 yards in losses on the ground while also keeping Thomas in check.

The stunning turnaround after the high of a win over SMU last week left the Mean Green ranked next to last out of the 118 teams in Division I-A college football with an average of 165.7 yards of offense a game.

Wilson has provided most of the highlights during UNT’s early season offensive slump.

A touchdown run against SMU and pass to Jackson against Texas are tied with a Phillips pass to Johnny Quinn for the longest play of UNT’s season at 33 yards.

Wilson’s 257 yards of total offense is more than half of the Mean Green’s meager total of 497 yards, even though he has started just one game.

It’s not that Wilson has done everything right, far from it. He just seems to be the Mean Green’s best hope based on his athleticism and ability to make plays on the move behind a struggling offensive line.

Wilson’s 33-yard scramble against SMU was evidence of that.

This isn’t the Mean Green’s offensive line of a few years ago with Andy Brewster and Nick Zuniga, who gave Scott Hall all day to throw long-range bombs to Quinn and cleared huge holes for Patrick Cobbs to run through.

If the first three games of the season are any indication, any opponent who has any sense is going to stack eight players on the line and dare anyone but Thomas to win the game.

Wilson has the ability to do just that, even if he didn’t show it against Tulsa.

“I thought Woody made a few plays early,” Dickey said. “We have to go back and look at how much we are asking each player to do at each position from an assignment standpoint and maybe water it down to where we don’t do as many things until we come along and get a little more comfortable out on the field in executing our assignments. We may also see that it’s not that we have too much. We have to take a hard look at it and go from there.”

Wilson has had trouble at times checking into the right play after working in the system for just a few months since the start of spring practice. If he’s still struggling, it’s up to UNT’s coaches to find a way to teach Wilson the proper reads, put him in position to make plays and get the ball to Thomas and Quinn.

No one of the Mean Green’s roster has the ability to make more plays at quarterback than Wilson, who has completed 17-of-21 passes for 205 yards and a touchdown in limited time.

UNT never would have beaten SMU without Wilson, who came off the bench to lead three scoring drives.

After seeing Phillips start two games this season and Meager start for a full year in 2005, it’s plain to see Wilson is the Mean Green’s best option at quarterback.

Now it’s up to UNT’s staff to find a way to make Wilson’s strengths work for the Mean Green’s offense.

UNT’s season depends on it.

Got5onIt · September 18, 2006

Someone give this man a cookie.

It's evident everyone sees who the man at QB should be. I don't know if DD raised the white flag when he put Maeger in or if he was seriously thinking Maeger would do something, but WW needs to get as many snaps in before Sun Belt play starts. We all know how much Belt play means to DD.................

Edited September 18, 2006 by Got5onIt

LongJim · September 18, 2006

Unless the OL play improves, it won't matter if UNT plays Joe Montana, Barry Sanders, and Jerry Rice. They will get dominated. The OL has got to step it up and get it together.

Edited September 18, 2006 by LongJim

SilverEagle · September 18, 2006

"It’s not that Wilson has done everything right, far from it. He just seems to be the Mean Green’s best hope based on his athleticism and ability to make plays on the move behind a struggling offensive line."

IMHO, no OL (ours or anyone else's) is not going to get any better if they think that a QB's "athleticism" is going to bail them out when they have assignment break-downs. Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but any OL should play every down as if their QB is a statue,.....and is made out of crystal.....and there's no replacement QB.

LongJim · September 18, 2006

IMHO, no OL (ours or anyone else's) is not going to get any better if they think that a QB's "athleticism" is going to bail them out when they have assignment break-downs. Maybe I'm being unrealistic, but any OL should play every down as if their QB is a statue,.....and is made out of crystal.....and there's no replacement QB.
←

I could not agree more.

bigrobdsp · September 18, 2006

did they say that WW was 4 of 5 in passing?? we had one incomplete pass and thats all the passes that we let the guy throw??

mad dog · September 18, 2006

Well, not that it completely changes things, but there was a sack in there and three or four scrambles that will show up as runs in a designed pass play. I think they tried, but Woody was running for his life back there. What that stat tells me is WHEN he had time, he was very effective at getting the ball to the receiver.

IslandEagle · September 18, 2006

Well, not that it completely changes things, but there was a sack in there and three or four scrambles that will show up as runs in a designed pass play. I think they tried, but Woody was running for his life back there. What that stat tells me is WHEN he had time, he was very effective at getting the ball to the receiver.
←

I understand that. What bothers me is not the fact per se that the OL is struggling or even that Wilson has a way to go. What bothers me is that we CONSISTENTLY rank near the bottom in offense. YOU'D THINK THAT THE COACHES, INCLUDING DICKEY WHO I HAVE DEFENDED FOR A LONG TIME, WOULD LOOK IN THE MIRROR FIRST AND ASK WHY IT IS THAT THEY CONSISTENTLY PRODUCE UNDERPERFORMING OFFENSES????

If they would just address that one point, I could live with all the rest. But, fixing a problem means addressing your own role in it, and I have yet to see Dickey or Ramon really "own" this problem.

e-bone ver2.awesome · September 18, 2006

I didn't get to see the game, and I have a question about the play calling. Were any rollouts, option runs or option passes called?

untgirl04 · September 18, 2006

I understand that. What bothers me is not the fact per se that the OL is struggling or even that Wilson has a way to go. What bothers me is that we CONSISTENTLY rank near the bottom in offense. YOU'D THINK THAT THE COACHES, INCLUDING DICKEY WHO I HAVE DEFENDED FOR A LONG TIME, WOULD LOOK IN THE MIRROR FIRST AND ASK WHY IT IS THAT THEY CONSISTENTLY PRODUCE UNDERPERFORMING OFFENSES????
If they would just address that one point, I could live with all the rest. But, fixing a problem means addressing your own role in it, and I have yet to see Dickey or Ramon really "own" this problem.
←

My husband and I were listening to a bit of the pregame Saturday night, and they had an interesting interview with DD. Talking about the disaster last year, DD mentioned that he and his staff were unprepared for Tulsa's speed and gameplan. He talked about how they were going to remedy that on Saturday, and how it was going to be a good game. I remember my husband and I talking about how refreshing it was to hear DD talk without the defeatest attitude (he didn't say we would win, but at least he said we would fight to the end) and own up to mistakes from last year.

Then we listened to the game. By all accounts, I'm just flabbergasted at how it turned out. I have no doubt that our players' hearts were in it, but I just wonder about the coaches' motivation. It seems DD has finally learned to talk a good game, but I have my doubts about him coaching one. I thought the SMU game was well-coached for the most part, but I can't for the life of me understand why we returned to the "beating our head against a wall" offense for Tulsa.

September 18, 2006

I didn't get to see the game, and I have a question about the play calling. Were any rollouts, option runs or option passes called?
←

I was at the game.

To answer your question, no. NO designed roll-outs (the only thing that worked against UT and SMU). When WW and JT were in there, it was almost exclusively zone-read play running plays. I saw a few option plays, but the didn't get anything (as you can guess).

The pass plays were all bubble screen (quick passes) or down the sideline. Never over the middle. Never a roll out. No play action. I guess the zone-read is taking the place of the play action in our 1 page play book.

Coffee and TV · September 18, 2006

I understand that. What bothers me is not the fact per se that the OL is struggling or even that Wilson has a way to go. What bothers me is that we CONSISTENTLY rank near the bottom in offense. YOU'D THINK THAT THE COACHES, INCLUDING DICKEY WHO I HAVE DEFENDED FOR A LONG TIME, WOULD LOOK IN THE MIRROR FIRST AND ASK WHY IT IS THAT THEY CONSISTENTLY PRODUCE UNDERPERFORMING OFFENSES????
←

Well we all know that RF's hands are clean from any responsibility when it comes to a lagging offense according to Dickey.

UNTLifer · September 18, 2006

“I thought Woody made a few plays early,” Dickey said. “We have to go back and look at how much we are asking each player to do at each position from an assignment standpoint and maybe water it down to where we don’t do as many things until we come along and get a little more comfortable out on the field in executing our assignments. We may also see that it’s not that we have too much. We have to take a hard look at it and go from there.”

Please DD, just teach a system that is in the 20th century. Why is it that every other team makes adjustments, devises an imaginative gameplan and runs more than 3 or 4 plays, yet we get the same crap week after week.

DD, taking the vanila out of vanila leaves you with nothing.

mad dog · September 18, 2006

I understand that. What bothers me is not the fact per se that the OL is struggling or even that Wilson has a way to go. What bothers me is that we CONSISTENTLY rank near the bottom in offense.
←

I have seen this complaint a lot, and, until I did a little digging, I couldn't really explain it.

In terms of TOTAL offense, we rank close to last, that is true enough. But, if you are going to accept stats as the true measure of what we are, then we should be judged on what our offense is designed to do: that is, run the football.

If you look at the total offense from 2002-2004, we look something like this:

2002 - 115th

2003 - 95th

2004 - 82nd

However, when you look at rushing (i.e. what our offense is designed to do), we look like this:

2002 - 38th

2003 - 35th

2004 - 23rd

Which is much more than respectable, I think we all can agree. Heck, even as disastrous as last year was, we still ranked around the middle of the pack in rushing at 62nd.

Myself, I view 100 yard rushers and 300 yard passers as about the same in terms of frequency and difficulty to do. By that logic, one yard rushing is worth about 3 yards passing. If you run a rushing based offense, you will NEVER be in anything close to the big passing teams who routinely put up 300-500 yards of offense through the air in a game. The most important thing to judge is how if you win the game or not, and, from 2002-2004, our record was 24-14 (.632)

MeanGreen61 · September 18, 2006

I have seen this complaint a lot, and, until I did a little digging, I couldn't really explain it.
In terms of TOTAL offense, we rank close to last, that is true enough. But, if you are going to accept stats as the true measure of what we are, then we should be judged on what our offense is designed to do: that is, run the football.
If you look at the total offense from 2002-2004, we look something like this:
2002 - 115th
2003 - 95th
2004 - 82nd
However, when you look at rushing (i.e. what our offense is designed to do), we look like this:
2002 - 38th
2003 - 35th
2004 - 23rd
Which is much more than respectable, I think we all can agree. Heck, even as disastrous as last year was, we still ranked around the middle of the pack in rushing at 62nd.
Myself, I view 100 yard rushers and 300 yard passers as about the same in terms of frequency and difficulty to do. By that logic, one yard rushing is worth about 3 yards passing. If you run a rushing based offense, you will NEVER be in anything close to the big passing teams who routinely put up 300-500 yards of offense through the air in a game. The most important thing to judge is how if you win the game or not, and, from 2002-2004, our record was 24-14 (.632)
←

I'm not one to voice my opinion, pro or con, very much about the coaching/team on a message board. That said, the only stat that really makes a diddly damn to me is the FINAL SCORE. Other years are history. The season that counts right now is 2006.

Edited September 18, 2006 by MeanGreen61

September 18, 2006

The season that counts right now is 2006.
←

And our passing and rushing are dead bottom.

Our NCAA champ rusher ran 30 some yards against a mid-major.

I KNOW we can do better.

NT80 · September 18, 2006

It seems DD has finally learned to talk a good game, but I have my doubts about him coaching one.
←

It's not just players making the biggest mistakes.

edcollopy · September 18, 2006

Illuvius...I see where you are going w/ those numbers but we were also beating inferior teams that let us pound them into submission by relentlessly stickiing w/ the run. Many of those games were alot closer than they should have been. Against better or equal talent we are no match being so one dementional. Just like the wishbone...nobody runs it anymore..if you get behind you're hosed.

DD talking about sat. was going to be a good game, and they come out and get outcoached in a big way just like last year. Saying to the press that you got outcoached is becoming a b.s. cliche by coaches now. Trying to get the heat off the players...in our case it's true. The players on offense either aren't prepared or just forced to run the same crap...all because our coaches look like they belong at DUKE!

mad dog · September 18, 2006

And our passing and rushing are dead bottom.
Our NCAA champ rusher ran 30 some yards against a mid-major.
I KNOW we can do better.
←

We can and we MUST. If not, it is going to be a LONG season.

mad dog · September 18, 2006

Illuvius...I see where you are going w/ those numbers but we were also beating inferior teams that let us pound them into submission by relentlessly stickiing w/ the run. Many of those games were alot closer than they should have been. Against better or equal talent we are no match being so one dementional. Just like the wishbone...nobody runs it anymore..if you get behind you're hosed.
←

If you believe that is the case, and we were really that much better than those teams, then whey did we have so many problems in OOC play? I think we were a little better than the Sun Belt teams, but had a solid rushing attack for our talent level. It wasn't like we were running behind a BCS line with a BCS QB throwing to BCS receivers to take pressure off the running game. We weren't dominating against much lower talent opponents... we were dominating opponents of similar talent, who was good enough to keep many of those games close despite our great defenses.

e-bone ver2.awesome · September 18, 2006

Myself, I view 100 yard rushers and 300 yard passers as about the same in terms of frequency and difficulty to do. By that logic, one yard rushing is worth about 3 yards passing. If you run a rushing based offense, you will NEVER be in anything close to the big passing teams who routinely put up 300-500 yards of offense through the air in a game. The most important thing to judge is how if you win the game or not, and, from 2002-2004, our record was 24-14 (.632)
←

Is this something you came up with on your own? There a many college teams that put up huge rushing numbers. College isn't the NFL where passing dominates rushing in terms of yards gained. There are many more different styles of offense used in the college game that yield different results, including running based offenses. It is very possible to put up huge rushing numbers, if the scheme is effective and the players are suited to it. DD's offense is great if the line of scrimmage is dominated and holes are opened for the running backs. When that doesn't happen the offense is going to put up 80 and 90 yards of total offense. Now if we had coaches who adapted their gameplans to suit the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of our team, then we might be more competitive.

mad dog · September 18, 2006

Is this something you came up with on your own? There a many college teams that put up huge rushing numbers. College isn't the NFL where passing dominates rushing in terms of yards gained. There are many more different styles of offense used in the college game that yield different results, including running based offenses. It is very possible to put up huge rushing numbers, if the scheme is effective and the players are suited to it. DD's offense is great if the line of scrimmage is dominated and holes are opened for the running backs. When that doesn't happen the offense is going to put up 80 and 90 yards of total offense. Now if we had coaches who adapted their gameplans to suit the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of our team, then we might be more competitive.
←

Yeah... i must have been thinking of the NFL for the 3-1 ratio, but my point is still clear. If you are going to put up lots of yards, passing is the way to go. In 2004, only 19 teams averaged more than 200 yards a game rushing. That same year, 75 teams had more than 200 yards a game passing. Passing teams will always put up more yards than rushing teams.

e-bone ver2.awesome · September 18, 2006

Yeah... i must have been thinking of the NFL for the 3-1 ratio, but my point is still clear. If you are going to put up lots of yards, passing is the way to go. In 2004, only 19 teams averaged more than 200 yards a game rushing. That same year, 75 teams had more than 200 yards a game passing. Passing teams will always put up more yards than rushing teams.
←

Is 2004 some kind of magical year? You keep refering to it and I can't quite figure out why. I'm worried about right here and right now.

Our coaches must pull their heads out of their butts and start game planning based on what our personel is. Offensive line can't block 9 guys? Don't run it up the middle every play! Have an extremely athletic QB? Get him on the move through rollouts and options! Stop beating your players' heads against the wall and give them a chance to be successful. A balanced offense keeps the defense from stacking the line or dropping back against the pass. Make the defense work a little bit. Which doesn't mean we have to be a big time passing team. Just change up the play calling and keep the defense off guard.

mad dog · September 18, 2006

Is 2004 some kind of magical year? You keep refering to it and I can't quite figure out why. I'm worried about right here and right now.
←

No... just happens to be the last year that I had pulled up on ncaa.org. Would you like me to sample some more years?

Cr1028 · September 18, 2006

Myself, I view 100 yard rushers and 300 yard passers as about the same in terms of frequency and difficulty to do. By that logic, one yard rushing is worth about 3 yards passing. If you run a rushing based offense, you will NEVER be in anything close to the big passing teams who routinely put up 300-500 yards of offense through the air in a game. The most important thing to judge is how if you win the game or not, and, from 2002-2004, our record was 24-14 (.632)
←

I like the idea but only have 2 issues with it. The first is that we are in 2006 now and many of the players are different.

The second is that it takes 10yard to get a first down and I'll take 4 passing downs to get 12 and the first like Tulsa did over 3 rushes to gain 3 yards and a punt like we did.