Getting Tired of Running QB Point

MeanGreenHoops · September 15, 2011

Vito mentioned it again on the blog and people here have said we need a running threat at QB. No we don't need it. Did anyone see Keenum running Saturday night? And yet they had 680+ offensive yards. No what you need is a threat and then some balance off of that. We don't really have a threat yet. Running, passing whichever, neither is dangerous at this point. If we could run the ball, it'd open up the passing or vice versa. What would help Dunbar most is if the passing game was dangerous. But it's not at this point. /soapbox

UNTLifer · September 15, 2011

Couldn't agree more. Let's face it, everyone of our's are inexperienced. Thompson looked so much better against Houston and the focus on Dunbar allowed him to run for almost 50 yards. That is plenty.

I wish Mac wouldn't have burned McNulty's red-shirt, because I think Derek is going to be fine. I watched the first half of the Houston game again, and other than the early pick, he looked fine. McNulty is not a threat to throw at this time and we still have Osborn, who looked good in his few minutes against FIU.

cl_1_2008 · September 15, 2011

We don't run Houston's offense. So your point is moot. The offense Chico runs is designed for a mobile QB. Just go look at his days at South Florida. But I do agree that our QB situation is fine. If they're gonna put a QB in to strictly run the ball, we have this guy from Cedar Hill named James Hamilton that needs more touches. IMO, he should be used in that situation.

bstnsportsfan3 · September 15, 2011

i'm fine with burning mcnulty's red shirt because it now creates competition between 3 players and all that does is make em all get better...plus its not like we burn it the last 5 mins of the last game. :rolleyes:

MDH · September 15, 2011

Playing McNulty has nothing to do with putting pressure on Derek. Derek is our guy, McNulty just adds a different dynamic that Derek cannot.

SHOSS · September 15, 2011

i'm fine with burning mcnulty's red shirt because it now creates competition between 3 players and all that does is make em all get better...plus its not like we burn it the last 5 mins of the last game.

I like competition amongst all the positions... QB, on a good team anyway, should be more of an unchanging thing from game to game to me...but right now, everything is still up in the air. I like more kids having the opportunity to play. I think that also helps us with recruiting when they see that playing time goes to the guys that work their arses off and earn it.

When you've got multiple good options because 2 or 3 guys are stepping up their games, we can't really lose at this point.

And, the more athetic our QB is, the better... as long as he has an arm to get the ball downfield too...

Edited September 15, 2011 by SHOSS

THOR · September 15, 2011

with the OL like it is, a mobile qb is needed. after this year, the line will be more experienced and be able to protect a pocket passer for the required amount of time. put the best players on the field...let mcnulty run loose if he makes the team better.

forevereagle · September 15, 2011

My only concern is moving a QB in and out of the game. It looked to me that Thompson played his best when he was able to get into a rhythm.

As the old saying goes, if you have 2 QBs, you have none.

meangreen · September 15, 2011

I think it would be great to have a running QB eventually. Whether or not McNulty is that guy, we'll just have to wait and see. If you observe Chico's play-calling, much of it is based off of a QB option, if we had a mobile QB that was able to throw the ball 40 yards down the field and still be a threat to break off a 15-20 yard run, imagine how tricky our offense would be to stop and gameplan for. It's not a necessity, just a benefit.

BDPG · September 15, 2011

If we have a mobile QB it should open things up for Lance. Let's face it, at this time we have no established weapons other than Lance, and most defenses know this. Thompson if doing fine but may not be the answer given our personnel and offensive scheme.

Green P1 · September 15, 2011

Have you seen how many zone read and option plays we've run so far this year?

The Fake Lonnie Finch · September 15, 2011

I don't care if we run the Wishbone Triple Option as long as we start winning somehow. And, burn every last damn redshirt now. Winning helps recruiting. Recruiting helps depth. Win. We're not at a point and time in college football history for a mutli-year rebuilding job like you could do in the 90s or early 00s.

meangreen · September 15, 2011

I don't care if we run the Wishbone Triple Option as long as we start winning somehow. And, burn every last damn redshirt now. Winning helps recruiting. Recruiting helps depth. Win. We're not at a point and time in college football history for a mutli-year rebuilding job like you could do in the 90s or early 00s.

Could not agree anymore

MeanGreenTexan · September 15, 2011

I don't care if we run the Wishbone Triple Option as long as we start winning somehow. And, burn every last damn redshirt now. Winning helps recruiting. Recruiting helps depth. Win. We're not at a point and time in college football history for a mutli-year rebuilding job like you could do in the 90s or early 00s.

Agreed. If you're not playing to win the game (no matter who's redshirt gets burned), what are you doing?

greenminer · September 15, 2011

A deep threat (Chanceller?) would help take pressure off Dunbar.

Chico likes to have a zone read package, right? That means having a QB that is a threat to run the ball.

NTXCoog · September 15, 2011

Have you seen how many zone read and option plays we've run so far this year?

I saw a ton of zone read plays and if you run zone read, you better have a mobile QB.

This year with the smaller line and with Lance's final year, if I was UNT I'd go with the best option QB you've got and run zone read/options as much as possible, running some quick out passes and crossing routes to keep the LBs and safeties back, but it may be a little late to implement that change in offense.

Censored by Laurie · September 15, 2011

I saw a ton of zone read plays and if you run zone read, you better have a mobile QB.

This year with the smaller line and with Lance's final year, if I was UNT I'd go with the best option QB you've got and run zone read/options as much as possible, running some quick out passes and crossing routes to keep the LBs and safeties back, but it may be a little late to implement that change in offense.

That wouldn't be new...it would be what we did successfully last season late in the year...some here just won't admit it was successful because it was Riley and Chase running it and they weren't 6'4"...which everyone knows is a pre-requisite for being a successful college QB.

After seeing Lance bottled up the first 2 games, I'm in for seeing more McNulty or re-visiting 2002's offensive playbook...Hell, we've 3 or 4 solid TE's...throw them all out there...anything that will help Lance

Green P1 · September 15, 2011

That wouldn't be new...it would be what we did successfully last season late in the year...some here just won't admit it was successful because it was Riley and Chase running it and they weren't 6'4"...which everyone knows is a pre-requisite for being a successful college QB.

After seeing Lance bottled up the first 2 games, I'm in for seeing more McNulty or re-visiting 2002's offensive playbook...Hell, we've 3 or 4 solid TE's...throw them all out there...anything that will help Lance

UR2 stupid. There is no way Riley or his skillset had anything to do with the offense's/Lance's surge late last year. Have you forgotten how short and related to the old coach he was? Stupid.

Censored by Laurie · September 15, 2011

UR2 stupid. There is no way Riley or his skillset had anything to do with the offense's/Lance's surge late last year. Have you forgotten how short and related to the old coach he was? Stupid.

Aren't you owed some lumps?

Green P1 · September 15, 2011

Aren't you owed some lumps?

Think I might wait until a QB not named Dodge wins a couple of games around here before I start accepting any lumps.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Green P1

MeanGreenTexan · September 15, 2011

Think I might wait until a QB not named Dodge wins a couple of games around here before I start accepting any lumps.

Oh SNAP!

Eagle1855 · September 15, 2011

He may not be a "running" QB, but Keenum definitely made some plays with his feet. There were several instances when we had them in a third down situation where he kept the play and drive alive out-running the defender (if not completely, enough to let something else open up).