mavsfan4ever said:
Right but if you have an nfl talent as a backup, you aren't playing him at wr. Hes qb only. They clearly didn't realize what they had.
But no sense in beating a dead horse. It doesn't really matter bc it worked out.
wait why wouldn't you get him on the field? there was no question who the starter was, so if the coaches felt he could handle both responsibilities, which he clearly could and did, what's the problem with fielding your best players? we're not talking about a guy that might be good enough to see the field when you go 5 wr, he was arguably the best outside wr on the roster depending on how you feel about jeff fuller. the offense was unquestionably better with him on the field.
i think you might be trying to apply nfl roster management to a college roster and it's simply not the same thing… we're not talking about protecting a guy that you're expecting to lead a franchise for 15 years. college coaches rightfully should be in the business of winning college games. the risk of a freak injury somehow keeping your backup qb (who has all the potential in the world but still has proven nothing yet) from taking over the qb1 role in 1-2 years is outweighed by the reward of getting your #1 (2 at worst) wr on the field in the present.
and you don't even have to debate it in the abstract, it clearly was the right call- it worked. and it's hard to say the coaches didnt know what they had because they're on record discussing his potential.
this phenomenon isn't even unique to a&m… look at the most hyped qb maybe ever in manning being used as, in effect, a goal line back early on. and that wasn't nearly as needed as tannehill at wr. its not common to have a guy so capable at both qb and wr, but playing guys out of their natural position to get them on the field sooner is done all the time. no matter their nfl projection. college coaches that don't play their best players should probably have a backup career plan ready
