Every game, it seems like I see Swoopes do or attempt to do something I haven't seen him do before. This week I remember three times when Swoopes threw a mid to long range throw, but it wasn't over the top. It was on a rope. He only completed one of them, and it was a sick throw on the outside right side of the field. Swoopes threw into triple coverage, but hit the receiver on the numbers while the three defenders watched. They had no time to react. I want to say this was toward the end of the third quarter. That is an NFL level pass, but I had never seen Swoopes attempt anything like it before that game that I can recall.

I felt like, on several occasions, we went long when we should have been trying to move the chains. I'm thinking to myself, "Why are we moving on to something as difficult as that, when Swoopes has been so adept at moving the ball in the last two games." It seemed like we forwent capitalizing on the momentum we did have. Kansas St is a nationally competitive team with a long established program, and we were playing in Manhattan. So those were big factors on the outcome of this game, but...

My question is whether or not Watson prioritized Swoopes' development over the potential to win that game. If that is happening, I don't like it. A football writer friend of mine says that maybe Watson was trying to open up the run game by going long. Maybe that is true. I really don't know.

I've thought to myself recently, "Man, Gus Malzahn came into Auburn and took a 2-10 team to the NCG. The right hire for Texas should be able to do that." I didn't realize that he was the former OC of Auburn who was only away from the Auburn program for one season. So his program was already largely in motion when he became the head coach at Auburn.

I've been wondering if Watson is simply a less than sexy hire, because the OCs that are very successful succeed without the presence of any one player, even at QB. (Baylor hasn't blinked since RGIII left.) They have systems that empowers players. While you can take this statement at face value, I actually think now that there is a fallacy here. Maybe the sexy programs that we see were developed over years, and probably are able to succeed, to varying degrees, without the presence of a single player, because of the presence of other players who have been developed. Gus Malzahn didn't install his system and go to the NCG in one year.

Truly I think that, as Steve Patterson said, "I believe the expectation was that this is a rebuilding year", this is a year in which, due to dismissals, injuries, and the somewhat tattered state of Texas recruiting when Mack Brown left, particularly on the OL, we basically have 5 first year starters on the OL and a first year starting QB with almost no significant snaps taken last year. I don't want Watson to prioritize Swoopes' development over victories in the win column, but maybe I'm just too much into instant gratification. I think we're going to start winning games, particularly if we can get the doomsday prophets off of the backs of these coaches and players. Charlie Strong is one of the most qualified defensive coaches in the country, and he's as strong a leader as there is, and he's instilling noble character in these young men. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. There's no experience like game experience, and we will need a QB next year and the year after. Even if Swoopes isn't the guy in 2 years, he can raise the bar now for the guy who will be.