I find myself in an unusual position. Typically, I'm the guy defending the existing quarterback. As a rule, change for the sake of change is folly. But I believe this is one of those times when it makes sense. Here's why.
To begin, Utah has a great defense. It's the kind of defense that will allow us to stay in every game. All we need to win is an "okay" offense to put up a few points and not stick the defense in impossible situations.
Next, Utah's offense is terrible when it comes to putting up points. They can move the ball decently at times but are too error prone to sustain success long enough to get into the endzone. If they could reach the low bar of "okay" then we could win most games.
Huntley does not fit this offense. He was billed as a running threat but is far from being one. He is easily chased down by slower defenders. He is terrible at the deep ball which takes away an important aspect of the game and defenses know it. But more importantly, he is a poor and slow decision maker. Utah did him no favors by playing him so early. He should have had a redshirt year to learn the mental aspects of the game. The bad habits he developed by playing too soon are hard to break.
On the other hand, I believe that Shelley would bring back the running threat, the deep threat and might even be a better decision maker (hard to be worse). I think he fits the system Taylor wants to run so much better than Huntley. All he has to do is make a dysfunctional offense functional or as others are saying, "give it an identity."
Hoping beyond hope that a bye week is going to solve the offensive issues seems naive. Why not use the extra week to prep Shelley and try something new. How much worse can it be than 17 points in 2 games and 138 yards in 38 attempts? Why waste such a great defense when all we need is an average offense to win games? Now is the perfect time for this experiment because the risk/reward is so compelling.
To begin, Utah has a great defense. It's the kind of defense that will allow us to stay in every game. All we need to win is an "okay" offense to put up a few points and not stick the defense in impossible situations.
Next, Utah's offense is terrible when it comes to putting up points. They can move the ball decently at times but are too error prone to sustain success long enough to get into the endzone. If they could reach the low bar of "okay" then we could win most games.
Huntley does not fit this offense. He was billed as a running threat but is far from being one. He is easily chased down by slower defenders. He is terrible at the deep ball which takes away an important aspect of the game and defenses know it. But more importantly, he is a poor and slow decision maker. Utah did him no favors by playing him so early. He should have had a redshirt year to learn the mental aspects of the game. The bad habits he developed by playing too soon are hard to break.
On the other hand, I believe that Shelley would bring back the running threat, the deep threat and might even be a better decision maker (hard to be worse). I think he fits the system Taylor wants to run so much better than Huntley. All he has to do is make a dysfunctional offense functional or as others are saying, "give it an identity."
Hoping beyond hope that a bye week is going to solve the offensive issues seems naive. Why not use the extra week to prep Shelley and try something new. How much worse can it be than 17 points in 2 games and 138 yards in 38 attempts? Why waste such a great defense when all we need is an average offense to win games? Now is the perfect time for this experiment because the risk/reward is so compelling.
