Quinn gave us his best. I would criticize him for one thing only- if (and it is āifā, because none of us know) before the 2024 OU game, he overstated his health and readiness to play to Sark. That was the biggest decision to seal him as the 2024 QB, over Arch, but Sark was the one that made it.
And I donāt really fault Sark. OU only had one loss, and you knew Venables was going to bring some crazy defensive looks, to take advantage of a freshman starter in a high pressure situation. At the time, we didnāt appreciate yet how awful OUās offense was with Hawkins at QB (he was undefeated, 1-0, in conference). I understand why he would want to start the experienced guy in that situation.
The next major decision point was the UGA game. We all know how disastrous that started. Klatt described it well- Ewers was rattled and Sark pulled him, to give him a chance to collect himself, but also knowing (as did Arch and Quinn) that if Arch played well, Quinn wasnāt going back in. Arch didnāt play well, and Quinn played a little better when he came back for the second half.
At that point, Texas was 6-1, and needed to finish strong and make the CFP. No changes would be made unless there were injury or Ewersā play falling off a cliff.
A lot of people seem to be upset with Quinn for Sarkās decisions. I donāt blame anyone; theyāre games and all I ask of players and coaches is that they do their best.
Why arenāt more people upset that Bond kept his starting job so long after he stopped making good plays and effort? That, arguably, cost us the SEC CG and Cotton Bowl.