[OutsiderFan]

Shawvitagren is on the verge of screwing up three years of QB play in a row.

2016: Start Burns, switch to Chryst midway through season. 
2017: Start Chryst, backup is Burns, but Costello is better than Burns and maybe Chryst too?
2018: Chryst a Senior, Costello may be the starter, but Mills might be the best talent?

The problem I see is there hasn't been a clear standard of performance set for the QB position.  It's been variable.  Poor performance has been tolerated, and the QB position (and even the passing game) is treated like it's some sort of 3-dimensional Rubik's Cube.

If you are going through these kinds of mental gymnastics to figure out who should be playing QB, the system is way too complicated, you are favoring experience over ability far too much, or both. 

One of Bill Walsh's greatest keys to success was setting a standard of performance for everyone and holding them accountable to it.  This move to put Chryst back in, despite Costello having performed better, flies in the face of valuing such standards.  Coaches who put loyalty over performance don't win as much as coaches who put performance over loyalty.

[OutsiderFan]

Shawvitagren is on the verge of screwing up three years of QB play in a row.

2016: Start Burns, switch to Chryst midway through season. 
2017: Start Chryst, backup is Burns, but Costello is better than Burns and maybe Chryst too?
2018: Chryst a Senior, Costello may be the starter, but Mills might be the best talent?

The problem I see is there hasn't been a clear standard of performance set for the QB position.  It's been variable.  Poor performance has been tolerated, and the QB position (and even the passing game) is treated like it's some sort of 3-dimensional Rubik's Cube.

If you are going through these kinds of mental gymnastics to figure out who should be playing QB, the system is way too complicated, you are favoring experience over ability far too much, or both. 

One of Bill Walsh's greatest keys to success was setting a standard of performance for everyone and holding them accountable to it.  This move to put Chryst back in, despite Costello having performed better, flies in the face of valuing such standards.  Coaches who put loyalty over performance don't win as much as coaches who put performance over loyalty.

[Hurlburt88]

I must admit to being quite surprised.  That said, I do have confidence in Shaw's decision-making, and will take solace until kick-off in a few points: 
-  KC looked good in bowl game until injured
-  His knee & comfort level should continue to improve
-  Shaw will stick with a clear hot-hand. 
-  Shaw probably likes this lingering question mark even less than we do! 

[Hurlburt88]

I must admit to being quite surprised.  That said, I do have confidence in Shaw's decision-making, and will take solace until kick-off in a few points: 
-  KC looked good in bowl game until injured
-  His knee & comfort level should continue to improve
-  Shaw will stick with a clear hot-hand. 
-  Shaw probably likes this lingering question mark even less than we do! 

[CornFed]

"We don't have enough evidence to conclusively say Costello is better than .
.  .  . Costello)."

I have largely enjoyed this thread, but I think it may be starting to get a little too metaphysical.

[CornFed]

"We don't have enough evidence to conclusively say Costello is better than .
.  .  . Costello)."

I have largely enjoyed this thread, but I think it may be starting to get a little too metaphysical.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

If Shaw were to start Costello over a now-healthy Chryst, he's making the decision. If the QBs both go out there against the same defense and Costello performs significantly better, then the two of them have made the decision for Shaw.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

If Shaw were to start Costello over a now-healthy Chryst, he's making the decision. If the QBs both go out there against the same defense and Costello performs significantly better, then the two of them have made the decision for Shaw.

[Stymie]

Coaching's a tough business.

That's why DS gets the big money and the big perks.  The proof will  be in the pudding tomorrow.  Go Cards!

[Stymie]

Coaching's a tough business.

That's why DS gets the big money and the big perks.  The proof will  be in the pudding tomorrow.  Go Cards!

[BostonCard]

Shawvitagren is on the verge of screwing up three years of QB play in a row.

2016: Start Burns, switch to Chryst midway through season. 
2017: Start Chryst, backup is Burns, but Costello is better than Burns and maybe Chryst too?
2018: Chryst a Senior, Costello may be the starter, but Mills might be the best talent?

The problem I see is there hasn't been a clear standard of performance set for the QB position.  It's been variable.  Poor performance has been tolerated, and the QB position (and even the passing game) is treated like it's some sort of 3-dimensional Rubik's Cube.

If you are going through these kinds of mental gymnastics to figure out who should be playing QB, the system is way too complicated, you are favoring experience over ability far too much, or both. 

One of Bill Walsh's greatest keys to success was setting a standard of performance for everyone and holding them accountable to it.  This move to put Chryst back in, despite Costello having performed better, flies in the face of valuing such standards.  Coaches who put loyalty over performance don't win as much as coaches who put performance over loyalty.

I think an alternate explanation is that the data is not yet conclusive and we have a limited sample size in Costello.  As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, through two games of the Burns era, I was feeling pretty good about the QB position, and it was only once the offense struggled against UW/WSU, and, especially, when Burns himself struggled against ND and Colorado that it became aparent that Burns was not the answer at QB.  Although many people retrospectively look at the first few games as red flags, the contemporaneous accounts where generally pretty positive, and that was reinforced by how the offense was doing against UNC until he was injured.

Here's a prediction.  Costello will become the starter and play OK.  Come next year, he will struggle at some point, and the peanut gallery will clamor for Mills.

BC

[BostonCard]

Shawvitagren is on the verge of screwing up three years of QB play in a row.

2016: Start Burns, switch to Chryst midway through season. 
2017: Start Chryst, backup is Burns, but Costello is better than Burns and maybe Chryst too?
2018: Chryst a Senior, Costello may be the starter, but Mills might be the best talent?

The problem I see is there hasn't been a clear standard of performance set for the QB position.  It's been variable.  Poor performance has been tolerated, and the QB position (and even the passing game) is treated like it's some sort of 3-dimensional Rubik's Cube.

If you are going through these kinds of mental gymnastics to figure out who should be playing QB, the system is way too complicated, you are favoring experience over ability far too much, or both. 

One of Bill Walsh's greatest keys to success was setting a standard of performance for everyone and holding them accountable to it.  This move to put Chryst back in, despite Costello having performed better, flies in the face of valuing such standards.  Coaches who put loyalty over performance don't win as much as coaches who put performance over loyalty.

I think an alternate explanation is that the data is not yet conclusive and we have a limited sample size in Costello.  As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, through two games of the Burns era, I was feeling pretty good about the QB position, and it was only once the offense struggled against UW/WSU, and, especially, when Burns himself struggled against ND and Colorado that it became aparent that Burns was not the answer at QB.  Although many people retrospectively look at the first few games as red flags, the contemporaneous accounts where generally pretty positive, and that was reinforced by how the offense was doing against UNC until he was injured.

Here's a prediction.  Costello will become the starter and play OK.  Come next year, he will struggle at some point, and the peanut gallery will clamor for Mills.

BC

[stupac2]

When talking about Burns it's important to remember that against KSU (who ended up being a pretty good team) he didn't just look good, he looked great. His PER of 170 was the third highest KSU gave up, trailing only OU and OKST. So maybe he was worse than Baker Mayfield, but he still played really well.

I have no idea what happened to him (although it's worth noting that, by PER at least, his game against WSU was nearly as good as KSU), the OL play going to hell and making him see demons is one explanation, or maybe KSU was just a weird outlier. But based on that game I think everyone was feeling pretty confident, and his slide into mediocrity wasn't terribly foreseeable.

Meanwhile, Chryst has never posted a PER that high against a reasonable team for a full game. He was off to a good start against UNC, but got injured. I think it's fairly to say that, against decent competition, Chryst's ceiling is low.

Meanwhile, Costello hasn't posted a PER lower than 130 in his 3 games. His worst game was against Rice! I just don't know what could possibly be making Shaw do this except a boneheaded commitment to a complex playbook.

[stupac2]

When talking about Burns it's important to remember that against KSU (who ended up being a pretty good team) he didn't just look good, he looked great. His PER of 170 was the third highest KSU gave up, trailing only OU and OKST. So maybe he was worse than Baker Mayfield, but he still played really well.

I have no idea what happened to him (although it's worth noting that, by PER at least, his game against WSU was nearly as good as KSU), the OL play going to hell and making him see demons is one explanation, or maybe KSU was just a weird outlier. But based on that game I think everyone was feeling pretty confident, and his slide into mediocrity wasn't terribly foreseeable.

Meanwhile, Chryst has never posted a PER that high against a reasonable team for a full game. He was off to a good start against UNC, but got injured. I think it's fairly to say that, against decent competition, Chryst's ceiling is low.

Meanwhile, Costello hasn't posted a PER lower than 130 in his 3 games. His worst game was against Rice! I just don't know what could possibly be making Shaw do this except a boneheaded commitment to a complex playbook.

[Goose]

Meanwhile, Costello hasn't posted a PER lower than 130 in his 3 games. His worst game was against Rice! I just don't know what could possibly be making Shaw do this except a boneheaded commitment to a complex playbook.

How about the idea that Costello's success is mostly due to poor opposing defenses, and that Utah's more capable and complex defense will not be susceptible to the limited playbook available to him? I don't think that concept is necessarily boneheaded. One  might ask why Costello's limitations are so large, but that is another issue. If Chryst can execute, he may be a better choice. Now, I personally doubt that Chryst can execute, but we shall see.
It is also quite possible that Shaw fully expects Costello to play most of the game. This whole thing could be a Schauspiel. However, I don't think so. I think Shaw really believes Chryst brings something to the party that Costello doesn't.

[Goose]

Meanwhile, Costello hasn't posted a PER lower than 130 in his 3 games. His worst game was against Rice! I just don't know what could possibly be making Shaw do this except a boneheaded commitment to a complex playbook.

How about the idea that Costello's success is mostly due to poor opposing defenses, and that Utah's more capable and complex defense will not be susceptible to the limited playbook available to him? I don't think that concept is necessarily boneheaded. One  might ask why Costello's limitations are so large, but that is another issue. If Chryst can execute, he may be a better choice. Now, I personally doubt that Chryst can execute, but we shall see.
It is also quite possible that Shaw fully expects Costello to play most of the game. This whole thing could be a Schauspiel. However, I don't think so. I think Shaw really believes Chryst brings something to the party that Costello doesn't.

[81alum]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17595.msg204453#msg204453 date=1507329403]
Meanwhile, Costello hasn't posted a PER lower than 130 in his 3 games. His worst game was against Rice! I just don't know what could possibly be making Shaw do this except a boneheaded commitment to a complex playbook.

How about the idea that Costello's success is mostly due to poor opposing defenses, and that Utah's more capable and complex defense will not be susceptible to the limited playbook available to him? I don't think that concept is necessarily boneheaded. One  might ask why Costello's limitations are so large, but that is another issue. If Chryst can execute, he may be a better choice. Now, I personally doubt that Chryst can execute, but we shall see.
It is also quite possible that Shaw fully expects Costello to play most of the game. This whole thing could be a Schauspiel. However, I don't think so. I think Shaw really believes Chryst brings something to the party that Costello doesn't.
[/quote]
At the chalk talk last week, it was asked whether the playbook would be limited because Costello was starting, and we were assured that Costello was quite advanced and that was not a consideration.

[81alum]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17595.msg204453#msg204453 date=1507329403]
Meanwhile, Costello hasn't posted a PER lower than 130 in his 3 games. His worst game was against Rice! I just don't know what could possibly be making Shaw do this except a boneheaded commitment to a complex playbook.

How about the idea that Costello's success is mostly due to poor opposing defenses, and that Utah's more capable and complex defense will not be susceptible to the limited playbook available to him? I don't think that concept is necessarily boneheaded. One  might ask why Costello's limitations are so large, but that is another issue. If Chryst can execute, he may be a better choice. Now, I personally doubt that Chryst can execute, but we shall see.
It is also quite possible that Shaw fully expects Costello to play most of the game. This whole thing could be a Schauspiel. However, I don't think so. I think Shaw really believes Chryst brings something to the party that Costello doesn't.
[/quote]
At the chalk talk last week, it was asked whether the playbook would be limited because Costello was starting, and we were assured that Costello was quite advanced and that was not a consideration.

[Goose]

At the chalk talk last week, it was asked whether the playbook would be limited because Costello was starting, and we were assured that Costello was quite advanced and that was not a consideration.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The ASU and UCLA games were for certain played with lots of simplification of the passing game. It could be that doing more wasn't necessary, but I don't think that was the reason. It is prudent to not ask or expect the "new kid" to do "too much". Now, I fully expect that Costello can execute, in theory, any play in the playbook. I also expect he can probably execute any plays installed this week (if he got first string reps, which he may not have). Whether he can execute all the plays that were installed in fall camp reliably, I am less certain. That can matter a lot. I don't believe for one second that Shaw would call the same plays for Costello as he would for Chryst.

[Goose]

At the chalk talk last week, it was asked whether the playbook would be limited because Costello was starting, and we were assured that Costello was quite advanced and that was not a consideration.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The ASU and UCLA games were for certain played with lots of simplification of the passing game. It could be that doing more wasn't necessary, but I don't think that was the reason. It is prudent to not ask or expect the "new kid" to do "too much". Now, I fully expect that Costello can execute, in theory, any play in the playbook. I also expect he can probably execute any plays installed this week (if he got first string reps, which he may not have). Whether he can execute all the plays that were installed in fall camp reliably, I am less certain. That can matter a lot. I don't believe for one second that Shaw would call the same plays for Costello as he would for Chryst.

[Mick]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=17595.msg204455#msg204455 date=1507330498]
At the chalk talk last week, it was asked whether the playbook would be limited because Costello was starting, and we were assured that Costello was quite advanced and that was not a consideration.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The ASU and UCLA games were for certain played with lots of simplification of the passing game. It could be that doing more wasn't necessary, but I don't think that was the reason. It is prudent to not ask or expect the "new kid" to do "too much". Now, I fully expect that Costello can execute, in theory, any play in the playbook. I also expect he can probably execute any plays installed this week (if he got first string reps, which he may not have). Whether he can execute all the plays that were installed in fall camp reliably, I am less certain. That can matter a lot. I don't believe for one second that Shaw would call the same plays for Costello as he would for Chryst.
[/quote]

I think Goose is right.  Utah has the best defense in the conference, by a margin, if you're talking about takeaways, interceptions and passes defended on a per-pass basis.  I think Shaw is naming Chryst starter in part to throw off Utah's very difficult defense, or at least make them work harder.  Also, Chryst has had the road games against tough opponents; he's battle-tested against U$C and SDSU on the road, KJ's games have been against two easier teams at home.  Finally, it's a lot easier to start Chryst and relieve him with KJ than vice versa.  I do think we'll see nine in the box.  Hopefully we'll see greatly improved OL play (versus OL play against SDSU and U$C).  Keep in mind, Utah gives up more yards through the air.  If they're seven in the box against Costello and nine in the box against Chryst, perhaps we have a better chance with Chryst through the air?  Utah's run defense is easily the best we'll see all year, though they don't actually get a lot of sacks.  Could be, maybe Shaw is not smoking something.

The real question, in my eyes, is how much rope he gives Chryst.  If he has a few three-and-outs, that's one thing.  What if he gets a TD and two field goals in five possessions?

[Mick]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=17595.msg204455#msg204455 date=1507330498]
At the chalk talk last week, it was asked whether the playbook would be limited because Costello was starting, and we were assured that Costello was quite advanced and that was not a consideration.

Sorry, but I don't buy it. The ASU and UCLA games were for certain played with lots of simplification of the passing game. It could be that doing more wasn't necessary, but I don't think that was the reason. It is prudent to not ask or expect the "new kid" to do "too much". Now, I fully expect that Costello can execute, in theory, any play in the playbook. I also expect he can probably execute any plays installed this week (if he got first string reps, which he may not have). Whether he can execute all the plays that were installed in fall camp reliably, I am less certain. That can matter a lot. I don't believe for one second that Shaw would call the same plays for Costello as he would for Chryst.
[/quote]

I think Goose is right.  Utah has the best defense in the conference, by a margin, if you're talking about takeaways, interceptions and passes defended on a per-pass basis.  I think Shaw is naming Chryst starter in part to throw off Utah's very difficult defense, or at least make them work harder.  Also, Chryst has had the road games against tough opponents; he's battle-tested against U$C and SDSU on the road, KJ's games have been against two easier teams at home.  Finally, it's a lot easier to start Chryst and relieve him with KJ than vice versa.  I do think we'll see nine in the box.  Hopefully we'll see greatly improved OL play (versus OL play against SDSU and U$C).  Keep in mind, Utah gives up more yards through the air.  If they're seven in the box against Costello and nine in the box against Chryst, perhaps we have a better chance with Chryst through the air?  Utah's run defense is easily the best we'll see all year, though they don't actually get a lot of sacks.  Could be, maybe Shaw is not smoking something.

The real question, in my eyes, is how much rope he gives Chryst.  If he has a few three-and-outs, that's one thing.  What if he gets a TD and two field goals in five possessions?

[washingtonismoney]

I pretty sure he knows a lot more than anyone here!

Sure. But sometimes the best and the brightest lose wars.

[washingtonismoney]

I pretty sure he knows a lot more than anyone here!

Sure. But sometimes the best and the brightest lose wars.

[teejers1]

Am sure some here may disagree, but this qualifies as another AYFKM decision by our beloved head coach:

End play at Fiesta;
At Utah end game;
Second and short at around Stanford's 40 yard line in tie game against SC late (picked off ==> SC's winning FG as time expired);
Home game against Utah that Stanford ultimately lost in 2OT
[Just off top of head].

The good news is that this AYFKM call may not cost Stanford a W. 

* Maybe Utah doesn't stuff the box and dare Stanford to throw (and Love runs wild);
* Maybe Utah does put 8 in the box, plus a Love spy, and Chryst burns them with a dazzling passing display;
*  Maybe neither team does much on O as they slog through Q4, and Love finally busts one for a go-ahead score late that holds.

Then again . . .

[teejers1]

Am sure some here may disagree, but this qualifies as another AYFKM decision by our beloved head coach:

End play at Fiesta;
At Utah end game;
Second and short at around Stanford's 40 yard line in tie game against SC late (picked off ==> SC's winning FG as time expired);
Home game against Utah that Stanford ultimately lost in 2OT
[Just off top of head].

The good news is that this AYFKM call may not cost Stanford a W. 

* Maybe Utah doesn't stuff the box and dare Stanford to throw (and Love runs wild);
* Maybe Utah does put 8 in the box, plus a Love spy, and Chryst burns them with a dazzling passing display;
*  Maybe neither team does much on O as they slog through Q4, and Love finally busts one for a go-ahead score late that holds.

Then again . . .

[murky]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17595.msg204409#msg204409 date=1507318557]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17595.msg204382#msg204382 date=1507317016]
Therefore, what this decision implicitly shows is the coaches' lack of confidence in Chryst. If you have a lack of confidence in one QB, and you have a youngish QB who by your own public assessment has done well, by god, go with the youngish QB! This seems less than hard.

I am afraid I can't quite follow that. I don't see any way this decision to start Chryst can be interpreted as showing a lack of confidence in Chryst, in fact, I would argue the opposite. Starting him could indicate an absolutely unwarranted confidence in him! Could you perhaps explain it in words of few syllables? I can see how putting Costello's name in the hat at all would indicate a lack of confidence in Chryst, but a true lack of confidence would be to start Costello. I didn't exactly expect Shaw to start Costello, but doing so would mean Chryst is done. Having two QBs means you have some degree of confidence in both but not full confidence in either. Sadly, that is probably where a rational man would sit at this point.
Somewhat irrationally, I prefer Costello, but I don't watch the practices. However, in games, I have never seen Chryst actually play "well". Some say Oregon last year, but they were so bad on defense I can't take any comfort in that. If Chryst doesn't really shine against Utah, I think you are correct, start the young guy and take any lumps due to inexperience. FWIW, I think Chryst's lack of mobility this year is at least partially due to his knee not being fully "right".
[/quote]

I think WIM was referring to the fact that Shaw pre-announced that Costello would play.  If you had confidence in your starter, and he was injured, and came back from an injury, you would simply say, "Chryst will be starting" without adding that "multiple QB's will see game action".

BC
[/quote]

Shaw has said in the past that a player would play, when it turned out the player didn't.  I don't think he considers such proclamations inviolate.

[murky]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17595.msg204409#msg204409 date=1507318557]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17595.msg204382#msg204382 date=1507317016]
Therefore, what this decision implicitly shows is the coaches' lack of confidence in Chryst. If you have a lack of confidence in one QB, and you have a youngish QB who by your own public assessment has done well, by god, go with the youngish QB! This seems less than hard.

I am afraid I can't quite follow that. I don't see any way this decision to start Chryst can be interpreted as showing a lack of confidence in Chryst, in fact, I would argue the opposite. Starting him could indicate an absolutely unwarranted confidence in him! Could you perhaps explain it in words of few syllables? I can see how putting Costello's name in the hat at all would indicate a lack of confidence in Chryst, but a true lack of confidence would be to start Costello. I didn't exactly expect Shaw to start Costello, but doing so would mean Chryst is done. Having two QBs means you have some degree of confidence in both but not full confidence in either. Sadly, that is probably where a rational man would sit at this point.
Somewhat irrationally, I prefer Costello, but I don't watch the practices. However, in games, I have never seen Chryst actually play "well". Some say Oregon last year, but they were so bad on defense I can't take any comfort in that. If Chryst doesn't really shine against Utah, I think you are correct, start the young guy and take any lumps due to inexperience. FWIW, I think Chryst's lack of mobility this year is at least partially due to his knee not being fully "right".
[/quote]

I think WIM was referring to the fact that Shaw pre-announced that Costello would play.  If you had confidence in your starter, and he was injured, and came back from an injury, you would simply say, "Chryst will be starting" without adding that "multiple QB's will see game action".

BC
[/quote]

Shaw has said in the past that a player would play, when it turned out the player didn't.  I don't think he considers such proclamations inviolate.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17595.msg204445#msg204445 date=1507324771]
Shawvitagren is on the verge of screwing up three years of QB play in a row.

2016: Start Burns, switch to Chryst midway through season. 
2017: Start Chryst, backup is Burns, but Costello is better than Burns and maybe Chryst too?
2018: Chryst a Senior, Costello may be the starter, but Mills might be the best talent?

The problem I see is there hasn't been a clear standard of performance set for the QB position.  It's been variable.  Poor performance has been tolerated, and the QB position (and even the passing game) is treated like it's some sort of 3-dimensional Rubik's Cube.

If you are going through these kinds of mental gymnastics to figure out who should be playing QB, the system is way too complicated, you are favoring experience over ability far too much, or both. 

One of Bill Walsh's greatest keys to success was setting a standard of performance for everyone and holding them accountable to it.  This move to put Chryst back in, despite Costello having performed better, flies in the face of valuing such standards.  Coaches who put loyalty over performance don't win as much as coaches who put performance over loyalty.

I think an alternate explanation is that the data is not yet conclusive and we have a limited sample size in Costello.  As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, through two games of the Burns era, I was feeling pretty good about the QB position, and it was only once the offense struggled against UW/WSU, and, especially, when Burns himself struggled against ND and Colorado that it became aparent that Burns was not the answer at QB.  Although many people retrospectively look at the first few games as red flags, the contemporaneous accounts where generally pretty positive, and that was reinforced by how the offense was doing against UNC until he was injured.

Here's a prediction.  Costello will become the starter and play OK.  Come next year, he will struggle at some point, and the peanut gallery will clamor for Mills.

BC
[/quote]

The KSU game is a total mystery to me.  Burns started out great in the first half, but that was the last half of good QB play he's had, with the exception of the last minute drive to beat UCLA, which again, in retrospect seems impossible to believe he pulled off, when also seeing his games against UW, WSU, ND, Colorado.  But I was over Burns after the UCLA game, despite the last minute heroics.  He clearly demonstrated he was far too limited to be a championship-level QB by then, IMO.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17595.msg204445#msg204445 date=1507324771]
Shawvitagren is on the verge of screwing up three years of QB play in a row.

2016: Start Burns, switch to Chryst midway through season. 
2017: Start Chryst, backup is Burns, but Costello is better than Burns and maybe Chryst too?
2018: Chryst a Senior, Costello may be the starter, but Mills might be the best talent?

The problem I see is there hasn't been a clear standard of performance set for the QB position.  It's been variable.  Poor performance has been tolerated, and the QB position (and even the passing game) is treated like it's some sort of 3-dimensional Rubik's Cube.

If you are going through these kinds of mental gymnastics to figure out who should be playing QB, the system is way too complicated, you are favoring experience over ability far too much, or both. 

One of Bill Walsh's greatest keys to success was setting a standard of performance for everyone and holding them accountable to it.  This move to put Chryst back in, despite Costello having performed better, flies in the face of valuing such standards.  Coaches who put loyalty over performance don't win as much as coaches who put performance over loyalty.

I think an alternate explanation is that the data is not yet conclusive and we have a limited sample size in Costello.  As I've mentioned earlier in this thread, through two games of the Burns era, I was feeling pretty good about the QB position, and it was only once the offense struggled against UW/WSU, and, especially, when Burns himself struggled against ND and Colorado that it became aparent that Burns was not the answer at QB.  Although many people retrospectively look at the first few games as red flags, the contemporaneous accounts where generally pretty positive, and that was reinforced by how the offense was doing against UNC until he was injured.

Here's a prediction.  Costello will become the starter and play OK.  Come next year, he will struggle at some point, and the peanut gallery will clamor for Mills.

BC
[/quote]

The KSU game is a total mystery to me.  Burns started out great in the first half, but that was the last half of good QB play he's had, with the exception of the last minute drive to beat UCLA, which again, in retrospect seems impossible to believe he pulled off, when also seeing his games against UW, WSU, ND, Colorado.  But I was over Burns after the UCLA game, despite the last minute heroics.  He clearly demonstrated he was far too limited to be a championship-level QB by then, IMO.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=17596.msg204443#msg204443 date=1507324122]
I pretty sure he knows a lot more than anyone here!

Sure. But sometimes the best and the brightest lose wars.
[/quote]

Sure, but this thread has all the markings of people thinking that that not only is Shaw not one of the "best and brightest" but that he is a dolt.  Moreover, rather than acknowledge that this is a situation where in the face of limited data, differing conclusions are reasonable, everyone seems convinced with more certainty than is warranted that this was a bad decision by Shaw.

I mean, the best and the brightest make mistakes, but I would say let's see how this plays out before declaring it so.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=17596.msg204443#msg204443 date=1507324122]
I pretty sure he knows a lot more than anyone here!

Sure. But sometimes the best and the brightest lose wars.
[/quote]

Sure, but this thread has all the markings of people thinking that that not only is Shaw not one of the "best and brightest" but that he is a dolt.  Moreover, rather than acknowledge that this is a situation where in the face of limited data, differing conclusions are reasonable, everyone seems convinced with more certainty than is warranted that this was a bad decision by Shaw.

I mean, the best and the brightest make mistakes, but I would say let's see how this plays out before declaring it so.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

The KSU game is a total mystery to me.  Burns started out great in the first half, but that was the last half of good QB play he's had, with the exception of the last minute drive to beat UCLA, which again, in retrospect seems impossible to believe he pulled off, when also seeing his games against UW, WSU, ND, Colorado.  But I was over Burns after the UCLA game, despite the last minute heroics.  He clearly demonstrated he was far too limited to be a championship-level QB by then, IMO.

He was pretty solid against SC the next week too. I think it was the UW game that stretched my patience with him.

[washingtonismoney]

The KSU game is a total mystery to me.  Burns started out great in the first half, but that was the last half of good QB play he's had, with the exception of the last minute drive to beat UCLA, which again, in retrospect seems impossible to believe he pulled off, when also seeing his games against UW, WSU, ND, Colorado.  But I was over Burns after the UCLA game, despite the last minute heroics.  He clearly demonstrated he was far too limited to be a championship-level QB by then, IMO.

He was pretty solid against SC the next week too. I think it was the UW game that stretched my patience with him.

[washingtonismoney]

Sure, but this thread has all the markings of people thinking that that not only is Shaw not one of the "best and brightest" but that he is a dolt.  Moreover, rather than acknowledge that this is a situation where in the face of limited data, differing conclusions are reasonable, everyone seems convinced with more certainty than is warranted that this was a bad decision by Shaw.

I mean, the best and the brightest make mistakes, but I would say let's see how this plays out before declaring it so.

BC

That's fair. If Chryst turns it around I'll give him the credit. I think Shaw has shown over his tenure he's an excellent coach. That being said, while the objective results so far these year have been more-or-less in line with my expectations, I feel the coaching has been turbulent, quality-wise. While I'll wait for the end of the season to render final judgment, it might be worth re-thinking some aspects of his coaching approach. (Which might or might not necessitate a staff overhaul. Note also that, due to a NCAA rule change, the staff will be getting the chance to add another coach in the coming offseason.)

[washingtonismoney]

Sure, but this thread has all the markings of people thinking that that not only is Shaw not one of the "best and brightest" but that he is a dolt.  Moreover, rather than acknowledge that this is a situation where in the face of limited data, differing conclusions are reasonable, everyone seems convinced with more certainty than is warranted that this was a bad decision by Shaw.

I mean, the best and the brightest make mistakes, but I would say let's see how this plays out before declaring it so.

BC

That's fair. If Chryst turns it around I'll give him the credit. I think Shaw has shown over his tenure he's an excellent coach. That being said, while the objective results so far these year have been more-or-less in line with my expectations, I feel the coaching has been turbulent, quality-wise. While I'll wait for the end of the season to render final judgment, it might be worth re-thinking some aspects of his coaching approach. (Which might or might not necessitate a staff overhaul. Note also that, due to a NCAA rule change, the staff will be getting the chance to add another coach in the coming offseason.)

[BostonCard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17595.msg204463#msg204463 date=1507334325]
The KSU game is a total mystery to me.  Burns started out great in the first half, but that was the last half of good QB play he's had, with the exception of the last minute drive to beat UCLA, which again, in retrospect seems impossible to believe he pulled off, when also seeing his games against UW, WSU, ND, Colorado.  But I was over Burns after the UCLA game, despite the last minute heroics.  He clearly demonstrated he was far too limited to be a championship-level QB by then, IMO.

He was pretty solid against SC the next week too. I think it was the UW game that stretched my patience with him.
[/quote]

And if you look at the line for UW, it wasn't actually that bad (15/22, 68% completion, 151 yards, 6.9 ypa, 1 TD, 0 INT, PER 140.8).  Though I think that is a game where the stats don't tell the story, and it was Burns' inability to do anything in the face of the rush that was infuriating.  That being said, after that game, I remember thinking that the OL was a bigger problem than play at QB.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17595.msg204463#msg204463 date=1507334325]
The KSU game is a total mystery to me.  Burns started out great in the first half, but that was the last half of good QB play he's had, with the exception of the last minute drive to beat UCLA, which again, in retrospect seems impossible to believe he pulled off, when also seeing his games against UW, WSU, ND, Colorado.  But I was over Burns after the UCLA game, despite the last minute heroics.  He clearly demonstrated he was far too limited to be a championship-level QB by then, IMO.

He was pretty solid against SC the next week too. I think it was the UW game that stretched my patience with him.
[/quote]

And if you look at the line for UW, it wasn't actually that bad (15/22, 68% completion, 151 yards, 6.9 ypa, 1 TD, 0 INT, PER 140.8).  Though I think that is a game where the stats don't tell the story, and it was Burns' inability to do anything in the face of the rush that was infuriating.  That being said, after that game, I remember thinking that the OL was a bigger problem than play at QB.

BC

[BostonCard]

That's fair. If Chryst turns it around I'll give him the credit. I think Shaw has shown over his tenure he's an excellent coach. That being said, while the objective results so far these year have been more-or-less in line with my expectations, I feel the coaching has been turbulent, quality-wise. While I'll wait for the end of the season to render final judgment, it might be worth re-thinking some aspects of his coaching approach. (Which might or might not necessitate a staff overhaul. Note also that, due to a NCAA rule change, the staff will be getting the chance to add another coach in the coming offseason.)

I think a good recent example is the shuffle in the offensive line after USC.  I think it was you who called the move "panicky", and my impressions after the first game with the new alignment were to agree with you.  There seemed nothing in the first game to suggest that the OL was any better than it had been against Rice and USC.  It certainly had a look of a coaching staff making a change for the sake of making a change.

Two games later, I think a reassessment is warranted.  We will see how they perform against a stronger defensive line this week end, but the games against UCLA and ASU suggest that maybe the new alignment was an improvement over what came before, and the decision, rather than looking like a sign of panic might be viewed in the context of being cautious about starting a true freshman at left tackle until he proved he was ready.

BC

[BostonCard]

That's fair. If Chryst turns it around I'll give him the credit. I think Shaw has shown over his tenure he's an excellent coach. That being said, while the objective results so far these year have been more-or-less in line with my expectations, I feel the coaching has been turbulent, quality-wise. While I'll wait for the end of the season to render final judgment, it might be worth re-thinking some aspects of his coaching approach. (Which might or might not necessitate a staff overhaul. Note also that, due to a NCAA rule change, the staff will be getting the chance to add another coach in the coming offseason.)

I think a good recent example is the shuffle in the offensive line after USC.  I think it was you who called the move "panicky", and my impressions after the first game with the new alignment were to agree with you.  There seemed nothing in the first game to suggest that the OL was any better than it had been against Rice and USC.  It certainly had a look of a coaching staff making a change for the sake of making a change.

Two games later, I think a reassessment is warranted.  We will see how they perform against a stronger defensive line this week end, but the games against UCLA and ASU suggest that maybe the new alignment was an improvement over what came before, and the decision, rather than looking like a sign of panic might be viewed in the context of being cautious about starting a true freshman at left tackle until he proved he was ready.

BC