[Goose]

Also, it is hard to say that in 2013 and 2014 the problem was because we had an inexperienced QB learning the system.  The problem years were:

2008, where you had Luck redshirting while Pritchard struggled offensively.  Maybe with an easier playbook, Luck starts and excels.  But Luck was such a talent that there is a very good chance that Luck would have somehow made it work with the playbook we had.

2012, where you had Nunes starting while a soon to be more effective Hogan was on the bench for half the season.  Perhaps with a simplified playbook, RS Freshman Hogan starts from day 1 and our offense is somewhat better.

Maybe 2016, where you had Costello redshirting while Burns struggled.  Maybe with a simplified playbook, Costello beats out the two upperclassmen and starts as a freshman.  Ultimately, we should get a sense next year.  If Costello is the real deal, we will wonder why he didn't start this year.

Maybe next year, again, if Mills redshirts and we struggle at QB because Chryst's recovery takes more like the typical 7-9 months than 6 months and Costello is ineffective.

BC

All true, if you believe that Shaw et al thinks as follows: " I see that in practice Luck/Hogan makes more yards and gives me better performance against the defense, but I won't burn their redshirt because they can't run every play in the book".
In the case of Luck, JH actually had decided to start Luck and Luck talked him out of it, if you believe what is written. I believe Nunes started because he was thought to produce better results, period. When it became clear Hogan was better, he started. And yes, in year 1 for both Hogan and Luck, they didn't do as much reading at the line as they both did later. The ran a simpler offense, but they were still the best choice. They started because it was thought they were better. It is not just the playbook. It is the total package. I sat through the agony of the TCU game with Pritchard as the QB. To me, they didn't burn Lucks redshirt because they were afraid he might get killed. No way to waste a great player, and no, I don't think the results of playing him as a freshman would have been good. That team wasn't good. Changing the QB wouldn't have made it good. Luck may have not been altruistic when he talked JH out of starting him.
This year, some people on this board said that they thought Costello looked better than both Burns and Chryst. Apparently, the staff didn't agree. It seems to me that it isn't simply that Costello didn't have as good a grasp of the playbook. It was because, as a total package, the coaches didn't think he was better. They may be wrong, but it is a total value judgement, not a dogma. If Shaw thinks Mills gives us a better chance to win, he will play instead of Costello. Not being able to "read" the defense quite as well is a down side, but it isn't a dis-qualifier ipso facto.

[Goose]

Also, it is hard to say that in 2013 and 2014 the problem was because we had an inexperienced QB learning the system.  The problem years were:

2008, where you had Luck redshirting while Pritchard struggled offensively.  Maybe with an easier playbook, Luck starts and excels.  But Luck was such a talent that there is a very good chance that Luck would have somehow made it work with the playbook we had.

2012, where you had Nunes starting while a soon to be more effective Hogan was on the bench for half the season.  Perhaps with a simplified playbook, RS Freshman Hogan starts from day 1 and our offense is somewhat better.

Maybe 2016, where you had Costello redshirting while Burns struggled.  Maybe with a simplified playbook, Costello beats out the two upperclassmen and starts as a freshman.  Ultimately, we should get a sense next year.  If Costello is the real deal, we will wonder why he didn't start this year.

Maybe next year, again, if Mills redshirts and we struggle at QB because Chryst's recovery takes more like the typical 7-9 months than 6 months and Costello is ineffective.

BC

All true, if you believe that Shaw et al thinks as follows: " I see that in practice Luck/Hogan makes more yards and gives me better performance against the defense, but I won't burn their redshirt because they can't run every play in the book".
In the case of Luck, JH actually had decided to start Luck and Luck talked him out of it, if you believe what is written. I believe Nunes started because he was thought to produce better results, period. When it became clear Hogan was better, he started. And yes, in year 1 for both Hogan and Luck, they didn't do as much reading at the line as they both did later. The ran a simpler offense, but they were still the best choice. They started because it was thought they were better. It is not just the playbook. It is the total package. I sat through the agony of the TCU game with Pritchard as the QB. To me, they didn't burn Lucks redshirt because they were afraid he might get killed. No way to waste a great player, and no, I don't think the results of playing him as a freshman would have been good. That team wasn't good. Changing the QB wouldn't have made it good. Luck may have not been altruistic when he talked JH out of starting him.
This year, some people on this board said that they thought Costello looked better than both Burns and Chryst. Apparently, the staff didn't agree. It seems to me that it isn't simply that Costello didn't have as good a grasp of the playbook. It was because, as a total package, the coaches didn't think he was better. They may be wrong, but it is a total value judgement, not a dogma. If Shaw thinks Mills gives us a better chance to win, he will play instead of Costello. Not being able to "read" the defense quite as well is a down side, but it isn't a dis-qualifier ipso facto.