[washingtonismoney]

Let's back up a bit.  Chryst did beat out Burns, eventually.  He didn't beat out Burns initially, but initially Burns actually played well to start last year (against Kansas State: 14/18, 8.7 ypa, 1 TD, 0 INT).  His performance against U$C was acceptable (and we won).  His performance against UCLA was a red flag, until he led the winning touchdown drive.  It was only in back-to-back losses against Washington and Washington State where the bottom fell out for him and he was never the same.  His fate was clinched in horrible performances against Votre Dame and Colorado.

True points there. Possible Burns looked really that sparkling in practice. Still, other plausible interpretation is that this reflects not-so-great performance from either. Not determinative on its own.

Was "seven years" of play a typeo, or are you referring also to his high school career?  In any case, I think there are legitimate questions about his accuracy, and you are correct, the fact that he seems to struggle to make even open throws accurately is a red flag.  Then again, that suggests somewhat of a mental rather than a physical limitation, and perhaps the staff thinks he can overcome it.

Was referring to his high school career, yes. Again, ordinarily I wouldn't put much stock in high school stats but my feeling is...when you have such a long track record of poor completion percentage, questions need to be asked.

The inability to evade a rush seems more likely a result of his knee injury, since this wasn't much of an issue last year (or, was less of an issue than for his predecessor).

Agreed, which is why I specified he couldn't evade the rush in 2017. On its own, maybe not a long-run concern but you add it with the other factors and...

While my instinct is with yours; that over the course of eight full games in 2016 and 2017, against a variety of opponents, most of them with sub-par defenses, Chryst has played below-average for a QB.  I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that the QB whose game you haven't seen is magically better than the one you have in place.  But based on the (albeit scant) evidence we have to date: two nearly full games for Costello, eight full games for Chryst, I think Costello is the better QB.  But again, with two full games under Burns' belt last year, comparing him to the eight games we've had of Chryst, one might have concluded that Burns is the better QB.

Agree here too. We don't have enough evidence to conclusively say Costello is better than Burns (or, for that matter, Costello). On the other hand, it's also possible Costello is substantially better than either. (Whether that's because what Costello displayed in his first two games is his "true" level or whether it's because he's actually much better than his last two games.)

In other words it seems to me that there's a
... non-negligible chance he's worse than Burns/Chryst
... a decent chance he's on the same level
... a solid chance he's better, though not exceptionally so
... a decent chance he's way better

The distribution of odds clearly favors a switch to Costello.

[washingtonismoney]

Let's back up a bit.  Chryst did beat out Burns, eventually.  He didn't beat out Burns initially, but initially Burns actually played well to start last year (against Kansas State: 14/18, 8.7 ypa, 1 TD, 0 INT).  His performance against U$C was acceptable (and we won).  His performance against UCLA was a red flag, until he led the winning touchdown drive.  It was only in back-to-back losses against Washington and Washington State where the bottom fell out for him and he was never the same.  His fate was clinched in horrible performances against Votre Dame and Colorado.

True points there. Possible Burns looked really that sparkling in practice. Still, other plausible interpretation is that this reflects not-so-great performance from either. Not determinative on its own.

Was "seven years" of play a typeo, or are you referring also to his high school career?  In any case, I think there are legitimate questions about his accuracy, and you are correct, the fact that he seems to struggle to make even open throws accurately is a red flag.  Then again, that suggests somewhat of a mental rather than a physical limitation, and perhaps the staff thinks he can overcome it.

Was referring to his high school career, yes. Again, ordinarily I wouldn't put much stock in high school stats but my feeling is...when you have such a long track record of poor completion percentage, questions need to be asked.

The inability to evade a rush seems more likely a result of his knee injury, since this wasn't much of an issue last year (or, was less of an issue than for his predecessor).

Agreed, which is why I specified he couldn't evade the rush in 2017. On its own, maybe not a long-run concern but you add it with the other factors and...

While my instinct is with yours; that over the course of eight full games in 2016 and 2017, against a variety of opponents, most of them with sub-par defenses, Chryst has played below-average for a QB.  I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that the QB whose game you haven't seen is magically better than the one you have in place.  But based on the (albeit scant) evidence we have to date: two nearly full games for Costello, eight full games for Chryst, I think Costello is the better QB.  But again, with two full games under Burns' belt last year, comparing him to the eight games we've had of Chryst, one might have concluded that Burns is the better QB.

Agree here too. We don't have enough evidence to conclusively say Costello is better than Burns (or, for that matter, Costello). On the other hand, it's also possible Costello is substantially better than either. (Whether that's because what Costello displayed in his first two games is his "true" level or whether it's because he's actually much better than his last two games.)

In other words it seems to me that there's a
... non-negligible chance he's worse than Burns/Chryst
... a decent chance he's on the same level
... a solid chance he's better, though not exceptionally so
... a decent chance he's way better

The distribution of odds clearly favors a switch to Costello.