[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