[CTcard]

Interesting difference: Nottingham was never a serious option -- Shaw skipped straight from Nunes to Hogan without pausing to consider Nottingham. I don't think he got a single snap in 2012.

It took a bit of time for Shaw to get to Costello. Burns got in the Rice game before Costello, and also got the first call in the UCLA game. In fact, it went Burns for a drive; Costello for two failed drives; then back to Burns; then, finally, Costello got back in and the offense took off. So Shaw was less sold on Costello than he was Hogan, relative to their competition.

Part of that seems to be a misevaluation: while it's not necessarily certain Costello is better than Chryst, I think 100% of the board would agree he's definitely better than Burns. So Shaw erred there, seemingly, though it was a mistake without serious consequence. But I wonder whether part of it is simply that Costello is behind Hogan's growth curve.

Couple of things.

The funny thing about 2012 is that just about until he played vs Colorado, none of the fan base thought Hogan was a serious option. There was a loud cry for Nottingham, based pretty much entirely on him not being Nunes. When we had last seen Hogan at an open practice, he looked decidedly unready to be on the field. Shaw did say something preseason, when asked about the QB competition, to the effect that Hogan was competing as well, but it seemed most everyone took that as a generic "keep your chin up" to Hogan rather than a real statement about who might play.

It was rather ironic that it was actually Nottingham who was not a real option.

========
I don't think you correctly assess the relative status of Burns and Costello at the start of the year. It looks to me as if the plan was always to have a package for Burns and for Costello to be the #2.

In the Rice game, once it became safely under control (which really happened about the time Love ran for 70 yards on the first play from scrimmage) Burns and Costello were both going to play. Burns got in first as a nod towards seniority, but Costello got more snaps.

In the UCLA game, I believe that Shaw was trying to shield Costello from  the most difficult situations, but otherwise was going with Costello as the man to step in. So Burns appeared immediately after the shock of Chryst's injury and Burns appeared when we were backed up inside our own 10 yard line. Otherwise it was Costello. And by the next week Burns was back to package plays only (which have apparently disappeared since then).

[CTcard]

Interesting difference: Nottingham was never a serious option -- Shaw skipped straight from Nunes to Hogan without pausing to consider Nottingham. I don't think he got a single snap in 2012.

It took a bit of time for Shaw to get to Costello. Burns got in the Rice game before Costello, and also got the first call in the UCLA game. In fact, it went Burns for a drive; Costello for two failed drives; then back to Burns; then, finally, Costello got back in and the offense took off. So Shaw was less sold on Costello than he was Hogan, relative to their competition.

Part of that seems to be a misevaluation: while it's not necessarily certain Costello is better than Chryst, I think 100% of the board would agree he's definitely better than Burns. So Shaw erred there, seemingly, though it was a mistake without serious consequence. But I wonder whether part of it is simply that Costello is behind Hogan's growth curve.

Couple of things.

The funny thing about 2012 is that just about until he played vs Colorado, none of the fan base thought Hogan was a serious option. There was a loud cry for Nottingham, based pretty much entirely on him not being Nunes. When we had last seen Hogan at an open practice, he looked decidedly unready to be on the field. Shaw did say something preseason, when asked about the QB competition, to the effect that Hogan was competing as well, but it seemed most everyone took that as a generic "keep your chin up" to Hogan rather than a real statement about who might play.

It was rather ironic that it was actually Nottingham who was not a real option.

========
I don't think you correctly assess the relative status of Burns and Costello at the start of the year. It looks to me as if the plan was always to have a package for Burns and for Costello to be the #2.

In the Rice game, once it became safely under control (which really happened about the time Love ran for 70 yards on the first play from scrimmage) Burns and Costello were both going to play. Burns got in first as a nod towards seniority, but Costello got more snaps.

In the UCLA game, I believe that Shaw was trying to shield Costello from  the most difficult situations, but otherwise was going with Costello as the man to step in. So Burns appeared immediately after the shock of Chryst's injury and Burns appeared when we were backed up inside our own 10 yard line. Otherwise it was Costello. And by the next week Burns was back to package plays only (which have apparently disappeared since then).