[Goose]

Amen. This was a big Shaw miscalculation this year, and I bet in his heart, even if he wouldn't say it out loud, he knows it.

I am not so sure it was a "miscalculation" in Shaw's mind. It is also open to discussion what and when the miscalculation was. One could argue that in an ideal world, Shaw would have recognized that neither Burns nor Chryst was going to "succeed" and started Costello as a freshman. Probably some on this board did in fact suggest that. However, I don't think it would be reasonable to argue that was clearly a "good" strategy at the time. A better argument could be made that after Chryst got hurt in the bowl game, it was time to switch to Costello. However, Chryst had looked "pretty good", albeit against bad teams. Also, the "you shouldn't lose your job due to injury" ethos undoubtedly played a part in how that was decided. The real decision point was after Costello replaced Chryst against UCLA. Bringing Chryst back two games later could be, and was, questioned. However, I think two things saved Chryst's position, for a while. First, there were some problems on the OL that were just getting sorted out. Making too many changes at once seems to muddy the waters. Second, Chryst was a team captain and had worked very hard to get back from his previous injury. Apparently he showed better in practice than he did in games. I believe the thought was "He has to be granted an opportunity to prove himself. He has done enough to require that we give him that chance." He almost did it. Utah was not great, but also not terrible. Oregon looked real good for him. The debacle against OSU was just too much. So Shaw may feel that he did what had to be done. It could be argued he gave Chryst way too much rope. Shaw may not feel that way.

[Goose]

Amen. This was a big Shaw miscalculation this year, and I bet in his heart, even if he wouldn't say it out loud, he knows it.

I am not so sure it was a "miscalculation" in Shaw's mind. It is also open to discussion what and when the miscalculation was. One could argue that in an ideal world, Shaw would have recognized that neither Burns nor Chryst was going to "succeed" and started Costello as a freshman. Probably some on this board did in fact suggest that. However, I don't think it would be reasonable to argue that was clearly a "good" strategy at the time. A better argument could be made that after Chryst got hurt in the bowl game, it was time to switch to Costello. However, Chryst had looked "pretty good", albeit against bad teams. Also, the "you shouldn't lose your job due to injury" ethos undoubtedly played a part in how that was decided. The real decision point was after Costello replaced Chryst against UCLA. Bringing Chryst back two games later could be, and was, questioned. However, I think two things saved Chryst's position, for a while. First, there were some problems on the OL that were just getting sorted out. Making too many changes at once seems to muddy the waters. Second, Chryst was a team captain and had worked very hard to get back from his previous injury. Apparently he showed better in practice than he did in games. I believe the thought was "He has to be granted an opportunity to prove himself. He has done enough to require that we give him that chance." He almost did it. Utah was not great, but also not terrible. Oregon looked real good for him. The debacle against OSU was just too much. So Shaw may feel that he did what had to be done. It could be argued he gave Chryst way too much rope. Shaw may not feel that way.