[yvonne]

I don't think it's necessarily a big black mark to have two ineffective highly-rated QBs. (Indeed, 2012 saw more-or-less the same phenomenon; I've observed the same thing at Alabama.) Three is the problem... but that goes back to the basic question of why-didn't-Stanford-recruit-a-QB-in-2015. Sam Darnold or Brandon Wimbush or Josh Rosen should've been the Kevin Hogan to Ryan Burns's Josh Nunes.

I made a similar statement before, and realized that while the Burns/Chryst competition and their respective inability to run the offense is similar to the Nunes/Nottingham situation, it doesn't follow that the redshirt freshman sitting in the wings is going to be the equivalent of Kevin Hogan.

[yvonne]

I don't think it's necessarily a big black mark to have two ineffective highly-rated QBs. (Indeed, 2012 saw more-or-less the same phenomenon; I've observed the same thing at Alabama.) Three is the problem... but that goes back to the basic question of why-didn't-Stanford-recruit-a-QB-in-2015. Sam Darnold or Brandon Wimbush or Josh Rosen should've been the Kevin Hogan to Ryan Burns's Josh Nunes.

I made a similar statement before, and realized that while the Burns/Chryst competition and their respective inability to run the offense is similar to the Nunes/Nottingham situation, it doesn't follow that the redshirt freshman sitting in the wings is going to be the equivalent of Kevin Hogan.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

Chryst wasn't good, to be sure.  But, he got zero help from his receivers, particularly Rector.  The ball he threw off Rector's hands was an NFL throw that Jake Browning could never make.  He threw two other balls to Rector that were imperfect but certainly catchable.  Rector's catch radius is basically his numbers, so not giving Burns or Chryst much margin for error.  Irwin had a drop, Schultz had a drop, McCaffrey had a drop. 

There were bad reads and bad footwork.  The latter very reminiscent of Hogan in 2014 and partially to blame on the generally awful pass blocking, especially during the first half when UA's only competent D lineman was in the game.

Chryst is younger and has more upside than Burns, so unless there is a measurable difference between the two (and I don't see one--they are both pretty bad), Chryst should play.

[MustardtheBallCarrier]

Chryst wasn't good, to be sure.  But, he got zero help from his receivers, particularly Rector.  The ball he threw off Rector's hands was an NFL throw that Jake Browning could never make.  He threw two other balls to Rector that were imperfect but certainly catchable.  Rector's catch radius is basically his numbers, so not giving Burns or Chryst much margin for error.  Irwin had a drop, Schultz had a drop, McCaffrey had a drop. 

There were bad reads and bad footwork.  The latter very reminiscent of Hogan in 2014 and partially to blame on the generally awful pass blocking, especially during the first half when UA's only competent D lineman was in the game.

Chryst is younger and has more upside than Burns, so unless there is a measurable difference between the two (and I don't see one--they are both pretty bad), Chryst should play.

[washingtonismoney]

I made a similar statement before, and realized that while the Burns/Chryst competition and their respective inability to run the offense is similar to the Nunes/Nottingham situation, it doesn't follow that the redshirt freshman sitting in the wings is going to be the equivalent of Kevin Hogan.

I agree it doesn't necessarily follow but the coaches had plenty of good options work out at their camps. They offered Ricky Town, who has done nothing in college so far; and Brandon Wimbush, too late. So they could've gotten something done but failed.

[washingtonismoney]

I made a similar statement before, and realized that while the Burns/Chryst competition and their respective inability to run the offense is similar to the Nunes/Nottingham situation, it doesn't follow that the redshirt freshman sitting in the wings is going to be the equivalent of Kevin Hogan.

I agree it doesn't necessarily follow but the coaches had plenty of good options work out at their camps. They offered Ricky Town, who has done nothing in college so far; and Brandon Wimbush, too late. So they could've gotten something done but failed.

[yvonne]

I agree that it was a mistake not to have signed a quarterback that year, but Burns, and especially Chryst were also highly rated. I think the issue is development and having game experience as backups.

[yvonne]

I agree that it was a mistake not to have signed a quarterback that year, but Burns, and especially Chryst were also highly rated. I think the issue is development and having game experience as backups.

[washingtonismoney]

I agree that it was a mistake not to have signed a quarterback that year, but Burns, and especially Chryst were also highly rated. I think the issue is development and having game experience as backups.

Well, my point is it's not unusual to see two highly ranked quarterbacks do not-so-well. It is much more unusual to see three. Here's a shorthand -- some guy calculated the odds of recruits of a given ranking going to the pros: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/5-stars-first...ecruit-pro

Both Chryst and Burns were 4-star players, meaning they each only had a 21% chance of going pro. So about a 49% chance that both aren't of pro quality. Adding a third four-star-quality player lowers the odds to 38%.

Of course I've considered a slightly different question than "what are the odds of getting at least one competent QB" -- assuming you believe both Chryst and Burns aren't salvageable at all, under any circumstances* -- but I think my point still stands. I think we see this play out all the time. Alabama's Cooper Bateman and Blake Barnett are both meh. Good thing they have Jalen Hurts. And so on.

* (I don't necessarily agree. I think Burns was competent enough when the line was playing solidly -- i.e. in the first two games in the season -- and so I don't agree he's a complete failure. Of course he's by no means good and can't rescue a bad situation, such as the one the team finds itself in currently. But that's not quite the same as declaring him a failure in almost all applicable circumstances, the way we might suspect, say -- sorry to dump on him as a scapegoat, but -- Jordan Perez is.)

[washingtonismoney]

I agree that it was a mistake not to have signed a quarterback that year, but Burns, and especially Chryst were also highly rated. I think the issue is development and having game experience as backups.

Well, my point is it's not unusual to see two highly ranked quarterbacks do not-so-well. It is much more unusual to see three. Here's a shorthand -- some guy calculated the odds of recruits of a given ranking going to the pros: http://mgoblog.com/diaries/5-stars-first...ecruit-pro

Both Chryst and Burns were 4-star players, meaning they each only had a 21% chance of going pro. So about a 49% chance that both aren't of pro quality. Adding a third four-star-quality player lowers the odds to 38%.

Of course I've considered a slightly different question than "what are the odds of getting at least one competent QB" -- assuming you believe both Chryst and Burns aren't salvageable at all, under any circumstances* -- but I think my point still stands. I think we see this play out all the time. Alabama's Cooper Bateman and Blake Barnett are both meh. Good thing they have Jalen Hurts. And so on.

* (I don't necessarily agree. I think Burns was competent enough when the line was playing solidly -- i.e. in the first two games in the season -- and so I don't agree he's a complete failure. Of course he's by no means good and can't rescue a bad situation, such as the one the team finds itself in currently. But that's not quite the same as declaring him a failure in almost all applicable circumstances, the way we might suspect, say -- sorry to dump on him as a scapegoat, but -- Jordan Perez is.)

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

OF, I appreciate your willingness to voice unpopular opinions. However, I think your "Chryst sucks at everything" analysis is simply unfair. I won't accuse you of being intentionally provocative, but it reads that way. Chryst very clearly has NFL-caliber physical attributes. His problems last night were mostly in terms of fundamentals. His overall performance was not good, to be sure. But he had very specific problems that hurt him, namely his decisiveness and his arm slot.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

OF, I appreciate your willingness to voice unpopular opinions. However, I think your "Chryst sucks at everything" analysis is simply unfair. I won't accuse you of being intentionally provocative, but it reads that way. Chryst very clearly has NFL-caliber physical attributes. His problems last night were mostly in terms of fundamentals. His overall performance was not good, to be sure. But he had very specific problems that hurt him, namely his decisiveness and his arm slot.

[dabigv13]

I think you must've been watching a different game. Even on his completions, he put the ball in the wrong place and limited YAC. He routinely put the ball in a bad place on the flats causing incompletions or 0 yard completions.

His specific problem was that he did not throw the ball accurately all night. His numbers were atrocious. 3.5 YPA against that defense? Blegh!

[dabigv13]

I think you must've been watching a different game. Even on his completions, he put the ball in the wrong place and limited YAC. He routinely put the ball in a bad place on the flats causing incompletions or 0 yard completions.

His specific problem was that he did not throw the ball accurately all night. His numbers were atrocious. 3.5 YPA against that defense? Blegh!

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I think you must've been watching a different game. Even on his completions, he put the ball in the wrong place and limited YAC. He routinely put the ball in a bad place on the flats causing incompletions or 0 yard completions.

His specific problem was that he did not throw the ball accurately all night. His numbers were atrocious. 3.5 YPA against that defense? Blegh!

I'm not sure why you think I disagree.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I think you must've been watching a different game. Even on his completions, he put the ball in the wrong place and limited YAC. He routinely put the ball in a bad place on the flats causing incompletions or 0 yard completions.

His specific problem was that he did not throw the ball accurately all night. His numbers were atrocious. 3.5 YPA against that defense? Blegh!

I'm not sure why you think I disagree.

[dabigv13]

You seem to be positing that Chryst has simple, fixable issues and I don't think the available evidence supports that point of view.

[dabigv13]

You seem to be positing that Chryst has simple, fixable issues and I don't think the available evidence supports that point of view.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

You seem to be positing that Chryst has simple, fixable issues and I don't think the available evidence supports that point of view.

Well, I was simply positing that he's not nearly the dumpster fire that OF makes him out to be. However, now I'm curious. What specific issues of his have you identified as unfixable, and why?

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

You seem to be positing that Chryst has simple, fixable issues and I don't think the available evidence supports that point of view.

Well, I was simply positing that he's not nearly the dumpster fire that OF makes him out to be. However, now I'm curious. What specific issues of his have you identified as unfixable, and why?

[Snorlax94]

I'll bite on this debate.

First, I won't defend Chryst on his mistakes. The int was horrific, there were some accuracy issues, and some instances where the reads didn't happen quickly enough.

However, here are 3 reasons I'm in favor of sticking with Chyst right now.

#1. Some have argued that QBR is the best measure of a qb. At Stanford in particular, I think the better measure is the score (and turnovers). With Shaw's system, the QB is responsible for calling the play, recognizing alignments and calling adjustments -- our qbs don't have to look at the sidelines to see posters of celebrities and cartoon characters to make adjustments. Remember that game vs WA with Luck where Stanford got 600 yards, mostly by rushing, and Luck called it his best game? Stanford scored over 30 points for the first time this season, all by the offense, playing against someone who had two weeks to prepare for their Homecoming game.

#2. It looked like Burns was regressing, let's give Chryst a chance to see how he responds. A great challenge is that players need real game reps to improve. Although Chryst was pretty bad, let's see how and if he grows. Compare Chryst's performance to Anu Solomon who came in rusty, and I'm actually glad to try Chryst.

#3. Physically, Chryst is a beast. One time, Chryst was gonna be sacked for sure and the defender just bounced off him. Chryst still got sacked, but he broke free of the first attempt when I thought he was a goner. Although some balls were inaccurate, he actually had balls he threw deep and on the run, and the dude has an arm. So, there is a big upside.

I'm not saying Chryst will develop, but I for one would like to see if and how he grows and improves.

[Snorlax94]

I'll bite on this debate.

First, I won't defend Chryst on his mistakes. The int was horrific, there were some accuracy issues, and some instances where the reads didn't happen quickly enough.

However, here are 3 reasons I'm in favor of sticking with Chyst right now.

#1. Some have argued that QBR is the best measure of a qb. At Stanford in particular, I think the better measure is the score (and turnovers). With Shaw's system, the QB is responsible for calling the play, recognizing alignments and calling adjustments -- our qbs don't have to look at the sidelines to see posters of celebrities and cartoon characters to make adjustments. Remember that game vs WA with Luck where Stanford got 600 yards, mostly by rushing, and Luck called it his best game? Stanford scored over 30 points for the first time this season, all by the offense, playing against someone who had two weeks to prepare for their Homecoming game.

#2. It looked like Burns was regressing, let's give Chryst a chance to see how he responds. A great challenge is that players need real game reps to improve. Although Chryst was pretty bad, let's see how and if he grows. Compare Chryst's performance to Anu Solomon who came in rusty, and I'm actually glad to try Chryst.

#3. Physically, Chryst is a beast. One time, Chryst was gonna be sacked for sure and the defender just bounced off him. Chryst still got sacked, but he broke free of the first attempt when I thought he was a goner. Although some balls were inaccurate, he actually had balls he threw deep and on the run, and the dude has an arm. So, there is a big upside.

I'm not saying Chryst will develop, but I for one would like to see if and how he grows and improves.

[JJJ]

I'll bite on this debate.

First, I won't defend Chryst on his mistakes. The int was horrific, there were some accuracy issues, and some instances where the reads didn't happen quickly enough.

However, here are 3 reasons I'm in favor of sticking with Chyst right now.

#1. Some have argued that QBR is the best measure of a qb. At Stanford in particular, I think the better measure is the score (and turnovers). With Shaw's system, the QB is responsible for calling the play, recognizing alignments and calling adjustments -- our qbs don't have to look at the sidelines to see posters of celebrities and cartoon characters to make adjustments. Remember that game vs WA with Luck where Stanford got 600 yards, mostly by rushing, and Luck called it his best game? Stanford scored over 30 points for the first time this season, all by the offense, playing against someone who had two weeks to prepare for their Homecoming game.

#2. It looked like Burns was regressing, let's give Chryst a chance to see how he responds. A great challenge is that players need real game reps to improve. Although Chryst was pretty bad, let's see how and if he grows. Compare Chryst's performance to Anu Solomon who came in rusty, and I'm actually glad to try Chryst.

#3. Physically, Chryst is a beast. One time, Chryst was gonna be sacked for sure and the defender just bounced off him. Chryst still got sacked, but he broke free of the first attempt when I thought he was a goner. Although some balls were inaccurate, he actually had balls he threw deep and on the run, and the dude has an arm. So, there is a big upside.

I'm not saying Chryst will develop, but I for one would like to see if and how he grows and improves.

I, too, would like to see him get some more PT before we decide he cannot be DA MAN.

[JJJ]

I'll bite on this debate.

First, I won't defend Chryst on his mistakes. The int was horrific, there were some accuracy issues, and some instances where the reads didn't happen quickly enough.

However, here are 3 reasons I'm in favor of sticking with Chyst right now.

#1. Some have argued that QBR is the best measure of a qb. At Stanford in particular, I think the better measure is the score (and turnovers). With Shaw's system, the QB is responsible for calling the play, recognizing alignments and calling adjustments -- our qbs don't have to look at the sidelines to see posters of celebrities and cartoon characters to make adjustments. Remember that game vs WA with Luck where Stanford got 600 yards, mostly by rushing, and Luck called it his best game? Stanford scored over 30 points for the first time this season, all by the offense, playing against someone who had two weeks to prepare for their Homecoming game.

#2. It looked like Burns was regressing, let's give Chryst a chance to see how he responds. A great challenge is that players need real game reps to improve. Although Chryst was pretty bad, let's see how and if he grows. Compare Chryst's performance to Anu Solomon who came in rusty, and I'm actually glad to try Chryst.

#3. Physically, Chryst is a beast. One time, Chryst was gonna be sacked for sure and the defender just bounced off him. Chryst still got sacked, but he broke free of the first attempt when I thought he was a goner. Although some balls were inaccurate, he actually had balls he threw deep and on the run, and the dude has an arm. So, there is a big upside.

I'm not saying Chryst will develop, but I for one would like to see if and how he grows and improves.

I, too, would like to see him get some more PT before we decide he cannot be DA MAN.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

To your first point, Snorlax, I don't think we can ignore last night's offensive output. The offense scored 34 points, which represents 50% of all offensive points scored over the past 5 games -- and that's if you count every offensive point, not just meaningful ones. If we only count meaningful offensive points, the streak of inept scoring stretches back even further.

Now, is it fair to laud Chryst for that explosion, or imply that Burns was holding the team back by comparison? No, last night was a bit of a perfect storm -- namely, McLovin back at full strength against a putrid defense. However, there is a lot that goes on at the line that we are not privy to: adjustments, audibles, et cetera. How much freedom do either Burns or Chryst have in that regard? And how much are they actually doing? I don't believe we have those answers, but what we can plainly see is that the offense was better last night than it has been all season. That, to me, is reason enough to stick with Chryst.

EDIT: I realize this sounds like I was arguing with you Snorlax, but I wasn't. I was simply piggybacking.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

To your first point, Snorlax, I don't think we can ignore last night's offensive output. The offense scored 34 points, which represents 50% of all offensive points scored over the past 5 games -- and that's if you count every offensive point, not just meaningful ones. If we only count meaningful offensive points, the streak of inept scoring stretches back even further.

Now, is it fair to laud Chryst for that explosion, or imply that Burns was holding the team back by comparison? No, last night was a bit of a perfect storm -- namely, McLovin back at full strength against a putrid defense. However, there is a lot that goes on at the line that we are not privy to: adjustments, audibles, et cetera. How much freedom do either Burns or Chryst have in that regard? And how much are they actually doing? I don't believe we have those answers, but what we can plainly see is that the offense was better last night than it has been all season. That, to me, is reason enough to stick with Chryst.

EDIT: I realize this sounds like I was arguing with you Snorlax, but I wasn't. I was simply piggybacking.

[pcgoode]

Yes, Stanford plays some bad defenses - like Arizona - the rest of the way, but Stanford isn't going to beat anyone other than Rice if they can't be more potent on offense. 

I'm not going to defend Chryst too much as I don't think he played very well. That being said, I don't think all is lost even if Chryst or any of our other QBs don't get better quickly. The remaining defenses we are going to play are awful, particularly against the run. I don't think statistics tell the whole story about any team or individual, but I think it is worth looking at the statistics compiled by the NCAA for run defense. As it turns out, through yesterday's games, Arizona ranks 102 against the run out of 128 teams. Rice is 100. The others are worse - highlighted by ןɐɔ at (you guessed it!) 128.  Call me crazy, but I think we should be able to run against all of these teams, grind the clock, and let our smothering defense and very good special teams do their work. It would be great if Chryst gets better, but it may not be necessary for us to win out in the regular season.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...team/24/p1

[pcgoode]

Yes, Stanford plays some bad defenses - like Arizona - the rest of the way, but Stanford isn't going to beat anyone other than Rice if they can't be more potent on offense. 

I'm not going to defend Chryst too much as I don't think he played very well. That being said, I don't think all is lost even if Chryst or any of our other QBs don't get better quickly. The remaining defenses we are going to play are awful, particularly against the run. I don't think statistics tell the whole story about any team or individual, but I think it is worth looking at the statistics compiled by the NCAA for run defense. As it turns out, through yesterday's games, Arizona ranks 102 against the run out of 128 teams. Rice is 100. The others are worse - highlighted by ןɐɔ at (you guessed it!) 128.  Call me crazy, but I think we should be able to run against all of these teams, grind the clock, and let our smothering defense and very good special teams do their work. It would be great if Chryst gets better, but it may not be necessary for us to win out in the regular season.

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/c...team/24/p1

[CTcard]

However, here are 3 reasons I'm in favor of sticking with Chyst right now.

I generally agree with your post, certainly more than most in this thread. Some detailed comments/additions follow.

#1. Some have argued that QBR is the best measure of a qb. At Stanford in particular, I think the better measure is the score (and turnovers).

Not certain who "some" are. ESPN argues this because they made it up. OF likes to quote it. However, it is a bit mysterious as to just what it entails (not entirely, there are general descriptions, but if I remember correctly far from enough that one could reproduce it).
But any QB statistic is at least as much an entire offense statistic. You have to use them carefully.
Broadly speaking it doesn't matter for this last game, the passing game was atrocious any way you slice it.

There's nothing unique to Stanford about the score and turnovers being a measure of the QB. But it is true that at Stanford there is a lot on the QB w.r.t. specific plays and blocking assignments. The QB should get at least some credit when the run game is working.

#2. It looked like Burns was regressing,

It did, but I cannot quite tell how much that was Burns himself and how much the entire offense collapsing - at least partly due to lack of health.

let's give Chryst a chance to see how he responds. ...

That's the main thing. Nobody paying attention should have thought Chryst was going to come in and suddenly provide an efficient passing game. We'd seen enough to know that wasn't in the offing. It didn't necessarily have to be that bad, but it wasn't going to be scintillating.

IF you are going to do the QB switch, you have to commit to it. If you flop around QB game to game, and series to series, you throw everyone off and lose the team's confidence. I am not sure how many games comprises a "commitment", but I am pretty sure it is more than one.

And NO coach in college football is going to pull the redshirt off a true frosh QB at this point in the season if not made necessary by injury. We aren't going to see Costello - advocating for him is somewhere between tilting at windmills and self-flagellation.
Though I would agree that at this point, the odds on favourite to be Stanford's starting QB on September 2, 2017 is K.J. Costello.

[CTcard]

However, here are 3 reasons I'm in favor of sticking with Chyst right now.

I generally agree with your post, certainly more than most in this thread. Some detailed comments/additions follow.

#1. Some have argued that QBR is the best measure of a qb. At Stanford in particular, I think the better measure is the score (and turnovers).

Not certain who "some" are. ESPN argues this because they made it up. OF likes to quote it. However, it is a bit mysterious as to just what it entails (not entirely, there are general descriptions, but if I remember correctly far from enough that one could reproduce it).
But any QB statistic is at least as much an entire offense statistic. You have to use them carefully.
Broadly speaking it doesn't matter for this last game, the passing game was atrocious any way you slice it.

There's nothing unique to Stanford about the score and turnovers being a measure of the QB. But it is true that at Stanford there is a lot on the QB w.r.t. specific plays and blocking assignments. The QB should get at least some credit when the run game is working.

#2. It looked like Burns was regressing,

It did, but I cannot quite tell how much that was Burns himself and how much the entire offense collapsing - at least partly due to lack of health.

let's give Chryst a chance to see how he responds. ...

That's the main thing. Nobody paying attention should have thought Chryst was going to come in and suddenly provide an efficient passing game. We'd seen enough to know that wasn't in the offing. It didn't necessarily have to be that bad, but it wasn't going to be scintillating.

IF you are going to do the QB switch, you have to commit to it. If you flop around QB game to game, and series to series, you throw everyone off and lose the team's confidence. I am not sure how many games comprises a "commitment", but I am pretty sure it is more than one.

And NO coach in college football is going to pull the redshirt off a true frosh QB at this point in the season if not made necessary by injury. We aren't going to see Costello - advocating for him is somewhere between tilting at windmills and self-flagellation.
Though I would agree that at this point, the odds on favourite to be Stanford's starting QB on September 2, 2017 is K.J. Costello.

[JohnR34231]

I agree that if you are going to install Chryst as the starter you have to give him at least a couple of games before you decide he's not the answer and go back to Burns. If he shows no improvement and we lose to OSU, then maybe you put Burns back in.
Shaw's not going to do it, but the argument for putting Costello in is:
1) If we think he is our QB of the future, let's put him in and give him some experience for next year.
2) If he is as good as we hope he is going to be he won't be around for five years anyway.
3) There isn't a lot of downside to it given how bad the quarterbacking has been this year.

[JohnR34231]

I agree that if you are going to install Chryst as the starter you have to give him at least a couple of games before you decide he's not the answer and go back to Burns. If he shows no improvement and we lose to OSU, then maybe you put Burns back in.
Shaw's not going to do it, but the argument for putting Costello in is:
1) If we think he is our QB of the future, let's put him in and give him some experience for next year.
2) If he is as good as we hope he is going to be he won't be around for five years anyway.
3) There isn't a lot of downside to it given how bad the quarterbacking has been this year.

[Bruce Wang]

I'm starting to wonder if our system, despite being "Pro-Style", actually requires a guy who can operate a pro-style system and can also run.  Both Luck and Hogan posed credible threats to run with the ball.  Neither Burns nor Chryst do.

[Bruce Wang]

I'm starting to wonder if our system, despite being "Pro-Style", actually requires a guy who can operate a pro-style system and can also run.  Both Luck and Hogan posed credible threats to run with the ball.  Neither Burns nor Chryst do.

[OutsiderFan]

While there is merit in the notion of giving Chryst more starts because he's younger, let's not live in fantasy land vis-a-vis how much better he can get. 

When a QB gets his first meaningful action, you can see if he has "it" or doesn't.  You expect to see some mistakes, but the ones who turn out to be good, always do some things to make you think, "this guy could be good."  Kevin Hogan, Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers, Francois (the FSU QB) Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, just to name a very few off the top of my head, they all demonstrated something that showed they could be legit starters, the first game they played meaningful snaps.   

Chryst did nothing to make me think anything other than "I hope he does something to show he might be worth starting again." I thought this through the entire game until it ended.  Yes, he's big and sturdy, and yes he has a strong arm, but those aren't the most important QB traits.  Accuracy, decision-making, and play making, those are the hallmarks of a good QB. 

Maybe you give Chryst another start, but if he struggles in the first half against OSU, you have to pull him and put in Burns, because though Burns may be inadequate to have a championship team, he'll have proven to be the better QB.

[OutsiderFan]

While there is merit in the notion of giving Chryst more starts because he's younger, let's not live in fantasy land vis-a-vis how much better he can get. 

When a QB gets his first meaningful action, you can see if he has "it" or doesn't.  You expect to see some mistakes, but the ones who turn out to be good, always do some things to make you think, "this guy could be good."  Kevin Hogan, Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers, Francois (the FSU QB) Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, just to name a very few off the top of my head, they all demonstrated something that showed they could be legit starters, the first game they played meaningful snaps.   

Chryst did nothing to make me think anything other than "I hope he does something to show he might be worth starting again." I thought this through the entire game until it ended.  Yes, he's big and sturdy, and yes he has a strong arm, but those aren't the most important QB traits.  Accuracy, decision-making, and play making, those are the hallmarks of a good QB. 

Maybe you give Chryst another start, but if he struggles in the first half against OSU, you have to pull him and put in Burns, because though Burns may be inadequate to have a championship team, he'll have proven to be the better QB.

[donkey687]

While there is merit in the notion of giving Chryst more starts because he's younger, let's not live in fantasy land vis-a-vis how much better he can get. 

When a QB gets his first meaningful action, you can see if he has "it" or doesn't.  You expect to see some mistakes, but the ones who turn out to be good, always do some things to make you think, "this guy could be good."  Kevin Hogan, Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers, Francois (the FSU QB) Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, just to name a very few off the top of my head, they all demonstrated something that showed they could be legit starters, the first game they played meaningful snaps.   

Chryst did nothing to make me think anything other than "I hope he does something to show he might be worth starting again." I thought this through the entire game until it ended.  Yes, he's big and sturdy, and yes he has a strong arm, but those aren't the most important QB traits.  Accuracy, decision-making, and play making, those are the hallmarks of a good QB. 

Maybe you give Chryst another start, but if he struggles in the first half against OSU, you have to pull him and put in Burns, because though Burns may be inadequate to have a championship team, he'll have proven to be the better QB.

You echo my sentiments perfectly.  In the data points that we have, Burns has clearly been better than Chryst.  We have a chance to win out and finish 10-3 and ranked in the top 20 with a ton of returning starters coming back next year. We would be a top 10 team coming into next season.  However, we need to find a way to outscore Cal and Oregon on the road. We will need better QB play than what we have seen from Chyrst for that to happen. Burns gives us the better chance of winning now.  That is what matters. We don't want to have 5 losses for the second time in three years. That is a sign of a program going backwards.  Let's finish strong with the best option that we have even if it is a flawed option, Burns.

[donkey687]

While there is merit in the notion of giving Chryst more starts because he's younger, let's not live in fantasy land vis-a-vis how much better he can get. 

When a QB gets his first meaningful action, you can see if he has "it" or doesn't.  You expect to see some mistakes, but the ones who turn out to be good, always do some things to make you think, "this guy could be good."  Kevin Hogan, Andrew Luck, Aaron Rodgers, Francois (the FSU QB) Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, just to name a very few off the top of my head, they all demonstrated something that showed they could be legit starters, the first game they played meaningful snaps.   

Chryst did nothing to make me think anything other than "I hope he does something to show he might be worth starting again." I thought this through the entire game until it ended.  Yes, he's big and sturdy, and yes he has a strong arm, but those aren't the most important QB traits.  Accuracy, decision-making, and play making, those are the hallmarks of a good QB. 

Maybe you give Chryst another start, but if he struggles in the first half against OSU, you have to pull him and put in Burns, because though Burns may be inadequate to have a championship team, he'll have proven to be the better QB.

You echo my sentiments perfectly.  In the data points that we have, Burns has clearly been better than Chryst.  We have a chance to win out and finish 10-3 and ranked in the top 20 with a ton of returning starters coming back next year. We would be a top 10 team coming into next season.  However, we need to find a way to outscore Cal and Oregon on the road. We will need better QB play than what we have seen from Chyrst for that to happen. Burns gives us the better chance of winning now.  That is what matters. We don't want to have 5 losses for the second time in three years. That is a sign of a program going backwards.  Let's finish strong with the best option that we have even if it is a flawed option, Burns.

[stupac2]

I'm starting to wonder if our system, despite being "Pro-Style", actually requires a guy who can operate a pro-style system and can also run.  Both Luck and Hogan posed credible threats to run with the ball.  Neither Burns nor Chryst do.

Uh, both of them are pretty good at running with the ball, I think the problem is that neither of them have the pocket presence required to make decisions about when to tuck it and run, usually doing it a beat too late and getting sacked. This is related to their other problems, it seems that the game just hasn't "slowed down" for them, as the pundits like to say.

As for Costello, asking for him does seem like tilting at windmills to me, but I'm not really sure why. Yeah, if he's really good he might not stay for his RS Senior year, but at the same time you could get Hogan-level top-25-but-not-top-5 production from him and then he likely would stay. Or by then maybe he'd get beaten out by Mills or whoever. At the same time, what really is the point? There's a decent chance we could run the wildcat from here on out and get to 9-3.

So I'm fine sticking with Chryst unless he implodes like Burns did against Colorado. Hopefully some game time and another week working with the 1's pays dividends.

[stupac2]

I'm starting to wonder if our system, despite being "Pro-Style", actually requires a guy who can operate a pro-style system and can also run.  Both Luck and Hogan posed credible threats to run with the ball.  Neither Burns nor Chryst do.

Uh, both of them are pretty good at running with the ball, I think the problem is that neither of them have the pocket presence required to make decisions about when to tuck it and run, usually doing it a beat too late and getting sacked. This is related to their other problems, it seems that the game just hasn't "slowed down" for them, as the pundits like to say.

As for Costello, asking for him does seem like tilting at windmills to me, but I'm not really sure why. Yeah, if he's really good he might not stay for his RS Senior year, but at the same time you could get Hogan-level top-25-but-not-top-5 production from him and then he likely would stay. Or by then maybe he'd get beaten out by Mills or whoever. At the same time, what really is the point? There's a decent chance we could run the wildcat from here on out and get to 9-3.

So I'm fine sticking with Chryst unless he implodes like Burns did against Colorado. Hopefully some game time and another week working with the 1's pays dividends.