[murky]

...

6. This gets to the thing that must irritated me about Taylor's decision-making yesterday: the abject refusal to give Patu or Jackson a chance to show what they can do. I find it inexcusable to play an injured QB1 deep in a blowout and I say that even knowing if I had had my way that would have likely meant no Daniels to Ayomanor bomb, so in a sense Taylor got a bit validated by the turn of events. But in the grand scheme that touchdown doesn't mean much and we already have had a lot of opportunity to see Daniels and his strengths and weaknesses. We've also seen enough to know Lamson isn't a Power Five QB. There is clearly no desire to see what Patu or Jackson can do if we aren't even going to play them in a game like this. I think it defies credulity if anybody thinks this says something about how bad those guys are if Taylor won't play them. We've seen Patu, two years ago, and it seemed quite plausible then that he is better than what Lamson has shown, to say nothing of any growth Patu has been able to muster under Taylor's tutelage. Lamson is #130 of 134 QBs in Total QBR, the dead last Power Five QB (Daniels is #78). You're telling me there's no chance either of the other guys could be better? I don't buy it. Seeing the depth of our unwillingness to go down the depth chart made me entertain a thought that maybe at Patu's request this year is being chalked up as a possible medical redshirt in the hopes of petitioning for a sixth year of eligibility at a transfer destination....but Taylor claims Patu got in for a few plays (was this as a receiver/continuation of the aforementioned silliness?). As for Jackson, maybe he's not ready.....but is Braden Marceau-Olayinka ready? Certainly not, yet BMO got to play on both defense and special teams. I think it's unfortunate Taylor has only given himself looks at two QBs this season. To me, Occam's Razor is one of two possibilities. First, as I've observed previously, Taylor goes into the bench in crunch time much less than April does so there could be a philosophical thing here whereby Taylor wants to play starters to the whistle and/or stubbornly stick by his evaluations and not give the bench a shot. Second, Taylor only wants looks at the two QBs and any utility shown by the others would only muddy the waters going forward. We want Patu to transfer and we don't want Jackson to block Elijah Brown, so QB3 and QB4 get a raw deal. As with so many things this season, we are running out the clock on the season and Lamson is the way to do it. I get the logic and Taylor could be making the right call, but to me QB is such a critical position that the upside of finding out if Patu or Jackson could be surprisingly better than the preferred options should carry the day.
...

I would like to see Patu.  It seemed like he could throw in the brief time I'd seen him before.

But perhaps an alternative reason for Taylor's reluctance to play him is that he isn't getting the snaps in practice and isn't close to being ready/able to survive with the protection and game plan that we have.

[murky]

...

6. This gets to the thing that must irritated me about Taylor's decision-making yesterday: the abject refusal to give Patu or Jackson a chance to show what they can do. I find it inexcusable to play an injured QB1 deep in a blowout and I say that even knowing if I had had my way that would have likely meant no Daniels to Ayomanor bomb, so in a sense Taylor got a bit validated by the turn of events. But in the grand scheme that touchdown doesn't mean much and we already have had a lot of opportunity to see Daniels and his strengths and weaknesses. We've also seen enough to know Lamson isn't a Power Five QB. There is clearly no desire to see what Patu or Jackson can do if we aren't even going to play them in a game like this. I think it defies credulity if anybody thinks this says something about how bad those guys are if Taylor won't play them. We've seen Patu, two years ago, and it seemed quite plausible then that he is better than what Lamson has shown, to say nothing of any growth Patu has been able to muster under Taylor's tutelage. Lamson is #130 of 134 QBs in Total QBR, the dead last Power Five QB (Daniels is #78). You're telling me there's no chance either of the other guys could be better? I don't buy it. Seeing the depth of our unwillingness to go down the depth chart made me entertain a thought that maybe at Patu's request this year is being chalked up as a possible medical redshirt in the hopes of petitioning for a sixth year of eligibility at a transfer destination....but Taylor claims Patu got in for a few plays (was this as a receiver/continuation of the aforementioned silliness?). As for Jackson, maybe he's not ready.....but is Braden Marceau-Olayinka ready? Certainly not, yet BMO got to play on both defense and special teams. I think it's unfortunate Taylor has only given himself looks at two QBs this season. To me, Occam's Razor is one of two possibilities. First, as I've observed previously, Taylor goes into the bench in crunch time much less than April does so there could be a philosophical thing here whereby Taylor wants to play starters to the whistle and/or stubbornly stick by his evaluations and not give the bench a shot. Second, Taylor only wants looks at the two QBs and any utility shown by the others would only muddy the waters going forward. We want Patu to transfer and we don't want Jackson to block Elijah Brown, so QB3 and QB4 get a raw deal. As with so many things this season, we are running out the clock on the season and Lamson is the way to do it. I get the logic and Taylor could be making the right call, but to me QB is such a critical position that the upside of finding out if Patu or Jackson could be surprisingly better than the preferred options should carry the day.
...

I would like to see Patu.  It seemed like he could throw in the brief time I'd seen him before.

But perhaps an alternative reason for Taylor's reluctance to play him is that he isn't getting the snaps in practice and isn't close to being ready/able to survive with the protection and game plan that we have.