What guys with your opinion don't get is that QBs like Book or Rees and others that are less "talented", whatever that really means, win games. These guys win football games, unlike the Clausen's of the world. The offense moves the chains forward at a consistent and reliable rate. These type guys give you a chance by putting points on the board and avoid continuous 3 and outs like we saw with Golson and Wimbush.
You are a disciple of paper talent and star ratings so I get that it's hard to understand. But neither of those attributes win live football games. It's great for news sales and generally a disaster for Saturday live action. For the QB it comes down to grit, moxy and ability to get the job done. When has Jurko displayed any of this in a CFB setting? If there is a battle and he wins so be it. But there is nothing to date even remotely showing there should even be talk of a battle, other than lip service needed in order to keep people from coasting.
Book had a bad game against Clemson. Will he have another? Sure. The offensive coordinator had a bad game against Clemson. So did the Offensive line. So did the defensive players not named Julian Love. Dexter Williams had a pretty good game but was sparingly used (OC failure to notice and adapt). You're taking a small sample and projecting it out 12 games when you have a large sample 7 or 8 that you're ignoring (plus previous years and Spring battles). Don't go into coaching anytime soon, okay?
Also, nice hedge with illuding that regardless of who is QB the WRs we have will make them look good. So far, the WRs we have are average and unproven. They are a long way from "Monsters". Finke could be good if used properly. Claypool could be a monster if it starts clicking week in week out. Everyone else is an unknown.