That's why I consider it mostly a moot point because Zac got injured

It was a food for thought argument, thinking back to the start of the year before anyone was injured. We are talking about if Zac could have been a better choice to start the entire season, are we not?
Green did not give you part time play Knapp. Green was thrown into the fire and was the #2. He had to prepare for starting duties as he was next in line, and he took starting duties twice in the year. I think it was something that negatively impacted his development.
Taylor got experience under the media lights, the public eye, this year and that is valuable to an extent. He also got a lot of live action experience, but I think it's a little similar to being thrown into the fire. The issue is similar to Green needing a redshirt, because of how raw Taylor is and how new he is to the quarterbacking position. Being able to take it slow at first and sit and learn, instead of baptism by fire, also has its value. Taylor has issues to fix that go far beyond anything that could be addressed this year in a live bullets season, and I wonder if those aren't things he could have picked up a little better by watching and learning from the sidelines, while at the same time getting the 15-20 snaps a game that would give him live action experience regardless. Green would be #2 in this scenario.
Instead, now Taylor has a year where he was exposed to a ton of media and fan scrutiny and a lot of it has been bad. He hasn't had the proper time to develop in the areas where he needs to and a lot of fans have already made up their mind about him. Looking at all of this, I think the "Taylor Wildcat" plan would have been more beneficial from these standpoints. But you have a strong argument too. But it isn't a guarantee and I don't think it ever was that Taylor would start next year, or for the next three years. If he doesn't start next year, was it all for naught?
The bottom line argument I can see. But I do think again, that Zac could have given us 10-3
or more, because of things like not ever being a total liability in a game. And there's the useless fluffy argument that it's just wrong to cast aside your seniors like that when they can be at least as good. I'm not sure that's a strong argument, but I do see a "how the team is run/locker room/leadership" angle to this. I won't really argue on it any more though as I am pretty happy with Bo's decision to start Taylor, in the end. And Zac being made of glass makes the whole discussion specifically moot. The next time there is a comparable situation though, I would probably still be on the side of the steady senior, whoever that might be.