[jacketree]

I think it is so funny that some people STILL think a Freshman QB could come in and handle the calls of our offense.  Guys-its not ever going to happen.  Bloomgren isn't going to dummy down the playbook.  And if you think a frosh QB could handle it then you are mistaken.  And if we did play a frosh with a limited set of plays...we won't win

Burns may not have a home yet.  Just means he will explore see if he finds a fit and/or maybe not play ala Crower.

It is interesting timing that we will only have one QB in Costello until Chryst is an option.  What if Costello is the starter game 1 and 2...gets entrenched....does Chryst consider transferring to uncles Wisconsin program?  This plot will thicken in the next 9 months...should be interesting Cardboard material

It may need to happen and pronto.  This "utter disaster" someone mentioned in the thread could be as disastrous as Chryst's ACL really does take 10 months to heal, not six; and Costello tweaks an ankle or gets sick for a game or can't find his helmet or .....

OF has been (rightly) beating this drum for months if not longer.  Any playbook so complicated that a) it takes 3-4 years to master or b) can't function when simplified so that someone can master it during spring and summer training is a playbook that needs a major edit.  All playbooks require reads at the LOS, even in high school. Why is ours so difficult, apparently, to master unless the QB is Andrew Luck or a 3rd year Kevin Hogan, might be a problem when Andrew Luck and 3rd year Kevin Hogan aren't on campus.  RS and true frosh start all the time at other programs; why does Stanford have to be so different?  Always need a backup plan; maybe it is a couple of walk-ons with playbook mastery, but maybe circumstances are different going into this particular spring and summer with all the experience wrapped up in an injury and transfer.

Good luck to Burns whatever he decides to do. He has won infinitely more games than most of us on the board.

[jacketree]

I think it is so funny that some people STILL think a Freshman QB could come in and handle the calls of our offense.  Guys-its not ever going to happen.  Bloomgren isn't going to dummy down the playbook.  And if you think a frosh QB could handle it then you are mistaken.  And if we did play a frosh with a limited set of plays...we won't win

Burns may not have a home yet.  Just means he will explore see if he finds a fit and/or maybe not play ala Crower.

It is interesting timing that we will only have one QB in Costello until Chryst is an option.  What if Costello is the starter game 1 and 2...gets entrenched....does Chryst consider transferring to uncles Wisconsin program?  This plot will thicken in the next 9 months...should be interesting Cardboard material

It may need to happen and pronto.  This "utter disaster" someone mentioned in the thread could be as disastrous as Chryst's ACL really does take 10 months to heal, not six; and Costello tweaks an ankle or gets sick for a game or can't find his helmet or .....

OF has been (rightly) beating this drum for months if not longer.  Any playbook so complicated that a) it takes 3-4 years to master or b) can't function when simplified so that someone can master it during spring and summer training is a playbook that needs a major edit.  All playbooks require reads at the LOS, even in high school. Why is ours so difficult, apparently, to master unless the QB is Andrew Luck or a 3rd year Kevin Hogan, might be a problem when Andrew Luck and 3rd year Kevin Hogan aren't on campus.  RS and true frosh start all the time at other programs; why does Stanford have to be so different?  Always need a backup plan; maybe it is a couple of walk-ons with playbook mastery, but maybe circumstances are different going into this particular spring and summer with all the experience wrapped up in an injury and transfer.

Good luck to Burns whatever he decides to do. He has won infinitely more games than most of us on the board.

[fullmetal]

jacketree--maybe you play Davis Mills.  Shaw should be force feeding him information on the latest trends in college defensive paradigms as soon as legally possible, if not the whole playbook.  And if Mills is that good, we won't be seeing him after his RS Soph yr anyway.

[fullmetal]

jacketree--maybe you play Davis Mills.  Shaw should be force feeding him information on the latest trends in college defensive paradigms as soon as legally possible, if not the whole playbook.  And if Mills is that good, we won't be seeing him after his RS Soph yr anyway.

[Card Fan in OR]

I'm with Outside Fan (and jacketree) on this one.

What is the resistance to simplifying the playbook to get the best players playing and contributing ASAP?

And, what if Costello is hurt?  Do you play a lesser talented walk-on so you don't have to play the True Frosh who has elite talent and potential? 

The hope is that the walk-on actually is an adequate stand-in, but if he isn't, do you flush your season down the toilet just to preserve your - overly - complicated offense?

+10.

"Simplifying the playbook," whether a good long-term decision or not, does not have to be permanent, but if we are precluding our best players from playing--especially at times when we may really need their talent--simplifying the playbook sounds like a really good option to me.

[Card Fan in OR]

I'm with Outside Fan (and jacketree) on this one.

What is the resistance to simplifying the playbook to get the best players playing and contributing ASAP?

And, what if Costello is hurt?  Do you play a lesser talented walk-on so you don't have to play the True Frosh who has elite talent and potential? 

The hope is that the walk-on actually is an adequate stand-in, but if he isn't, do you flush your season down the toilet just to preserve your - overly - complicated offense?

+10.

"Simplifying the playbook," whether a good long-term decision or not, does not have to be permanent, but if we are precluding our best players from playing--especially at times when we may really need their talent--simplifying the playbook sounds like a really good option to me.

[donkey687]

Not all frosh are created equal.  Some high school programs run spread and simple offenses and some run complex pro style offenses. Some highly rated high school QBs are highly rated due to their superior athleticism and arm strength and some are highly rated due to their cerebral nature and ability to make good quick decisions. Some QBs have professional coaches and years of training before stepping on campus.  I don't know where Mills stands but Rosen was certainly capable running an offense as a freshman and not just UCLA's offense.  The premise that no frosh could ever start at QB for Stanford is ludicrous.  Not many can but there are exceptions. We may have one. 

[donkey687]

Not all frosh are created equal.  Some high school programs run spread and simple offenses and some run complex pro style offenses. Some highly rated high school QBs are highly rated due to their superior athleticism and arm strength and some are highly rated due to their cerebral nature and ability to make good quick decisions. Some QBs have professional coaches and years of training before stepping on campus.  I don't know where Mills stands but Rosen was certainly capable running an offense as a freshman and not just UCLA's offense.  The premise that no frosh could ever start at QB for Stanford is ludicrous.  Not many can but there are exceptions. We may have one. 

[Goose]

It may need to happen and pronto.  This "utter disaster" someone mentioned in the thread could be as disastrous as Chryst's ACL really does take 10 months to heal, not six; and Costello tweaks an ankle or gets sick for a game or can't find his helmet or .....

OF has been (rightly) beating this drum for months if not longer.  Any playbook so complicated that a) it takes 3-4 years to master or b) can't function when simplified so that someone can master it during spring and summer training is a playbook that needs a major edit.

If you are arguing that it should be possible, in general, to have a playbook that "someone" can master during summer (no spring for Frosh, mostly) and play adequate football in the fall, I think you should become a coach. Arizona had to do that this year. Ask them how that turned out, with the 5 plays he could actually execute.

All playbooks require reads at the LOS, even in high school. Why is ours so difficult, apparently, to master unless the QB is Andrew Luck or a 3rd year Kevin Hogan, might be a problem when Andrew Luck and 3rd year Kevin Hogan aren't on campus.  RS and true frosh start all the time at other programs; why does Stanford have to be so different?

We aren't. Andrew Luck started as a RS frosh. Kevin Hogan played 4 years, and I am pretty sure he became a starter as a red-shirt, although he didn't start out the year as a starter. The coaches play the guy they think can do the best job. I am sure that, if Costello is hurt, and the walk-ons are no good, if Mills is healthy, he will play. It the comes down to deciding if Mills is better (with his limited playbook) than a not as talented guy with a better grasp. It is that simple. I am sure Shaw will give the walk-ons every chance. He won't pick Mills first unless it is absolutely clear he is the best choice. If you look at the history with Luck, supposedly JH was going to start him and Luck himself kind of talked him out of it. Look at USC this year. They didn't choose Darnold right off the start. Experience and study does matter. It is not a sole determinant, but it counts.

Always need a backup plan; maybe it is a couple of walk-ons with playbook mastery, but maybe circumstances are different going into this particular spring and summer with all the experience wrapped up in an injury and transfer.

It could be so. We all hope Costello is the "real-deal", Chryst recovers early, and Mills is a healthy and precocious player who can get a year to develop. But if the first two aren't true, I absolutely assure you that Shaw will play Mills if need be. It won't be optimal, but may be necessary.

[Goose]

It may need to happen and pronto.  This "utter disaster" someone mentioned in the thread could be as disastrous as Chryst's ACL really does take 10 months to heal, not six; and Costello tweaks an ankle or gets sick for a game or can't find his helmet or .....

OF has been (rightly) beating this drum for months if not longer.  Any playbook so complicated that a) it takes 3-4 years to master or b) can't function when simplified so that someone can master it during spring and summer training is a playbook that needs a major edit.

If you are arguing that it should be possible, in general, to have a playbook that "someone" can master during summer (no spring for Frosh, mostly) and play adequate football in the fall, I think you should become a coach. Arizona had to do that this year. Ask them how that turned out, with the 5 plays he could actually execute.

All playbooks require reads at the LOS, even in high school. Why is ours so difficult, apparently, to master unless the QB is Andrew Luck or a 3rd year Kevin Hogan, might be a problem when Andrew Luck and 3rd year Kevin Hogan aren't on campus.  RS and true frosh start all the time at other programs; why does Stanford have to be so different?

We aren't. Andrew Luck started as a RS frosh. Kevin Hogan played 4 years, and I am pretty sure he became a starter as a red-shirt, although he didn't start out the year as a starter. The coaches play the guy they think can do the best job. I am sure that, if Costello is hurt, and the walk-ons are no good, if Mills is healthy, he will play. It the comes down to deciding if Mills is better (with his limited playbook) than a not as talented guy with a better grasp. It is that simple. I am sure Shaw will give the walk-ons every chance. He won't pick Mills first unless it is absolutely clear he is the best choice. If you look at the history with Luck, supposedly JH was going to start him and Luck himself kind of talked him out of it. Look at USC this year. They didn't choose Darnold right off the start. Experience and study does matter. It is not a sole determinant, but it counts.

Always need a backup plan; maybe it is a couple of walk-ons with playbook mastery, but maybe circumstances are different going into this particular spring and summer with all the experience wrapped up in an injury and transfer.

It could be so. We all hope Costello is the "real-deal", Chryst recovers early, and Mills is a healthy and precocious player who can get a year to develop. But if the first two aren't true, I absolutely assure you that Shaw will play Mills if need be. It won't be optimal, but may be necessary.

[teejers1]

"If you are arguing that it should be possible, in general, to have a playbook that "someone" can master during summer (no spring for Frosh, mostly) and play adequate football in the fall, I think you should become a coach. Arizona had to do that this year. Ask them how that turned out, with the 5 plays he could actually execute."

Oh, please.  The last rejoinder of The Defenders.

What about all those coaches out in the college football landscape who actually do play true frosh QBs . . . and "play adequate football?"  (See Nick Saban, this year, for example).  Should those coaches get out of the business for having the audacity to use a playbook that a true frosh can digest and implement in year one?

C'mon now . . .

P.S.  To redrum/TLV in another thread:  I didn't coin the "Hand me the Sears Cup, I think I'm going to be sick."  That came from "that other site," pre-Internet days (i.e., read it in the faxed version of the Rebel Rogue of Restroom Reading).

[teejers1]

"If you are arguing that it should be possible, in general, to have a playbook that "someone" can master during summer (no spring for Frosh, mostly) and play adequate football in the fall, I think you should become a coach. Arizona had to do that this year. Ask them how that turned out, with the 5 plays he could actually execute."

Oh, please.  The last rejoinder of The Defenders.

What about all those coaches out in the college football landscape who actually do play true frosh QBs . . . and "play adequate football?"  (See Nick Saban, this year, for example).  Should those coaches get out of the business for having the audacity to use a playbook that a true frosh can digest and implement in year one?

C'mon now . . .

P.S.  To redrum/TLV in another thread:  I didn't coin the "Hand me the Sears Cup, I think I'm going to be sick."  That came from "that other site," pre-Internet days (i.e., read it in the faxed version of the Rebel Rogue of Restroom Reading).

[washingtonismoney]

I think this comes up every time we discuss freshmen and their readiness to play immediately, but is there any comprehensive evidence that:

1) Stanford plays fewer freshmen on offense than other teams; and,
2) that, if it does, it's not related to their being bad (you'd think freshmen would find it easier to crack a bad team than a good one); and,
3) it's not related to Stanford's recruiting strengths (e.g. OL) being tilted to positions where it's easier to play immediately?

I don't think there is!

Anyway the team has had its most success on offense with QBs who have started as redshirt freshmen, not three or four years in; and it just started a true freshman OL during its best offensive stretch in 2016. Anecdotal, of course, but hardly consistent with an offense that's too difficult for freshmen to learn. At least, you'd think.

[washingtonismoney]

I think this comes up every time we discuss freshmen and their readiness to play immediately, but is there any comprehensive evidence that:

1) Stanford plays fewer freshmen on offense than other teams; and,
2) that, if it does, it's not related to their being bad (you'd think freshmen would find it easier to crack a bad team than a good one); and,
3) it's not related to Stanford's recruiting strengths (e.g. OL) being tilted to positions where it's easier to play immediately?

I don't think there is!

Anyway the team has had its most success on offense with QBs who have started as redshirt freshmen, not three or four years in; and it just started a true freshman OL during its best offensive stretch in 2016. Anecdotal, of course, but hardly consistent with an offense that's too difficult for freshmen to learn. At least, you'd think.

[jacketree]

Yeah, Kevin Hogan is the hope.  He started well into the season with a simplified playbook (I guess) after just running "Hogan packages" behind Nunes.  Shaw is not as stubborn as we often make him out to be.  If Chryst can't go or is limited, I expect Costello #1, Mills #2 and Chryst #3.

They really aren't solving partial differential equations out there.  Freshmen should be able to run a college offense, at least basically.  And if that's all you have, then that's what needs to work.  Watkins started as a true Frosh for Clemson and they were 7-2 including an OT loss to FSU before he tore his ACL early in the GT game, whence the wheels came off. Well for that game; Clemson finished 10-3 and crushed Oklahoma in the Citrus.

Love to know more about the background on why such a voluminous and complex playbook is really needed.

[jacketree]

Yeah, Kevin Hogan is the hope.  He started well into the season with a simplified playbook (I guess) after just running "Hogan packages" behind Nunes.  Shaw is not as stubborn as we often make him out to be.  If Chryst can't go or is limited, I expect Costello #1, Mills #2 and Chryst #3.

They really aren't solving partial differential equations out there.  Freshmen should be able to run a college offense, at least basically.  And if that's all you have, then that's what needs to work.  Watkins started as a true Frosh for Clemson and they were 7-2 including an OT loss to FSU before he tore his ACL early in the GT game, whence the wheels came off. Well for that game; Clemson finished 10-3 and crushed Oklahoma in the Citrus.

Love to know more about the background on why such a voluminous and complex playbook is really needed.

[larkinforever]

The complexity comes from reading the defense, recognizing the alignment and adjusting the call at the line of scrimmage to the play that gives us the best chance to succeed.  When you have a QB who can do it well, it works spectacularly (as in 2010, 2011, and 2015).  When you don't have a QB who can execute it well, we struggle offensively (2012, 2014, 2016).

Do you think part of the brain trust's desire to keep the level of complexity high is Andrew Luck's "fault"? (Please note the quotes.) Some sort of conflating by the coaching staff of the complexity of our playbook being critical to our success vs. Andrew Luck as a transcendent player being critical to our success due to the complexity of our playbook (with Kevin Hogan's redshirt senior, 4th year starter, performance being as close as we've gotten to an Andrew Luck type performance since, well, Andrew Luck). Or, in other words, we almost need an NFL starter type QB to run our NFL offense.

GOOD offense years...
2015 38 pts/gm (ranked #18 in scoring offense in nation) - Hogan 4th season
2011 43 pts/gm (#7) - Luck 3rd season
2010 40 pts/gm (#12) - Luck 2nd season
2009 36 pts/gm (#16) - Luck 1st season

MEDIOCRE or WORSE offense years...
2016 26 pts/gm (#82) - Burns then Chryst
2014 27 pts/gm (#79) - Hogan 3rd season
2013 32 pts/gm (#45) - Hogan 2nd season
2012 28 pts/gm (#72) - Hogan 1st season (Nunes)
2008 26 pts/gm (#66) - Pritchard

[larkinforever]

The complexity comes from reading the defense, recognizing the alignment and adjusting the call at the line of scrimmage to the play that gives us the best chance to succeed.  When you have a QB who can do it well, it works spectacularly (as in 2010, 2011, and 2015).  When you don't have a QB who can execute it well, we struggle offensively (2012, 2014, 2016).

Do you think part of the brain trust's desire to keep the level of complexity high is Andrew Luck's "fault"? (Please note the quotes.) Some sort of conflating by the coaching staff of the complexity of our playbook being critical to our success vs. Andrew Luck as a transcendent player being critical to our success due to the complexity of our playbook (with Kevin Hogan's redshirt senior, 4th year starter, performance being as close as we've gotten to an Andrew Luck type performance since, well, Andrew Luck). Or, in other words, we almost need an NFL starter type QB to run our NFL offense.

GOOD offense years...
2015 38 pts/gm (ranked #18 in scoring offense in nation) - Hogan 4th season
2011 43 pts/gm (#7) - Luck 3rd season
2010 40 pts/gm (#12) - Luck 2nd season
2009 36 pts/gm (#16) - Luck 1st season

MEDIOCRE or WORSE offense years...
2016 26 pts/gm (#82) - Burns then Chryst
2014 27 pts/gm (#79) - Hogan 3rd season
2013 32 pts/gm (#45) - Hogan 2nd season
2012 28 pts/gm (#72) - Hogan 1st season (Nunes)
2008 26 pts/gm (#66) - Pritchard

[VFRing98]

Whether true frosh QBs don't play because of a lack of mastery of the playbook (likely) or for other reasons, given these developments it would be a fireable offense if Shaw or the QB coach don't have the backups ready to play next fall.

Maybe Burns was as "ready to play" as possible for the Sun Bowl, but it didn't look good.

[VFRing98]

Whether true frosh QBs don't play because of a lack of mastery of the playbook (likely) or for other reasons, given these developments it would be a fireable offense if Shaw or the QB coach don't have the backups ready to play next fall.

Maybe Burns was as "ready to play" as possible for the Sun Bowl, but it didn't look good.

[DC 86]

Watkins started as a true Frosh for Clemson and they were 7-2 including an OT loss to FSU before he tore his ACL early in the GT game, whence the wheels came off. Well for that game; Clemson finished 10-3 and crushed Oklahoma in the Citrus.

Deshaun Watson was an early enrollee. Josh Rosen was cited in another post, he was also an early enrollee. So was Jalen Hurts, Jacob Eason and Jake Browning. So it's not an apples to apples situation since Stanford doesn't permit early enrollment and being in the program starting in January and taking all the reps in spring practice is a big advantage.

I agree that - even though it hasn't happened yet under Harbaugh/Shaw - at some point circumstance or exceptional performance will dictate that a true freshman will start at quarterback for us, but not providing early enrollment is another reason why it's less likely to happen at Stanford compared to other schools.

[DC 86]

Watkins started as a true Frosh for Clemson and they were 7-2 including an OT loss to FSU before he tore his ACL early in the GT game, whence the wheels came off. Well for that game; Clemson finished 10-3 and crushed Oklahoma in the Citrus.

Deshaun Watson was an early enrollee. Josh Rosen was cited in another post, he was also an early enrollee. So was Jalen Hurts, Jacob Eason and Jake Browning. So it's not an apples to apples situation since Stanford doesn't permit early enrollment and being in the program starting in January and taking all the reps in spring practice is a big advantage.

I agree that - even though it hasn't happened yet under Harbaugh/Shaw - at some point circumstance or exceptional performance will dictate that a true freshman will start at quarterback for us, but not providing early enrollment is another reason why it's less likely to happen at Stanford compared to other schools.

[fullmetal]

I think half the playbook is actually an in-depth comprehension of how to read a defense.  The other half would be how to arrange your teammates to best exploit your read.  You can streamline the second half, but not the first half.

[fullmetal]

I think half the playbook is actually an in-depth comprehension of how to read a defense.  The other half would be how to arrange your teammates to best exploit your read.  You can streamline the second half, but not the first half.

[jacketree]

This is kind of cool.  Found a link to a Paul Johnson playbook c. 1996.  It's a 42 page Word doc. :o Sort of mirrors what fullmetal is saying; about half is philosophy and half actual plays. Doesn't always work, but when it does, what a thing of beauty.  Nesbitt ran it for the first time in his sophomore year (he was a pro-style QB in high school and had barely spot duty the year before under Gailey) and they won 9 games, beating Miami, Florida State and UGA along the way.  LSU destroyed them in the bowl, so it didn't work that game. The youtube clip is mostly for BC, to fuel his burgeoning affinity for Spread Option on the Flats.  Absolutely crushed SEC speed.  Had Brent and Jessie just fawning all over them. Note that I am not posting all offensive plays from the Iowa Orange Bowl.  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rnSMkFPUBc

https://gtswarm.com/threads/flexbone-off...line.3049/

[jacketree]

This is kind of cool.  Found a link to a Paul Johnson playbook c. 1996.  It's a 42 page Word doc. :o Sort of mirrors what fullmetal is saying; about half is philosophy and half actual plays. Doesn't always work, but when it does, what a thing of beauty.  Nesbitt ran it for the first time in his sophomore year (he was a pro-style QB in high school and had barely spot duty the year before under Gailey) and they won 9 games, beating Miami, Florida State and UGA along the way.  LSU destroyed them in the bowl, so it didn't work that game. The youtube clip is mostly for BC, to fuel his burgeoning affinity for Spread Option on the Flats.  Absolutely crushed SEC speed.  Had Brent and Jessie just fawning all over them. Note that I am not posting all offensive plays from the Iowa Orange Bowl.  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rnSMkFPUBc

https://gtswarm.com/threads/flexbone-off...line.3049/

[jacketree]

Deshaun Watson was an early enrollee. Josh Rosen was cited in another post, he was also an early enrollee. So was Jalen Hurts, Jacob Eason and Jake Browning. So it's not an apples to apples situation since Stanford doesn't permit early enrollment and being in the program starting in January and taking all the reps in spring practice is a big advantage.

I agree that - even though it hasn't happened yet under Harbaugh/Shaw - at some point circumstance or exceptional performance will dictate that a true freshman will start at quarterback for us, but not providing early enrollment is another reason why it's less likely to happen at Stanford compared to other schools.

Good point!

[jacketree]

Deshaun Watson was an early enrollee. Josh Rosen was cited in another post, he was also an early enrollee. So was Jalen Hurts, Jacob Eason and Jake Browning. So it's not an apples to apples situation since Stanford doesn't permit early enrollment and being in the program starting in January and taking all the reps in spring practice is a big advantage.

I agree that - even though it hasn't happened yet under Harbaugh/Shaw - at some point circumstance or exceptional performance will dictate that a true freshman will start at quarterback for us, but not providing early enrollment is another reason why it's less likely to happen at Stanford compared to other schools.

Good point!

[GK3]

One has to wonder what happens assuming Costello starts this coming season, plays well and Chryst sits.  Now Chryst has already had a red shirt year and I don't think he can appeal for a medical red shirt.  So in 2018, Chryst is going to be looking at Costello, and possibly Mills in front of him  If he can't beat Costello out, does he request a transfer out?

He is a talented guy and the hand he has been dealt sucks in terms of being able to show the NFL people how good he is.  It is going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

[GK3]

One has to wonder what happens assuming Costello starts this coming season, plays well and Chryst sits.  Now Chryst has already had a red shirt year and I don't think he can appeal for a medical red shirt.  So in 2018, Chryst is going to be looking at Costello, and possibly Mills in front of him  If he can't beat Costello out, does he request a transfer out?

He is a talented guy and the hand he has been dealt sucks in terms of being able to show the NFL people how good he is.  It is going to be interesting to see how it plays out.

[washingtonismoney]

Anyway, if "more true freshmen" are your desire, I'm not sure why "more true freshmen QBs" are the best citation for your example. True freshman QBs nearly always stink -- while everyone's singing the praises of Jalen Hurts, and justly so, it's a classic example of inflating a rare event into a common one. Jalen Hurts is super rare; you might as well base your stargazing strategies around finding Haley's Comet as your offensive strategies around finding Jalen Hurts.

More common is Jacob Eason. Eason was the #5 .. player in the entire country. And how good was he? 6.6 YPA, 55.1% completion percentage -- pretty mediocre.

If Shaw's offensive strategy locks out true freshman QBs... but somehow enables redshirt freshmen ones like Luck and Hogan ... this is the most minor downside of a tradeoff I've ever seen.

[washingtonismoney]

Anyway, if "more true freshmen" are your desire, I'm not sure why "more true freshmen QBs" are the best citation for your example. True freshman QBs nearly always stink -- while everyone's singing the praises of Jalen Hurts, and justly so, it's a classic example of inflating a rare event into a common one. Jalen Hurts is super rare; you might as well base your stargazing strategies around finding Haley's Comet as your offensive strategies around finding Jalen Hurts.

More common is Jacob Eason. Eason was the #5 .. player in the entire country. And how good was he? 6.6 YPA, 55.1% completion percentage -- pretty mediocre.

If Shaw's offensive strategy locks out true freshman QBs... but somehow enables redshirt freshmen ones like Luck and Hogan ... this is the most minor downside of a tradeoff I've ever seen.

[jacketree]

I'm not sure we are crying out for true frosh per se, but would like it if guys in the program two or three years still didn't seem to have such a steep learning curve, if that is indeed what happened with Burns and Chryst. Could have been a million other things too.  Well, not a million, but several.

[jacketree]

I'm not sure we are crying out for true frosh per se, but would like it if guys in the program two or three years still didn't seem to have such a steep learning curve, if that is indeed what happened with Burns and Chryst. Could have been a million other things too.  Well, not a million, but several.

[Goose]

"If you are arguing that it should be possible, in general, to have a playbook that "someone" can master during summer (no spring for Frosh, mostly) and play adequate football in the fall, I think you should become a coach. Arizona had to do that this year. Ask them how that turned out, with the 5 plays he could actually execute."

Oh, please.  The last rejoinder of The Defenders.

What about all those coaches out in the college football landscape who actually do play true frosh QBs . . . and "play adequate football?"  (See Nick Saban, this year, for example).  Should those coaches get out of the business for having the audacity to use a playbook that a true frosh can digest and implement in year one?

C'mon now . . .

Excellent example. Perfect in fact. In the first game of the season, Saban, who's judgement you clearly respect, started Blake Barnett, a redshirt frosh. USC, OTOH started a guy by the name of Max Browne. Saban didn't think, at the start of the season, that the true frosh was the guy. He gave the true frosh some reps, and changed his mind. But he didn't start there. SC didn't think Darnold was the guy either. I am pretty sure they changed more out of desperation that conviction.
Well, Saban didn't start "someone" in the championship game. He started an exceptional athlete who had a full season behind him. So, what happened wasn't initially obvious to Saban or his first choice. Your assertion that "someone" should be able to start the first game of the season is not supported by your own example.
My point about Arizona was and is that they had a guy that was a very good athlete, but when he was thrown into the fire, it didn't work out because everybody knew he wasn't going to throw a pass. Their running backs were all hurt, so he basically had about 5 plays he could run. And no, it didn't work out.
I don't imagine you are arguing that it is optimal to start a freshman just because he is a freshman. I think you would concede the fact that a good QB with experience in the system is better than a good QB with no experience. The question is "merely" what are the trade-offs between physical ability and experience. If you simplify an offense, and rely on athletic ability, experience matters less, but you are constrained by what you can expect the player to do. Sometimes that is a good trade. Sometimes, it isn't. In the past, Stanford was at least perceived as not being able to attract the "best" talent. If we were to prevail, it had to be by exploiting what we could get and playing smart football. I think that bias is still in place, even though we may sometimes have more exceptional players who could contribute earlier. But I don't think the coaches are unable to recognize the talent.
Unfortunately, if you think player X should play, and they don't, we would never know if you are correct. And if they do play player X, and he is great, you can say "see, you should have played him earlier" (Sam Darnold). But again, we can't know how it would have gone. Maybe X wasn't ready but became ready by game N of the season (Hogan). So, while one can argue about who should play, I assert that in all nontrivial cases, it isn't prospectively clear.

[Goose]

"If you are arguing that it should be possible, in general, to have a playbook that "someone" can master during summer (no spring for Frosh, mostly) and play adequate football in the fall, I think you should become a coach. Arizona had to do that this year. Ask them how that turned out, with the 5 plays he could actually execute."

Oh, please.  The last rejoinder of The Defenders.

What about all those coaches out in the college football landscape who actually do play true frosh QBs . . . and "play adequate football?"  (See Nick Saban, this year, for example).  Should those coaches get out of the business for having the audacity to use a playbook that a true frosh can digest and implement in year one?

C'mon now . . .

Excellent example. Perfect in fact. In the first game of the season, Saban, who's judgement you clearly respect, started Blake Barnett, a redshirt frosh. USC, OTOH started a guy by the name of Max Browne. Saban didn't think, at the start of the season, that the true frosh was the guy. He gave the true frosh some reps, and changed his mind. But he didn't start there. SC didn't think Darnold was the guy either. I am pretty sure they changed more out of desperation that conviction.
Well, Saban didn't start "someone" in the championship game. He started an exceptional athlete who had a full season behind him. So, what happened wasn't initially obvious to Saban or his first choice. Your assertion that "someone" should be able to start the first game of the season is not supported by your own example.
My point about Arizona was and is that they had a guy that was a very good athlete, but when he was thrown into the fire, it didn't work out because everybody knew he wasn't going to throw a pass. Their running backs were all hurt, so he basically had about 5 plays he could run. And no, it didn't work out.
I don't imagine you are arguing that it is optimal to start a freshman just because he is a freshman. I think you would concede the fact that a good QB with experience in the system is better than a good QB with no experience. The question is "merely" what are the trade-offs between physical ability and experience. If you simplify an offense, and rely on athletic ability, experience matters less, but you are constrained by what you can expect the player to do. Sometimes that is a good trade. Sometimes, it isn't. In the past, Stanford was at least perceived as not being able to attract the "best" talent. If we were to prevail, it had to be by exploiting what we could get and playing smart football. I think that bias is still in place, even though we may sometimes have more exceptional players who could contribute earlier. But I don't think the coaches are unable to recognize the talent.
Unfortunately, if you think player X should play, and they don't, we would never know if you are correct. And if they do play player X, and he is great, you can say "see, you should have played him earlier" (Sam Darnold). But again, we can't know how it would have gone. Maybe X wasn't ready but became ready by game N of the season (Hogan). So, while one can argue about who should play, I assert that in all nontrivial cases, it isn't prospectively clear.

[DC 86]

Anyway, if "more true freshmen" are your desire, I'm not sure why "more true freshmen QBs" are the best citation for your example. True freshman QBs nearly always stink -- while everyone's singing the praises of Jalen Hurts, and justly so, it's a classic example of inflating a rare event into a common one. Jalen Hurts is super rare; you might as well base your stargazing strategies around finding Haley's Comet as your offensive strategies around finding Jalen Hurts.

More common is Jacob Eason. Eason was the #5 .. player in the entire country. And how good was he? 6.6 YPA, 55.1% completion percentage -- pretty mediocre.

Of the five true freshmen that I cited it's unfair to choose the one with the worst statistics to support your premise.

Deshaun Watson: 68% completions, 10.7 YPA, 14 TD / 2 int as a true freshman.
Jake Browning: 63% completions, 8.0 YPA, 16 TD / 10 int as a true freshman.
Josh Rosen: 60% completions, 7.5 YPA, 20 TD / 9 int as a true freshman.

Hurts is not the only recent true freshman to post above average statistics.

I actually agree with your overall point, and the lack of early enrollment at Stanford makes it less likely for a true freshman to start at quarterback. But Hurts is not quite the unicorn that you make him out to be.

[DC 86]

Anyway, if "more true freshmen" are your desire, I'm not sure why "more true freshmen QBs" are the best citation for your example. True freshman QBs nearly always stink -- while everyone's singing the praises of Jalen Hurts, and justly so, it's a classic example of inflating a rare event into a common one. Jalen Hurts is super rare; you might as well base your stargazing strategies around finding Haley's Comet as your offensive strategies around finding Jalen Hurts.

More common is Jacob Eason. Eason was the #5 .. player in the entire country. And how good was he? 6.6 YPA, 55.1% completion percentage -- pretty mediocre.

Of the five true freshmen that I cited it's unfair to choose the one with the worst statistics to support your premise.

Deshaun Watson: 68% completions, 10.7 YPA, 14 TD / 2 int as a true freshman.
Jake Browning: 63% completions, 8.0 YPA, 16 TD / 10 int as a true freshman.
Josh Rosen: 60% completions, 7.5 YPA, 20 TD / 9 int as a true freshman.

Hurts is not the only recent true freshman to post above average statistics.

I actually agree with your overall point, and the lack of early enrollment at Stanford makes it less likely for a true freshman to start at quarterback. But Hurts is not quite the unicorn that you make him out to be.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm not sure we are crying out for true frosh per se, but would like it if guys in the program two or three years still didn't seem to have such a steep learning curve, if that is indeed what happened with Burns and Chryst. Could have been a million other things too.  Well, not a million, but several.

Well, sometimes "steep learning curve" is a synonym for "bad." A true freshman OL got the playbook well enough to start half the season. The QB can't? Seems suspicious. I suspect the reason Burns and Chryst weren't very good is that they aren't very good, and wouldn't be much good whatever the scenario or offensive scheme.

Not to go "look at Hogan," but look at Hogan. Started as a redshirt freshman, midway through the year, and pretty much immediately looked comfortable since the get go. Hogan is an all-time Stanford great, but isn't some towering talent unable to be matched. He was a fifth round draft pick who was cut by the team who drafted him pretty much immediately.

The point here is that good, but not exactly ridiculous talents, are able to start and succeed early in their careers. Comparing the 2012 and 2016 offenses -- (RB: advantage 2016; FB: advantage 2012; TE: 2012; OL: 2012; WR: 2016) -- reveals the teams were relatively evenly talented. So I think the most natural conclusion is that the reason for Chryst/Burns's struggles isn't the voluminous playbooks, it's that they're not good.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm not sure we are crying out for true frosh per se, but would like it if guys in the program two or three years still didn't seem to have such a steep learning curve, if that is indeed what happened with Burns and Chryst. Could have been a million other things too.  Well, not a million, but several.

Well, sometimes "steep learning curve" is a synonym for "bad." A true freshman OL got the playbook well enough to start half the season. The QB can't? Seems suspicious. I suspect the reason Burns and Chryst weren't very good is that they aren't very good, and wouldn't be much good whatever the scenario or offensive scheme.

Not to go "look at Hogan," but look at Hogan. Started as a redshirt freshman, midway through the year, and pretty much immediately looked comfortable since the get go. Hogan is an all-time Stanford great, but isn't some towering talent unable to be matched. He was a fifth round draft pick who was cut by the team who drafted him pretty much immediately.

The point here is that good, but not exactly ridiculous talents, are able to start and succeed early in their careers. Comparing the 2012 and 2016 offenses -- (RB: advantage 2016; FB: advantage 2012; TE: 2012; OL: 2012; WR: 2016) -- reveals the teams were relatively evenly talented. So I think the most natural conclusion is that the reason for Chryst/Burns's struggles isn't the voluminous playbooks, it's that they're not good.