[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.