01-11-2017, 11:04 PM
Well, BC, I'd tweak your statement a bit. I think true freshmen have much stronger records at other positions. I could see there being a positive tradeoff* in reduction of complexity in exchange for expedited freshman play. But the true freshman QB record is pretty dismal.
* (The thing is, I don't think Stanford fans are being particularly realistic about the redshirting thing. In general we tend to hear about perceived improper redshirts, but rarely about correct redshirts, or improper redshirt-burning.
We also don't have much of a sense of comparative statistics: are other schools using more true freshman than Stanford does? Why? Are they better at offense, and does that sacrifice defense at all? How much?
Finally, fans tend to underestimate the appeal of the super-complex offense. The perception among many top recruits -- I'm not sure if Mills, Little, and Sarell have explicitly said so, but I know other Stanford recruits have -- is that Stanford's complex offense prepares them for the NFL. In other words simplifying a complex offense could backfire: it could rush less-talented players to the field.)
* (The thing is, I don't think Stanford fans are being particularly realistic about the redshirting thing. In general we tend to hear about perceived improper redshirts, but rarely about correct redshirts, or improper redshirt-burning.
We also don't have much of a sense of comparative statistics: are other schools using more true freshman than Stanford does? Why? Are they better at offense, and does that sacrifice defense at all? How much?
Finally, fans tend to underestimate the appeal of the super-complex offense. The perception among many top recruits -- I'm not sure if Mills, Little, and Sarell have explicitly said so, but I know other Stanford recruits have -- is that Stanford's complex offense prepares them for the NFL. In other words simplifying a complex offense could backfire: it could rush less-talented players to the field.)
