[BostonCard]

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.

But non-QB true freshmen have played at Stanford in the offensive line (Peat, Murphy, Garnett, Hebrig), usually because we install them as the Ogres where, by definition, the playbook is limited (though Hebrig started as a guard this year).  We've had true freshmen play at TE, WR, RB, and FB; basically every position but QB (and, on the OL, probably center).  So, I don't think there is much to the argument that we are holding back phenomenal freshmen non-QB's because the playbook is too complicated.

[BostonCard]

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.

But non-QB true freshmen have played at Stanford in the offensive line (Peat, Murphy, Garnett, Hebrig), usually because we install them as the Ogres where, by definition, the playbook is limited (though Hebrig started as a guard this year).  We've had true freshmen play at TE, WR, RB, and FB; basically every position but QB (and, on the OL, probably center).  So, I don't think there is much to the argument that we are holding back phenomenal freshmen non-QB's because the playbook is too complicated.