[Goose]

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.

I absolutely agree the playbook being too complicated hasn't held back "phenomenal" freshmen. However, there are other factors that have not been discussed that do. IMHO, there is quite a bit of "game theory" in burning a redshirt. Despite claims to the contrary by the staff, they don't always put the "best" players on the field. If there is a freshman who the staff thinks is a "bit" better than the upperclassman candidate at say, LG, do they play him? I would say that depends. Is the freshman playing going to materially change the teams record this year? If not, he doesn't play. Is he "for sure" better or just maybe better? If not, he doesn't play. There is a definite bias on most, if not all, coaching staffs toward playing upperclassmen, because the freshmen players have a bigger upside. If you play the underclassman when he is good, you may not have him available when he is great. This is complicated by players leaving early, but I am sure coaches still look at it. How the guy fits into the team also matters a lot. Obviously, if there is nobody else who is any good, you play the freshman. However, if your team is real bad this year, but you think it will be significantly better next year, you probably don't. OTOH, if you think having a reserve LG with some experience later in the year will win you the PAC-12, you do.
What I am describing here is what I think actually happens, both at Stanford and other places. As others have pointed out, deciding to burn a redshirt can be complicated, but it is even more complicated when multi-year considerations are examined. And, despite claims to the contrary, they are examined. Shaw has explicitly stated that he wouldn't start a freshman just to give him experience over an experienced player who was better. I totally believe him in this regard. However, to my knowledge, he has never explicitly stated the converse. Correct me if I am wrong. Given what I know now, I would say that he would start a less qualified player to protect a redshirt if he thought it made overall sense.

[Goose]

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.

I absolutely agree the playbook being too complicated hasn't held back "phenomenal" freshmen. However, there are other factors that have not been discussed that do. IMHO, there is quite a bit of "game theory" in burning a redshirt. Despite claims to the contrary by the staff, they don't always put the "best" players on the field. If there is a freshman who the staff thinks is a "bit" better than the upperclassman candidate at say, LG, do they play him? I would say that depends. Is the freshman playing going to materially change the teams record this year? If not, he doesn't play. Is he "for sure" better or just maybe better? If not, he doesn't play. There is a definite bias on most, if not all, coaching staffs toward playing upperclassmen, because the freshmen players have a bigger upside. If you play the underclassman when he is good, you may not have him available when he is great. This is complicated by players leaving early, but I am sure coaches still look at it. How the guy fits into the team also matters a lot. Obviously, if there is nobody else who is any good, you play the freshman. However, if your team is real bad this year, but you think it will be significantly better next year, you probably don't. OTOH, if you think having a reserve LG with some experience later in the year will win you the PAC-12, you do.
What I am describing here is what I think actually happens, both at Stanford and other places. As others have pointed out, deciding to burn a redshirt can be complicated, but it is even more complicated when multi-year considerations are examined. And, despite claims to the contrary, they are examined. Shaw has explicitly stated that he wouldn't start a freshman just to give him experience over an experienced player who was better. I totally believe him in this regard. However, to my knowledge, he has never explicitly stated the converse. Correct me if I am wrong. Given what I know now, I would say that he would start a less qualified player to protect a redshirt if he thought it made overall sense.