[Goose]

So, one thing about this thread that I find curious is that everyone just accepts that the complex playbook is why we don't start true freshman QBs. I have a few questions about this:

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

I think you are correct. The playbook isn't impossible to master in three months. What is difficult is recognizing the defense and then matching it to the play call. Apparently, that is a "learned" skill. You can't just know that if "they" do X, we do Y. They is trying to make you get it wrong, and Y is a set of options depending on other factors etc. It seems that some (very very few) QBs can just do this from the start. Other QBs take time to learn how to do it well. And some never do. That is why so many apparently talented QBs don't make it in the NFL. That is also why some QBs haven't made it at Stanford. Not an exact science.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

I interpret "mastering the playbook" to include being able to reasonably competently operate the offense in a game situation. I take his word, based on the NFL analogy, that that isn't so easy as just knowing the plays.

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? Throughout this season we've had a continual chicken-egg discussion about whether the problem was the QBs or the OL, and frankly I think it starts with the OL. 2014 is the best indication of this, Hogan didn't suddenly become 0.3 points/drive worse, but our OL sure did have some turnover. This year we started with a pretty darn effective offense (IIRC the first two games were >3 points/drive, which is great!) and then we got a ton of injuries and started to suck. It's a team game, it all feeds into each other

Totally agree. The sum of the parts is the issue. John Elway demonstrates that you can have a great QB and still not do so well.

4) Are other true frosh QBs, even the good ones, actually all that good? People keep citing Hurts, but come on man, he plays for Alabama. They have the best OL in the country, some of the best RBs, great skill players, etc etc. He averaged <200 yards per game! Yeah, it's not surprising that a kid can succeed in that offense, he barely has to do anything. If anything Alabama is a perfect indication of how hard it is to find a good QB, Hurts is the best they've had in forever and I'm not sure he'd be anything besides terrible on a non-stacked team. How is it so hard for Saban to get a real QB? With Watson the tide would've crushed everyone by even more ridiculous margins.

Or maybe not. Teams are funny animals. Sometimes too many great players (egos) are a problem (USC for the past N years?). I fully agree that being the freshman QB at Alabama is a much better deal than being the freshman QB at say, Arizona, even allowing for the higher expectations.

We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

You are exactly correct. I must say I like the puzzling things that have gone on since JH/Shaw arrived more than I did the ones under Harris/Teveens. It also gives us something to talk about. For better or worse, we will never know who is right.

[Goose]

So, one thing about this thread that I find curious is that everyone just accepts that the complex playbook is why we don't start true freshman QBs. I have a few questions about this:

1) Is our playbook actually that complicated? Someone mentioned that we don't actually have that many plays, but we have a lot of formations and run the same plays out of those formations. This matches my understanding of NFL offenses (at least I've heard this about the Patriots). I suppose that's harder to learn than, say, Mike Leach's "just run 4 verticals all game" offense, but I don't think we're talking about doing rocket surgery here.

I think you are correct. The playbook isn't impossible to master in three months. What is difficult is recognizing the defense and then matching it to the play call. Apparently, that is a "learned" skill. You can't just know that if "they" do X, we do Y. They is trying to make you get it wrong, and Y is a set of options depending on other factors etc. It seems that some (very very few) QBs can just do this from the start. Other QBs take time to learn how to do it well. And some never do. That is why so many apparently talented QBs don't make it in the NFL. That is also why some QBs haven't made it at Stanford. Not an exact science.

2) If the playbook is actually complicated, is that why we don't play true freshman QBs? Shaw could just be, you know, lying about it. Using it as a general "GET BETTER" to the freshman. Or something else. Or nothing. Who knows? Why is this pretty much the one thing that we take his word on?

I interpret "mastering the playbook" to include being able to reasonably competently operate the offense in a game situation. I take his word, based on the NFL analogy, that that isn't so easy as just knowing the plays.

3) Is the playbook the reason we've been offensively challenged some years? Throughout this season we've had a continual chicken-egg discussion about whether the problem was the QBs or the OL, and frankly I think it starts with the OL. 2014 is the best indication of this, Hogan didn't suddenly become 0.3 points/drive worse, but our OL sure did have some turnover. This year we started with a pretty darn effective offense (IIRC the first two games were >3 points/drive, which is great!) and then we got a ton of injuries and started to suck. It's a team game, it all feeds into each other

Totally agree. The sum of the parts is the issue. John Elway demonstrates that you can have a great QB and still not do so well.

4) Are other true frosh QBs, even the good ones, actually all that good? People keep citing Hurts, but come on man, he plays for Alabama. They have the best OL in the country, some of the best RBs, great skill players, etc etc. He averaged <200 yards per game! Yeah, it's not surprising that a kid can succeed in that offense, he barely has to do anything. If anything Alabama is a perfect indication of how hard it is to find a good QB, Hurts is the best they've had in forever and I'm not sure he'd be anything besides terrible on a non-stacked team. How is it so hard for Saban to get a real QB? With Watson the tide would've crushed everyone by even more ridiculous margins.

Or maybe not. Teams are funny animals. Sometimes too many great players (egos) are a problem (USC for the past N years?). I fully agree that being the freshman QB at Alabama is a much better deal than being the freshman QB at say, Arizona, even allowing for the higher expectations.

We've beaten this topic to death this year, but I'm not particularly convinced that our offensive philosophy is a problem. There are certainly some puzzling things going through the years, but I don't think any of us can decipher them.

You are exactly correct. I must say I like the puzzling things that have gone on since JH/Shaw arrived more than I did the ones under Harris/Teveens. It also gives us something to talk about. For better or worse, we will never know who is right.