02-08-2018, 09:07 PM
Yeah, we just don't know how it would've played out had Stanford taken a QB in 2015. Most obviously, we don't know _which QB Stanford would've taken_ and _how those QBs would've performed at Stanford._
As an extreme example, obviously a QB can be very effective in Navy's offense, but would be a total non-entity in Stanford's. (And vice versa.) A player can also be better coached in the same scheme as well. So that complicates the counterfactual.
Then there's the Hogan issue -- all QBs would've redshirted a year. So, for example, had Rosen come, and redshirted, he'd be a two-year starter at this point. He'd also presumably be part of a very successful team. I'd imagine that Rosen would've improved Stanford by 1-2 wins total, if not more. If Stanford went, say, 11-3 and 10-4 the past two years, would he have been interested in coming back and trying to go to the playoffs? It doesn't strike me as completely implausible.
On the other hand, the coaches rather famously tried for Ricky Town (who's done nothing in his career) and Brandon Wimbush (who's been a mighty runner but a weak thrower at N.D.) that year. While I think Stanford's coaching is more effective than either SC's or ND's, the most plausible outcome is that both are rather mediocre in the Cardinal's system. While that solves the very small issue of "who will help with practice," it wouldn't really address the broader problems at the position.
Point is the counterfactual looks very difficult to resolve. The most intuitive conclusion, to me at least, is that it's better to have four lottery tickets than three.
As an extreme example, obviously a QB can be very effective in Navy's offense, but would be a total non-entity in Stanford's. (And vice versa.) A player can also be better coached in the same scheme as well. So that complicates the counterfactual.
Then there's the Hogan issue -- all QBs would've redshirted a year. So, for example, had Rosen come, and redshirted, he'd be a two-year starter at this point. He'd also presumably be part of a very successful team. I'd imagine that Rosen would've improved Stanford by 1-2 wins total, if not more. If Stanford went, say, 11-3 and 10-4 the past two years, would he have been interested in coming back and trying to go to the playoffs? It doesn't strike me as completely implausible.
On the other hand, the coaches rather famously tried for Ricky Town (who's done nothing in his career) and Brandon Wimbush (who's been a mighty runner but a weak thrower at N.D.) that year. While I think Stanford's coaching is more effective than either SC's or ND's, the most plausible outcome is that both are rather mediocre in the Cardinal's system. While that solves the very small issue of "who will help with practice," it wouldn't really address the broader problems at the position.
Point is the counterfactual looks very difficult to resolve. The most intuitive conclusion, to me at least, is that it's better to have four lottery tickets than three.