[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=16429.msg186067#msg186067 date=1484189040]
Anyway, if "more true freshmen" are your desire, I'm not sure why "more true freshmen QBs" are the best citation for your example. True freshman QBs nearly always stink -- while everyone's singing the praises of Jalen Hurts, and justly so, it's a classic example of inflating a rare event into a common one. Jalen Hurts is super rare; you might as well base your stargazing strategies around finding Haley's Comet as your offensive strategies around finding Jalen Hurts.

More common is Jacob Eason. Eason was the #5 .. player in the entire country. And how good was he? 6.6 YPA, 55.1% completion percentage -- pretty mediocre.

Of the five true freshmen that I cited it's unfair to choose the one with the worst statistics to support your premise.

Deshaun Watson: 68% completions, 10.7 YPA, 14 TD / 2 int as a true freshman.
Jake Browning: 63% completions, 8.0 YPA, 16 TD / 10 int as a true freshman.
Josh Rosen: 60% completions, 7.5 YPA, 20 TD / 9 int as a true freshman.

Hurts is not the only recent true freshman to post above average statistics.

I actually agree with your overall point, and the lack of early enrollment at Stanford makes it less likely for a true freshman to start at quarterback. But Hurts is not quite the unicorn that you make him out to be.
[/quote]

Nah, actually it's really rare for true freshmen to display quality play: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-c...k-success/

Watson played like four full games his true freshman year; while impressive, his stats are hardly representative. Rosen and Browning are, like Hurts, relatively rare examples of positive true freshman QB play. But, overall, if you look at all the data, the conclusion that true freshmen QBs are typically bad stands firm.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=16429.msg186067#msg186067 date=1484189040]
Anyway, if "more true freshmen" are your desire, I'm not sure why "more true freshmen QBs" are the best citation for your example. True freshman QBs nearly always stink -- while everyone's singing the praises of Jalen Hurts, and justly so, it's a classic example of inflating a rare event into a common one. Jalen Hurts is super rare; you might as well base your stargazing strategies around finding Haley's Comet as your offensive strategies around finding Jalen Hurts.

More common is Jacob Eason. Eason was the #5 .. player in the entire country. And how good was he? 6.6 YPA, 55.1% completion percentage -- pretty mediocre.

Of the five true freshmen that I cited it's unfair to choose the one with the worst statistics to support your premise.

Deshaun Watson: 68% completions, 10.7 YPA, 14 TD / 2 int as a true freshman.
Jake Browning: 63% completions, 8.0 YPA, 16 TD / 10 int as a true freshman.
Josh Rosen: 60% completions, 7.5 YPA, 20 TD / 9 int as a true freshman.

Hurts is not the only recent true freshman to post above average statistics.

I actually agree with your overall point, and the lack of early enrollment at Stanford makes it less likely for a true freshman to start at quarterback. But Hurts is not quite the unicorn that you make him out to be.
[/quote]

Nah, actually it's really rare for true freshmen to display quality play: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/2015-c...k-success/

Watson played like four full games his true freshman year; while impressive, his stats are hardly representative. Rosen and Browning are, like Hurts, relatively rare examples of positive true freshman QB play. But, overall, if you look at all the data, the conclusion that true freshmen QBs are typically bad stands firm.

[Goose]

I'm not sure we are crying out for true frosh per se, but would like it if guys in the program two or three years still didn't seem to have such a steep learning curve, if that is indeed what happened with Burns and Chryst. Could have been a million other things too.  Well, not a million, but several.

Well, I am going to say the unsayable. Based on the spring game, I didn't think either Burns or Chryst were very good. They both weren't all that accurate, and you didn't see any of the "wow" plays associated with Andrew Luck. In these games, it isn't about reading defenses or audibles. It is all pretty "straight up" football between guys that have played each other a lot. It is mostly "can you execute the plays". It could be coaching, but accuracy is more the player, at least I think so. Maybe (gasp!) neither one was as good as the hype? Comments welcome, but I am applying Occam's Razor here (borrowed from another post. I will clean it before I return it).

[Goose]

I'm not sure we are crying out for true frosh per se, but would like it if guys in the program two or three years still didn't seem to have such a steep learning curve, if that is indeed what happened with Burns and Chryst. Could have been a million other things too.  Well, not a million, but several.

Well, I am going to say the unsayable. Based on the spring game, I didn't think either Burns or Chryst were very good. They both weren't all that accurate, and you didn't see any of the "wow" plays associated with Andrew Luck. In these games, it isn't about reading defenses or audibles. It is all pretty "straight up" football between guys that have played each other a lot. It is mostly "can you execute the plays". It could be coaching, but accuracy is more the player, at least I think so. Maybe (gasp!) neither one was as good as the hype? Comments welcome, but I am applying Occam's Razor here (borrowed from another post. I will clean it before I return it).

[OutsiderFan]

I think the biggest issue is how whatever unfolds impacts when Mills plays.  It sure would suck if Mills is the most talented QB, but is "blocked" by Costello.  Costello could play well enough in 2017 to be given the inside track in 2018.  Even if Mills is better, Shaw may stick with Costello because of his experience, if the margin is small.  This could mean Mills never plays until 2021.  That would suck. But it actually wouldn't suck if Costello was good enough to declare for the draft in 2018 or 2019.  This would give Mills 2 or 3 years as the starter.

It would be great for Costello to be sensational in his first year as a starter.  But I think given neither Mills or Costello will have played a college football game when they report to camp in August, even though Costello will have a redshirt year under him, it makes the most sense to have a competition between Costello and Mills for the starting job in 2017.

I thought the whole idea of the VR system was to accelerate the development of the QB learning the offense?  Perhaps Mills can use the VR system to decrease the learning curve he has in August.  As it is, the players report in June and go through "voluntary" workouts. I'm sure Costello would do all he could to help Mills learn the offense, because as a competitor, you want to know you beat out the best competition to win your position.

[OutsiderFan]

I think the biggest issue is how whatever unfolds impacts when Mills plays.  It sure would suck if Mills is the most talented QB, but is "blocked" by Costello.  Costello could play well enough in 2017 to be given the inside track in 2018.  Even if Mills is better, Shaw may stick with Costello because of his experience, if the margin is small.  This could mean Mills never plays until 2021.  That would suck. But it actually wouldn't suck if Costello was good enough to declare for the draft in 2018 or 2019.  This would give Mills 2 or 3 years as the starter.

It would be great for Costello to be sensational in his first year as a starter.  But I think given neither Mills or Costello will have played a college football game when they report to camp in August, even though Costello will have a redshirt year under him, it makes the most sense to have a competition between Costello and Mills for the starting job in 2017.

I thought the whole idea of the VR system was to accelerate the development of the QB learning the offense?  Perhaps Mills can use the VR system to decrease the learning curve he has in August.  As it is, the players report in June and go through "voluntary" workouts. I'm sure Costello would do all he could to help Mills learn the offense, because as a competitor, you want to know you beat out the best competition to win your position.

[DC 86]

Watson played like four full games his true freshman year; while impressive, his stats are hardly representative. Rosen and Browning are, like Hurts, relatively rare examples of positive true freshman QB play. But, overall, if you look at all the data, the conclusion that true freshmen QBs are typically bad stands firm.

Watson played in eight games and started five, of course his statistics would have regressed over a full season but were still superlative. Even the article you cite has a chart of true freshman starters since 2000 and their overall statistics are far from "bad". Even Eason was merely mediocre, not bad.

Of course true freshmen are not going to be as successful as more experienced players, but the advent of early enrollment, personal QB coaching starting in junior high school and simplified spread offenses are going to make it more common to see true freshmen succeed. Not as likely at Stanford, but likely elsewhere.

As I said, I agree with your overall premise, but not with Hurts being analogous to a Halley's Comet sighting, since we had two strong true freshmen in our own conference a year ago. If you reduce the data set to top recruits (such as the ones in the Grantland chart and the type of recruit such as Mills that Stanford would be considering) then the results are respectable and far from bad, certainly a level that we would have been satisfied with this past year.

[DC 86]

Watson played like four full games his true freshman year; while impressive, his stats are hardly representative. Rosen and Browning are, like Hurts, relatively rare examples of positive true freshman QB play. But, overall, if you look at all the data, the conclusion that true freshmen QBs are typically bad stands firm.

Watson played in eight games and started five, of course his statistics would have regressed over a full season but were still superlative. Even the article you cite has a chart of true freshman starters since 2000 and their overall statistics are far from "bad". Even Eason was merely mediocre, not bad.

Of course true freshmen are not going to be as successful as more experienced players, but the advent of early enrollment, personal QB coaching starting in junior high school and simplified spread offenses are going to make it more common to see true freshmen succeed. Not as likely at Stanford, but likely elsewhere.

As I said, I agree with your overall premise, but not with Hurts being analogous to a Halley's Comet sighting, since we had two strong true freshmen in our own conference a year ago. If you reduce the data set to top recruits (such as the ones in the Grantland chart and the type of recruit such as Mills that Stanford would be considering) then the results are respectable and far from bad, certainly a level that we would have been satisfied with this past year.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I think the biggest issue is how whatever unfolds impacts when Mills plays.  It sure would suck if Mills is the most talented QB, but is "blocked" by Costello.  Costello could play well enough in 2017 to be given the inside track in 2018.  Even if Mills is better, Shaw may stick with Costello because of his experience, if the margin is small.  This could mean Mills never plays until 2021.  That would suck. But it actually wouldn't suck if Costello was good enough to declare for the draft in 2018 or 2019.  This would give Mills 2 or 3 years as the starter.

It would be great for Costello to be sensational in his first year as a starter.  But I think given neither Mills or Costello will have played a college football game when they report to camp in August, even though Costello will have a redshirt year under him, it makes the most sense to have a competition between Costello and Mills for the starting job in 2017.

I thought the whole idea of the VR system was to accelerate the development of the QB learning the offense?  Perhaps Mills can use the VR system to decrease the learning curve he has in August.  As it is, the players report in June and go through "voluntary" workouts. I'm sure Costello would do all he could to help Mills learn the offense, because as a competitor, you want to know you beat out the best competition to win your position.

There's an awful lot of speculation in this post. Remind me why we're already moving past Costello and on to Mills?

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

I think the biggest issue is how whatever unfolds impacts when Mills plays.  It sure would suck if Mills is the most talented QB, but is "blocked" by Costello.  Costello could play well enough in 2017 to be given the inside track in 2018.  Even if Mills is better, Shaw may stick with Costello because of his experience, if the margin is small.  This could mean Mills never plays until 2021.  That would suck. But it actually wouldn't suck if Costello was good enough to declare for the draft in 2018 or 2019.  This would give Mills 2 or 3 years as the starter.

It would be great for Costello to be sensational in his first year as a starter.  But I think given neither Mills or Costello will have played a college football game when they report to camp in August, even though Costello will have a redshirt year under him, it makes the most sense to have a competition between Costello and Mills for the starting job in 2017.

I thought the whole idea of the VR system was to accelerate the development of the QB learning the offense?  Perhaps Mills can use the VR system to decrease the learning curve he has in August.  As it is, the players report in June and go through "voluntary" workouts. I'm sure Costello would do all he could to help Mills learn the offense, because as a competitor, you want to know you beat out the best competition to win your position.

There's an awful lot of speculation in this post. Remind me why we're already moving past Costello and on to Mills?

[socalstanfan1]

Agreed, ThePOC.  Watch recruiting with any amount of attention at all, and we learn the earth-shattering lesson: sometimes the prospects are as good as hyped, sometimes not.  (gasp!)  But they all look great against HS competition.  So lets just see how Costello looks in Spring ball, how Mills recovers from his injury and then performs in the Fall, how Chryst recovers from his major knee issue.  It will be an interesting 8 months to be sure. 

[socalstanfan1]

Agreed, ThePOC.  Watch recruiting with any amount of attention at all, and we learn the earth-shattering lesson: sometimes the prospects are as good as hyped, sometimes not.  (gasp!)  But they all look great against HS competition.  So lets just see how Costello looks in Spring ball, how Mills recovers from his injury and then performs in the Fall, how Chryst recovers from his major knee issue.  It will be an interesting 8 months to be sure. 

[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16429.msg186043#msg186043 date=1484180921]
... When you have a QB who can do it well, it works spectacularly (as in 2010, 2011, and 2015).  When you don't have a QB who can execute it well, we struggle offensively (2012, 2014, 2016).

GOOD offense years...
2015 38 pts/gm (ranked #18 in scoring offense in nation) - Hogan 4th season
2011 43 pts/gm (#7) - Luck 3rd season
2010 40 pts/gm (#12) - Luck 2nd season
2009 36 pts/gm (#16) - Luck 1st season

MEDIOCRE or WORSE offense years...
2016 26 pts/gm (#82) - Burns then Chryst
2014 27 pts/gm (#79) - Hogan 3rd season
2013 32 pts/gm (#45) - Hogan 2nd season
2012 28 pts/gm (#72) - Hogan 1st season (Nunes)
2008 26 pts/gm (#66) - Pritchard
[/quote]

Just chiming in to note that per game stats are very misleading for a team like Stanford that deliberately plays at a far slower pace than most every other team in the country. Particularly for a stat like scoring offense, you actually can find per drive stats at bdftoys.com.

So, redoing the same chart for per drive numbers.


GOOD offense years...
2015 3.58 pts/dr (ranked #2 in scoring offense in nation) - Hogan 4th season
2011 3.56 pts/dr (#2) - Luck 3rd season
2010 3.68 pts/dr (#2) - Luck 2nd season
2009 3.07 pts/dr (#5) - Luck 1st season

MEDIOCRE or WORSE offense years...
2016 2.22 pts/dr (#62) - Burns then Chryst
2014 2.30 pts/dr (#50) - Hogan 3rd season
2013 2.67 pts/dr (#30) - Hogan 2nd season
2012 2.08 pts/dr (#71) - Hogan 1st season (Nunes)
2008 2.13 pts/dr (#52) - Pritchard
2007 1.39 pt/dr  (#105) - Ostrander-Pritchard

[CTcard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16429.msg186043#msg186043 date=1484180921]
... When you have a QB who can do it well, it works spectacularly (as in 2010, 2011, and 2015).  When you don't have a QB who can execute it well, we struggle offensively (2012, 2014, 2016).

GOOD offense years...
2015 38 pts/gm (ranked #18 in scoring offense in nation) - Hogan 4th season
2011 43 pts/gm (#7) - Luck 3rd season
2010 40 pts/gm (#12) - Luck 2nd season
2009 36 pts/gm (#16) - Luck 1st season

MEDIOCRE or WORSE offense years...
2016 26 pts/gm (#82) - Burns then Chryst
2014 27 pts/gm (#79) - Hogan 3rd season
2013 32 pts/gm (#45) - Hogan 2nd season
2012 28 pts/gm (#72) - Hogan 1st season (Nunes)
2008 26 pts/gm (#66) - Pritchard
[/quote]

Just chiming in to note that per game stats are very misleading for a team like Stanford that deliberately plays at a far slower pace than most every other team in the country. Particularly for a stat like scoring offense, you actually can find per drive stats at bdftoys.com.

So, redoing the same chart for per drive numbers.


GOOD offense years...
2015 3.58 pts/dr (ranked #2 in scoring offense in nation) - Hogan 4th season
2011 3.56 pts/dr (#2) - Luck 3rd season
2010 3.68 pts/dr (#2) - Luck 2nd season
2009 3.07 pts/dr (#5) - Luck 1st season

MEDIOCRE or WORSE offense years...
2016 2.22 pts/dr (#62) - Burns then Chryst
2014 2.30 pts/dr (#50) - Hogan 3rd season
2013 2.67 pts/dr (#30) - Hogan 2nd season
2012 2.08 pts/dr (#71) - Hogan 1st season (Nunes)
2008 2.13 pts/dr (#52) - Pritchard
2007 1.39 pt/dr  (#105) - Ostrander-Pritchard

[Goose]

I am going to go further out on the limb and point out that all freshman quarterback situations are different. A freshman or inexperienced QB going into a veteran team that has an established offense is there basically  not to screw up, be a "game manager". It is far different, and I would assert more common, that freshman QBs going onto young/bad teams don't do well. It is all on them, and it just may not be possible. Sam Darnold wouldn't have helped Arizona much, but he was good/great with a talented team around him. Unfortunately, we have a lot of uncertainty next year. We may have anywhere from 0 to 3 good QBs. It will indeed be interesting.

[Goose]

I am going to go further out on the limb and point out that all freshman quarterback situations are different. A freshman or inexperienced QB going into a veteran team that has an established offense is there basically  not to screw up, be a "game manager". It is far different, and I would assert more common, that freshman QBs going onto young/bad teams don't do well. It is all on them, and it just may not be possible. Sam Darnold wouldn't have helped Arizona much, but he was good/great with a talented team around him. Unfortunately, we have a lot of uncertainty next year. We may have anywhere from 0 to 3 good QBs. It will indeed be interesting.

[BostonCard]

Also, it is hard to say that in 2013 and 2014 the problem was because we had an inexperienced QB learning the system.  The problem years were:

2008, where you had Luck redshirting while Pritchard struggled offensively.  Maybe with an easier playbook, Luck starts and excels.  But Luck was such a talent that there is a very good chance that Luck would have somehow made it work with the playbook we had.

2012, where you had Nunes starting while a soon to be more effective Hogan was on the bench for half the season.  Perhaps with a simplified playbook, RS Freshman Hogan starts from day 1 and our offense is somewhat better.

Maybe 2016, where you had Costello redshirting while Burns struggled.  Maybe with a simplified playbook, Costello beats out the two upperclassmen and starts as a freshman.  Ultimately, we should get a sense next year.  If Costello is the real deal, we will wonder why he didn't start this year.

Maybe next year, again, if Mills redshirts and we struggle at QB because Chryst's recovery takes more like the typical 7-9 months than 6 months and Costello is ineffective.

BC

[BostonCard]

Also, it is hard to say that in 2013 and 2014 the problem was because we had an inexperienced QB learning the system.  The problem years were:

2008, where you had Luck redshirting while Pritchard struggled offensively.  Maybe with an easier playbook, Luck starts and excels.  But Luck was such a talent that there is a very good chance that Luck would have somehow made it work with the playbook we had.

2012, where you had Nunes starting while a soon to be more effective Hogan was on the bench for half the season.  Perhaps with a simplified playbook, RS Freshman Hogan starts from day 1 and our offense is somewhat better.

Maybe 2016, where you had Costello redshirting while Burns struggled.  Maybe with a simplified playbook, Costello beats out the two upperclassmen and starts as a freshman.  Ultimately, we should get a sense next year.  If Costello is the real deal, we will wonder why he didn't start this year.

Maybe next year, again, if Mills redshirts and we struggle at QB because Chryst's recovery takes more like the typical 7-9 months than 6 months and Costello is ineffective.

BC

[winflop]

Wilner has just posted a story about our QB situation. Chryst apparently having surgery and out for at least six months, Burns transferring. In Costello we trust...

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/11/st...-transfer/

My three wishes:
- Costello is up to the job
- Chryst fully recovers (even if it takes a year)
- Burns finds what he's looking for wherever he decides to go

[winflop]

Wilner has just posted a story about our QB situation. Chryst apparently having surgery and out for at least six months, Burns transferring. In Costello we trust...

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/01/11/st...-transfer/

My three wishes:
- Costello is up to the job
- Chryst fully recovers (even if it takes a year)
- Burns finds what he's looking for wherever he decides to go

[Goose]

Also, it is hard to say that in 2013 and 2014 the problem was because we had an inexperienced QB learning the system.  The problem years were:

2008, where you had Luck redshirting while Pritchard struggled offensively.  Maybe with an easier playbook, Luck starts and excels.  But Luck was such a talent that there is a very good chance that Luck would have somehow made it work with the playbook we had.

2012, where you had Nunes starting while a soon to be more effective Hogan was on the bench for half the season.  Perhaps with a simplified playbook, RS Freshman Hogan starts from day 1 and our offense is somewhat better.

Maybe 2016, where you had Costello redshirting while Burns struggled.  Maybe with a simplified playbook, Costello beats out the two upperclassmen and starts as a freshman.  Ultimately, we should get a sense next year.  If Costello is the real deal, we will wonder why he didn't start this year.

Maybe next year, again, if Mills redshirts and we struggle at QB because Chryst's recovery takes more like the typical 7-9 months than 6 months and Costello is ineffective.

BC

All true, if you believe that Shaw et al thinks as follows: " I see that in practice Luck/Hogan makes more yards and gives me better performance against the defense, but I won't burn their redshirt because they can't run every play in the book".
In the case of Luck, JH actually had decided to start Luck and Luck talked him out of it, if you believe what is written. I believe Nunes started because he was thought to produce better results, period. When it became clear Hogan was better, he started. And yes, in year 1 for both Hogan and Luck, they didn't do as much reading at the line as they both did later. The ran a simpler offense, but they were still the best choice. They started because it was thought they were better. It is not just the playbook. It is the total package. I sat through the agony of the TCU game with Pritchard as the QB. To me, they didn't burn Lucks redshirt because they were afraid he might get killed. No way to waste a great player, and no, I don't think the results of playing him as a freshman would have been good. That team wasn't good. Changing the QB wouldn't have made it good. Luck may have not been altruistic when he talked JH out of starting him.
This year, some people on this board said that they thought Costello looked better than both Burns and Chryst. Apparently, the staff didn't agree. It seems to me that it isn't simply that Costello didn't have as good a grasp of the playbook. It was because, as a total package, the coaches didn't think he was better. They may be wrong, but it is a total value judgement, not a dogma. If Shaw thinks Mills gives us a better chance to win, he will play instead of Costello. Not being able to "read" the defense quite as well is a down side, but it isn't a dis-qualifier ipso facto.

[Goose]

Also, it is hard to say that in 2013 and 2014 the problem was because we had an inexperienced QB learning the system.  The problem years were:

2008, where you had Luck redshirting while Pritchard struggled offensively.  Maybe with an easier playbook, Luck starts and excels.  But Luck was such a talent that there is a very good chance that Luck would have somehow made it work with the playbook we had.

2012, where you had Nunes starting while a soon to be more effective Hogan was on the bench for half the season.  Perhaps with a simplified playbook, RS Freshman Hogan starts from day 1 and our offense is somewhat better.

Maybe 2016, where you had Costello redshirting while Burns struggled.  Maybe with a simplified playbook, Costello beats out the two upperclassmen and starts as a freshman.  Ultimately, we should get a sense next year.  If Costello is the real deal, we will wonder why he didn't start this year.

Maybe next year, again, if Mills redshirts and we struggle at QB because Chryst's recovery takes more like the typical 7-9 months than 6 months and Costello is ineffective.

BC

All true, if you believe that Shaw et al thinks as follows: " I see that in practice Luck/Hogan makes more yards and gives me better performance against the defense, but I won't burn their redshirt because they can't run every play in the book".
In the case of Luck, JH actually had decided to start Luck and Luck talked him out of it, if you believe what is written. I believe Nunes started because he was thought to produce better results, period. When it became clear Hogan was better, he started. And yes, in year 1 for both Hogan and Luck, they didn't do as much reading at the line as they both did later. The ran a simpler offense, but they were still the best choice. They started because it was thought they were better. It is not just the playbook. It is the total package. I sat through the agony of the TCU game with Pritchard as the QB. To me, they didn't burn Lucks redshirt because they were afraid he might get killed. No way to waste a great player, and no, I don't think the results of playing him as a freshman would have been good. That team wasn't good. Changing the QB wouldn't have made it good. Luck may have not been altruistic when he talked JH out of starting him.
This year, some people on this board said that they thought Costello looked better than both Burns and Chryst. Apparently, the staff didn't agree. It seems to me that it isn't simply that Costello didn't have as good a grasp of the playbook. It was because, as a total package, the coaches didn't think he was better. They may be wrong, but it is a total value judgement, not a dogma. If Shaw thinks Mills gives us a better chance to win, he will play instead of Costello. Not being able to "read" the defense quite as well is a down side, but it isn't a dis-qualifier ipso facto.

[BostonCard]

Remember also that when looking at freshmen QB's there is a certain amount of selection bias going on, in that you by definition are only seeing the freshmen QB's that were so good that they beat out upperclassmen.  It would be interesting to find out what proportion of the battles between true freshmen and non-incumbent starter upperclassmen wind up being won by freshmen; my guess is that even in simpler systems, the true freshman wins a minority of the time.

If you are making the point that true freshmen quarterbacks can come in and play well in certain circumstances, I don't think you will find disagreement.  However, I (and it appears others) don't think this is a common occurrence.  Freshmen can come in and "hold the fort", but of the top 30 QB's in PER this year, only 1, Justin Hebert from Oregon was a true freshman, and he only became a starter midway through the season.  One other QB was a redshirt freshman (Sam Darnold), and most of the rest were upperclassmen (6 sophomores/RS sophomores, 14 juniors/RS juniors, and 8 seniors/RS seniors).  Jalen Hurts gets cited here, but his pass efficiency was 139, by comparison, Hogan's RS freshman year, his PER was 147; Chryst's this year was 133 (though not against SEC defenses).  Rosen's PER last year was 134, Browning's was 139; Jared Goff's freshman PER was 123 (about what Burns' was this year, though to be fair to Goff, he had no offensive line).  And those are mostly the positive examples.

So, if the point is that true freshman can start and be adequate, I'll concede, though for every Hurts out there, there's a Jacob Easen, whose PER of 120 matches Ryan Burns'.  Nonetheless, if Mills is as phenomenal as some people here seem to think, then by all means start him.

If the point is that we would be so much better as a team if we regularly started true freshmen at QB, then I beg to disagree.  That data points to even the best true freshmen quarterbacks as being ok, but hardly phenomenal.

And if the point is that we should be dumbing down our playbook specifically so that true freshmen can start, then I vehemently disagree.

BC

[BostonCard]

Remember also that when looking at freshmen QB's there is a certain amount of selection bias going on, in that you by definition are only seeing the freshmen QB's that were so good that they beat out upperclassmen.  It would be interesting to find out what proportion of the battles between true freshmen and non-incumbent starter upperclassmen wind up being won by freshmen; my guess is that even in simpler systems, the true freshman wins a minority of the time.

If you are making the point that true freshmen quarterbacks can come in and play well in certain circumstances, I don't think you will find disagreement.  However, I (and it appears others) don't think this is a common occurrence.  Freshmen can come in and "hold the fort", but of the top 30 QB's in PER this year, only 1, Justin Hebert from Oregon was a true freshman, and he only became a starter midway through the season.  One other QB was a redshirt freshman (Sam Darnold), and most of the rest were upperclassmen (6 sophomores/RS sophomores, 14 juniors/RS juniors, and 8 seniors/RS seniors).  Jalen Hurts gets cited here, but his pass efficiency was 139, by comparison, Hogan's RS freshman year, his PER was 147; Chryst's this year was 133 (though not against SEC defenses).  Rosen's PER last year was 134, Browning's was 139; Jared Goff's freshman PER was 123 (about what Burns' was this year, though to be fair to Goff, he had no offensive line).  And those are mostly the positive examples.

So, if the point is that true freshman can start and be adequate, I'll concede, though for every Hurts out there, there's a Jacob Easen, whose PER of 120 matches Ryan Burns'.  Nonetheless, if Mills is as phenomenal as some people here seem to think, then by all means start him.

If the point is that we would be so much better as a team if we regularly started true freshmen at QB, then I beg to disagree.  That data points to even the best true freshmen quarterbacks as being ok, but hardly phenomenal.

And if the point is that we should be dumbing down our playbook specifically so that true freshmen can start, then I vehemently disagree.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

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.)

[washingtonismoney]

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.)

[BostonCard]

Good points all.  For every Solomon Thomas who left after three years despite redshirting, there's an Aziz Shittu who played as a true freshman but didn't contribute much until his senior season and could have been superlative as a redshirt senior, had he eligibility remaining.  And yeah, for guys like McCaffrey, the call to play right away was the correct one, while for someone like Caspers, we are all glad he was around for a redshirt season.  In fact, the staff played the offensive line class of 2012 just about perfectly, playing Murphy, Garnett, and Peat, none of whom would likely have stuck around for a redshirt senior season (maybe Murphy), and redshirting Shuler and Caspers.  Shuler didn't wind up staying for a fifth year, but that was unrelated to football.

Still, redshirting is as much an art as a science, and some guys you burn shirts because you think they will grow into solid contributors as the season progresses don't (Robinson - 6 games, 7 tackles; Stewart 2 catches for 17 yards).  Then again, those guys might have monster seasons in a couple years and the whole discussion is moot.

BC

[BostonCard]

Good points all.  For every Solomon Thomas who left after three years despite redshirting, there's an Aziz Shittu who played as a true freshman but didn't contribute much until his senior season and could have been superlative as a redshirt senior, had he eligibility remaining.  And yeah, for guys like McCaffrey, the call to play right away was the correct one, while for someone like Caspers, we are all glad he was around for a redshirt season.  In fact, the staff played the offensive line class of 2012 just about perfectly, playing Murphy, Garnett, and Peat, none of whom would likely have stuck around for a redshirt senior season (maybe Murphy), and redshirting Shuler and Caspers.  Shuler didn't wind up staying for a fifth year, but that was unrelated to football.

Still, redshirting is as much an art as a science, and some guys you burn shirts because you think they will grow into solid contributors as the season progresses don't (Robinson - 6 games, 7 tackles; Stewart 2 catches for 17 yards).  Then again, those guys might have monster seasons in a couple years and the whole discussion is moot.

BC

[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.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=16429.msg186093#msg186093 date=1484201070]
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.
[/quote]

BC, the playbook is infinitely more complicated for a QB than for any of the other positions.  The QB has to read the D and choose the play.  No one else does that.

[qwerty49]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=16429.msg186093#msg186093 date=1484201070]
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.
[/quote]

BC, the playbook is infinitely more complicated for a QB than for any of the other positions.  The QB has to read the D and choose the play.  No one else does that.

[Phogge]

Bottom line is what matters in Australia and the bottom line is that none of the four QB's have taken a snap in a college game (unless Chryst enacts a miracle). Also assuming that Luke Falk doesn't transfer in.

[Phogge]

Bottom line is what matters in Australia and the bottom line is that none of the four QB's have taken a snap in a college game (unless Chryst enacts a miracle). Also assuming that Luke Falk doesn't transfer in.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Also assuming that Luke Falk doesn't transfer in.

Is M. Night Shyamalan writing the 2017 college football season?

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

Also assuming that Luke Falk doesn't transfer in.

Is M. Night Shyamalan writing the 2017 college football season?

[OutsiderFan]

There's an awful lot of speculation in this post. Remind me why we're already moving past Costello and on to Mills?

Over 50% of what we talk about on these boards is speculation, if not more.  And I never said we're moving past Costello to Mills.  I'm just throwing out some possible scenarios.  That said, Mills is a special talent.  He's a better athlete than Costello, and his numbers in high school were Jake Browning-like, though one could argue Costello faced better competition.  No, this doesn't guarantee he's a future #1 overall draft pick, but there are evidence-based reasons to believe Mills will be better than Costello, so my post did entertain that possibility.

But Costello may end up being great, and Mills may just have to wait his turn.  I accounted for that possibility in my post as well.

After thinking about it further, not only does it make sense to have an open competition for the starting QB job in August, but it may also be possible to take advantage of the medical redshirt rules.  This means if Costello and Mills both played in the first couple games, and Mills was dinged up, Mills could redshirt without losing a year of eligibility, and Costello could be the starter.  If Costello went down, and Chryst or a walk-on isn't the answer, Mills could then play, having already had a bit of experience earlier in the year.

The real complication comes if Mills were to end up beating out Costello.  Then the risk is Costello transferring.  But this situation can unfold several different ways.  How Chryst recovers and how fast he does, combined with how much Shaw and co. want to see if they can rely on walk-ons, is going to factor in to the QB situation, regardless of what happens with Costello and Mills.

When I posted in another thread that the signing day presser could be one of the more revealing Shaw has had, this is why I said it.  Shaw is going to be peppered with Mills/Costello/Chryst questions, and these scenarios will be posed to him.  His answers will be revealing, even if he doesn't answer.  But Shaw has established - at least for me - a track record for if not giving a direct answer, at least the factors that go into how decisions are made.  For instance, he may have some insight into Chryst's projected recovery time that he might share.  He might talk about how he'd like to see a walk-on step up.  He might say Mills is talented enough to be put in the competition in August.  He may say the decision has already been made to redshirt Mills.  We have no idea.  All we can do is speculate  :)

[OutsiderFan]

There's an awful lot of speculation in this post. Remind me why we're already moving past Costello and on to Mills?

Over 50% of what we talk about on these boards is speculation, if not more.  And I never said we're moving past Costello to Mills.  I'm just throwing out some possible scenarios.  That said, Mills is a special talent.  He's a better athlete than Costello, and his numbers in high school were Jake Browning-like, though one could argue Costello faced better competition.  No, this doesn't guarantee he's a future #1 overall draft pick, but there are evidence-based reasons to believe Mills will be better than Costello, so my post did entertain that possibility.

But Costello may end up being great, and Mills may just have to wait his turn.  I accounted for that possibility in my post as well.

After thinking about it further, not only does it make sense to have an open competition for the starting QB job in August, but it may also be possible to take advantage of the medical redshirt rules.  This means if Costello and Mills both played in the first couple games, and Mills was dinged up, Mills could redshirt without losing a year of eligibility, and Costello could be the starter.  If Costello went down, and Chryst or a walk-on isn't the answer, Mills could then play, having already had a bit of experience earlier in the year.

The real complication comes if Mills were to end up beating out Costello.  Then the risk is Costello transferring.  But this situation can unfold several different ways.  How Chryst recovers and how fast he does, combined with how much Shaw and co. want to see if they can rely on walk-ons, is going to factor in to the QB situation, regardless of what happens with Costello and Mills.

When I posted in another thread that the signing day presser could be one of the more revealing Shaw has had, this is why I said it.  Shaw is going to be peppered with Mills/Costello/Chryst questions, and these scenarios will be posed to him.  His answers will be revealing, even if he doesn't answer.  But Shaw has established - at least for me - a track record for if not giving a direct answer, at least the factors that go into how decisions are made.  For instance, he may have some insight into Chryst's projected recovery time that he might share.  He might talk about how he'd like to see a walk-on step up.  He might say Mills is talented enough to be put in the competition in August.  He may say the decision has already been made to redshirt Mills.  We have no idea.  All we can do is speculate  :)

[Goose]

When I posted in another thread that the signing day presser could be one of the more revealing Shaw has had, this is why I said it.  Shaw is going to be peppered with Mills/Costello/Chryst questions, and these scenarios will be posed to him.  His answers will be revealing, even if he doesn't answer.  But Shaw has established - at least for me - a track record for if not giving a direct answer, at least the factors that go into how decisions are made.  For instance, he may have some insight into Chryst's projected recovery time that he might share.  He might talk about how he'd like to see a walk-on step up.  He might say Mills is talented enough to be put in the competition in August.  He may say the decision has already been made to redshirt Mills.  We have no idea.  All we can do is speculate  :)

I agree that it could be interesting. I speculate that we might get some insight into Chryst's recovery time only if it is a "no way he plays" case. Otherwise, it will be a "maybe he can start/play this season, but not probable" answer. Similarly, I expect that we won't hear that Mills is for sure a redshirt unless it is clear medical necessity. Otherwise, it will be "probably he redshirts, but never say never" about when he plays. Which will be, I think, what Shaw actually thinks. It will be interesting to hear how much he talks about the walk-on QBs. As you say, he probably has to say something about the alternative QBs. What I don't expect is for him to say is that "Chryst is out, Costello is the starter, and Mills is the backup". That is entirely too definitive for Shaw, even if that is what he really expects will happen! There are just too many variables between now and August, and he is quite aware of it. Also, he needs to give us and Jon Wilner something to speculate about in the meantime.

[Goose]

When I posted in another thread that the signing day presser could be one of the more revealing Shaw has had, this is why I said it.  Shaw is going to be peppered with Mills/Costello/Chryst questions, and these scenarios will be posed to him.  His answers will be revealing, even if he doesn't answer.  But Shaw has established - at least for me - a track record for if not giving a direct answer, at least the factors that go into how decisions are made.  For instance, he may have some insight into Chryst's projected recovery time that he might share.  He might talk about how he'd like to see a walk-on step up.  He might say Mills is talented enough to be put in the competition in August.  He may say the decision has already been made to redshirt Mills.  We have no idea.  All we can do is speculate  :)

I agree that it could be interesting. I speculate that we might get some insight into Chryst's recovery time only if it is a "no way he plays" case. Otherwise, it will be a "maybe he can start/play this season, but not probable" answer. Similarly, I expect that we won't hear that Mills is for sure a redshirt unless it is clear medical necessity. Otherwise, it will be "probably he redshirts, but never say never" about when he plays. Which will be, I think, what Shaw actually thinks. It will be interesting to hear how much he talks about the walk-on QBs. As you say, he probably has to say something about the alternative QBs. What I don't expect is for him to say is that "Chryst is out, Costello is the starter, and Mills is the backup". That is entirely too definitive for Shaw, even if that is what he really expects will happen! There are just too many variables between now and August, and he is quite aware of it. Also, he needs to give us and Jon Wilner something to speculate about in the meantime.