[yvonne]

In any event, I don't think it's a good idea to assume that a true freshman will start on the OL. It's really hard for a true freshman to start. Have we had a true freshman OL starter in the last 20 years? Or was Bob Whitfield the last one?

I agree that it's unlikely that a freshman OL would start. However, if depth is the issue, it's not unreasonable to think that one would play.

As for not having a stellar OL class, we have commitments fro two offensive linemen so far. Oregon has zero. Cal has two. USC had two, and is probably close to being finished. Washington has two, one of whom is a two-star center.

We're in the finals with six four- and five-star linemen. I sincerely doubt that we will either entirely whiff on evaluating or fail to sign fewer than two of those guys. Thus, we will most likely replenish the number of linemen we are losing. The quality may drop, but we're looking at a drop from All-America to All-Conference.

I would hardly characterize that as "poor."

[yvonne]

In any event, I don't think it's a good idea to assume that a true freshman will start on the OL. It's really hard for a true freshman to start. Have we had a true freshman OL starter in the last 20 years? Or was Bob Whitfield the last one?

I agree that it's unlikely that a freshman OL would start. However, if depth is the issue, it's not unreasonable to think that one would play.

As for not having a stellar OL class, we have commitments fro two offensive linemen so far. Oregon has zero. Cal has two. USC had two, and is probably close to being finished. Washington has two, one of whom is a two-star center.

We're in the finals with six four- and five-star linemen. I sincerely doubt that we will either entirely whiff on evaluating or fail to sign fewer than two of those guys. Thus, we will most likely replenish the number of linemen we are losing. The quality may drop, but we're looking at a drop from All-America to All-Conference.

I would hardly characterize that as "poor."