[Goose]

Given the uncertainties over recruiting, I’m a big fan of taking as many shots on goal as we can, especially for positions where we historically struggle, like d-line.  I’m not polyanna enough to expect that they will all be Dalman’s or even Damuni’s, but if maybe 1 in 10 is a hidden star, 1 in 5 can be a starter, and 1/2 can be marginally better contributor than the person we had to trot out in their stead, then that’s a case for filling the class.


BC

While I generally agree that taking as many players as possible is a good idea, you have to remember that these players take up coaching time, practice reps, and S&C effort. They also contribute/detract to the ethos of the team. Sometimes an unhappy 80th scholarship player is not a good thing. OTOH, a 3* guy (Rudy) who will run through a wall (even though not as fast as you may want) can be a plus, even if he doesn't play in a game. I think you have to trust the coaches to evaluate the relative merits of the guys available. If they leave a scholarship on the table, it should be because the available choices were not better than the null hypothesis. Granted, this situation should be infrequent, and probably the team has altered their evaluation criteria in recent years. IOW, more is not always better, but usually it is.

[Goose]

Given the uncertainties over recruiting, I’m a big fan of taking as many shots on goal as we can, especially for positions where we historically struggle, like d-line.  I’m not polyanna enough to expect that they will all be Dalman’s or even Damuni’s, but if maybe 1 in 10 is a hidden star, 1 in 5 can be a starter, and 1/2 can be marginally better contributor than the person we had to trot out in their stead, then that’s a case for filling the class.


BC

While I generally agree that taking as many players as possible is a good idea, you have to remember that these players take up coaching time, practice reps, and S&C effort. They also contribute/detract to the ethos of the team. Sometimes an unhappy 80th scholarship player is not a good thing. OTOH, a 3* guy (Rudy) who will run through a wall (even though not as fast as you may want) can be a plus, even if he doesn't play in a game. I think you have to trust the coaches to evaluate the relative merits of the guys available. If they leave a scholarship on the table, it should be because the available choices were not better than the null hypothesis. Granted, this situation should be infrequent, and probably the team has altered their evaluation criteria in recent years. IOW, more is not always better, but usually it is.