[BostonCard]

I don't think it's helpful to think about bottom of the class as if the bottom of the class in 2017 means the same thing as the bottom of the class in 2022. Your bottom five for 2017 includes multiple guys who were 4-stars on major services. In years with small classes (2013, 2017) it's questionable whether you should even think of the class having a "bottom." Dalman was the composite #650 recruit in the country. Not only is that no doubt about it Power Five recruit, it's a very high 3-star.

Rather than thinking about Dalman as the last guy in his class, it would be more accurate to say he was the 14th highest-regarded guy in one of the most talented classes in Stanford history. For what it's worth, Dalman's ranking would have been the 10th highest of the 21 person most recent class. That's a far cry from a marginal recruit for any program. You can't call the third OL in a class a marginal recruit. Because we were able to get Little, Sarell, and Dalman, that year we passed on 4-star Brett Neilon, among other extremely coveted linemen. [Indeed, USC's highly touted current line are largely guys who could have gone to Stanford if we weren't so high on the hog.]

In other words, you don't have marginal recruits every year. Some years you go light and it's about quality rather than quantity. I don't think it makes sense to view anybody in the 2013 or 2017 classes as the 85th man.

If you look at things like which recruit at a position a player was and when we offered (i.e., were they Plan A or otherwise good enough to be a no doubt about it member of the class), you'll find that there haven't really been the hidden stars you're talking about. Herbig originally committed to us before his senior year even began. Levani Damuni was a 4-star according to Rivals. In what world are these marginal recruits? They simply were not.

But that’s the point, isn’t it?  The class of 2017 didn’t have to be as small as it was.  Im pretty sure there was room for more than 14 recruits that year.  Unfortunately, Langdude’s extremely helpful roster summary only extends back to 2018, but at that point we had only 79 scholarship players, and I don’t remember the problem developing all of a sudden in the class of 2018.  So even though we were “high on the hog” in 2017 with OL, we could have recruited Neilon; he’d have come in handy with all the injuries in 2019, and could have anchored the line with Dalman last year.

Indeed, in those years where we are blessed with a plethora of quality recruits, it makes sense to absolutely bring them in (being vicious, if we have to, about culling marginal fifth years).  Yeah, there will be some more marginal years, in which case we might be a bit less picky, and keep some fifth years on scholarship who might be more marginal contributors.

For what it’s worth, here are the scholarship numbers by year. 2018: 79; 2019: 81; 2020: 81; 2021: 82; 2022: 84.  Are you telling me that there weren’t a couple of players in each of the years between 2018 and 2021 who wouldn’t have been worth taking a flyer on?

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't think it's helpful to think about bottom of the class as if the bottom of the class in 2017 means the same thing as the bottom of the class in 2022. Your bottom five for 2017 includes multiple guys who were 4-stars on major services. In years with small classes (2013, 2017) it's questionable whether you should even think of the class having a "bottom." Dalman was the composite #650 recruit in the country. Not only is that no doubt about it Power Five recruit, it's a very high 3-star.

Rather than thinking about Dalman as the last guy in his class, it would be more accurate to say he was the 14th highest-regarded guy in one of the most talented classes in Stanford history. For what it's worth, Dalman's ranking would have been the 10th highest of the 21 person most recent class. That's a far cry from a marginal recruit for any program. You can't call the third OL in a class a marginal recruit. Because we were able to get Little, Sarell, and Dalman, that year we passed on 4-star Brett Neilon, among other extremely coveted linemen. [Indeed, USC's highly touted current line are largely guys who could have gone to Stanford if we weren't so high on the hog.]

In other words, you don't have marginal recruits every year. Some years you go light and it's about quality rather than quantity. I don't think it makes sense to view anybody in the 2013 or 2017 classes as the 85th man.

If you look at things like which recruit at a position a player was and when we offered (i.e., were they Plan A or otherwise good enough to be a no doubt about it member of the class), you'll find that there haven't really been the hidden stars you're talking about. Herbig originally committed to us before his senior year even began. Levani Damuni was a 4-star according to Rivals. In what world are these marginal recruits? They simply were not.

But that’s the point, isn’t it?  The class of 2017 didn’t have to be as small as it was.  Im pretty sure there was room for more than 14 recruits that year.  Unfortunately, Langdude’s extremely helpful roster summary only extends back to 2018, but at that point we had only 79 scholarship players, and I don’t remember the problem developing all of a sudden in the class of 2018.  So even though we were “high on the hog” in 2017 with OL, we could have recruited Neilon; he’d have come in handy with all the injuries in 2019, and could have anchored the line with Dalman last year.

Indeed, in those years where we are blessed with a plethora of quality recruits, it makes sense to absolutely bring them in (being vicious, if we have to, about culling marginal fifth years).  Yeah, there will be some more marginal years, in which case we might be a bit less picky, and keep some fifth years on scholarship who might be more marginal contributors.

For what it’s worth, here are the scholarship numbers by year. 2018: 79; 2019: 81; 2020: 81; 2021: 82; 2022: 84.  Are you telling me that there weren’t a couple of players in each of the years between 2018 and 2021 who wouldn’t have been worth taking a flyer on?

BC