[TrumpCard]

Sorry to pile on, but the original analysis is odd.  Per the argument, Stanford didn't get predicted results from 4 elite DL recruits over a period of 11 years (including one guy who got repeat all conference honors and was drafted), so now we should prefer lower ranked DL recruits going forward.  We all know that recruiting rankings are imperfect, but, other things equal, I think almost anyone would agree that higher ranked recruits are better.  Maybe we could tweak the argument to say this:

Stanford has done well with some 2- and 3-star DL recruits since Hart took over as the DL coach and Turley took over as the S&C coach.  Based on that past success by two well-respected coaches, Stanford may be able to continue getting good results from some 2- and 3-star DL recruits.  It's particularly easy to project success for Swann and Peek because they are really solid 3-star recruits with numerous power conference offers and an all-american bowl invitation each. 

That's an argument I can buy.

[TrumpCard]

Sorry to pile on, but the original analysis is odd.  Per the argument, Stanford didn't get predicted results from 4 elite DL recruits over a period of 11 years (including one guy who got repeat all conference honors and was drafted), so now we should prefer lower ranked DL recruits going forward.  We all know that recruiting rankings are imperfect, but, other things equal, I think almost anyone would agree that higher ranked recruits are better.  Maybe we could tweak the argument to say this:

Stanford has done well with some 2- and 3-star DL recruits since Hart took over as the DL coach and Turley took over as the S&C coach.  Based on that past success by two well-respected coaches, Stanford may be able to continue getting good results from some 2- and 3-star DL recruits.  It's particularly easy to project success for Swann and Peek because they are really solid 3-star recruits with numerous power conference offers and an all-american bowl invitation each. 

That's an argument I can buy.