[SamuelMcF]

That sort of reasoning does make sense (with a full complement of ILB, we'll go big or go home), but it also does what you are saying: it wrongly equates value with the number of bodies. For instance, if two heavy contributors leave in the same year (like last year), then we are up Kal creek because their value was greater than two miscellaneous players.

Hence why bringing in a freshman class of 5 DBs and 5 OL didn't help us do well this year. (They played like...well...freshmen.) That needed to happen 1-2 years earlier. And why we're boned at DL either next year or certainly the following, and maybe OLB down the line.

I call the staff's positional calculations "reactive" rather than "proactive" for this reason, and it's why we'll never be well-stocked across the board. I would prioritize stability in each class's numbers to lower this volatility. No more classes of 4-5 LBs then 0, or 1 OL then 5 back-to-back. It throws stuff totally out of whack.

[SamuelMcF]

That sort of reasoning does make sense (with a full complement of ILB, we'll go big or go home), but it also does what you are saying: it wrongly equates value with the number of bodies. For instance, if two heavy contributors leave in the same year (like last year), then we are up Kal creek because their value was greater than two miscellaneous players.

Hence why bringing in a freshman class of 5 DBs and 5 OL didn't help us do well this year. (They played like...well...freshmen.) That needed to happen 1-2 years earlier. And why we're boned at DL either next year or certainly the following, and maybe OLB down the line.

I call the staff's positional calculations "reactive" rather than "proactive" for this reason, and it's why we'll never be well-stocked across the board. I would prioritize stability in each class's numbers to lower this volatility. No more classes of 4-5 LBs then 0, or 1 OL then 5 back-to-back. It throws stuff totally out of whack.