[BostonCard]

It is a tradeoff. "Taking a flyer" is not risk free. You may get a guy that is not good enough to play. You may get a guy that is better than nothing but you must give him a scholarship for four years. That is an opportunity cost, and it can be a big one. You might have to pass on a guy you think is a "can't miss" the next year because you have no slot for him. The staff also has to help get the guy admitted, which consumes some capital with admissions. The staff makes a judgement call. I think evaluating recruits is difficult. I believe the staff would take the best available choice unless they were convinced the guy wouldn't be worth it. Others may disagree with that choice. However, if one chooses to disagree, it would seem to require lots of knowledge of who the plan B guys were and what their potential actually was. I know I don't have that much insight.

Right, that's why if your target is to take two inside linebackers in the class, and you strike out on your Plan A's, maybe you offer one Plan B this year and pocket a slot for next year.  But it is irresponsible to leave a hole in the roster.  We saw the consequences of that this year, when we were forced to have two guys position switch to ILB (with predictable consequences) because we went two consecutive classes without taking any ILBs. Yes, non-contributors are a potential problem, but given that we haven't been giving out all our scholarships for three years now, it is much less of a problem than not having enough warm bodies.

BC

---

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.

Well, I shudder to think what would have happened had we not had 5 offensive linemen in this class, but your point is well-taken.  Surely it would have been better to have three available red-shirt freshmen offensive linemen in front of the three true freshmen.  And of course, even though we had three freshmen inside linebackers, they essentially couldn't help us because the hole was in the classes of 2016/17 so we had to rely on position switches.

I keep going back to the fact that you should look at needs through the lens of two-class aggregates, and you should studiously avoid leaving any holes.

BC

[BostonCard]

It is a tradeoff. "Taking a flyer" is not risk free. You may get a guy that is not good enough to play. You may get a guy that is better than nothing but you must give him a scholarship for four years. That is an opportunity cost, and it can be a big one. You might have to pass on a guy you think is a "can't miss" the next year because you have no slot for him. The staff also has to help get the guy admitted, which consumes some capital with admissions. The staff makes a judgement call. I think evaluating recruits is difficult. I believe the staff would take the best available choice unless they were convinced the guy wouldn't be worth it. Others may disagree with that choice. However, if one chooses to disagree, it would seem to require lots of knowledge of who the plan B guys were and what their potential actually was. I know I don't have that much insight.

Right, that's why if your target is to take two inside linebackers in the class, and you strike out on your Plan A's, maybe you offer one Plan B this year and pocket a slot for next year.  But it is irresponsible to leave a hole in the roster.  We saw the consequences of that this year, when we were forced to have two guys position switch to ILB (with predictable consequences) because we went two consecutive classes without taking any ILBs. Yes, non-contributors are a potential problem, but given that we haven't been giving out all our scholarships for three years now, it is much less of a problem than not having enough warm bodies.

BC

---

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.

Well, I shudder to think what would have happened had we not had 5 offensive linemen in this class, but your point is well-taken.  Surely it would have been better to have three available red-shirt freshmen offensive linemen in front of the three true freshmen.  And of course, even though we had three freshmen inside linebackers, they essentially couldn't help us because the hole was in the classes of 2016/17 so we had to rely on position switches.

I keep going back to the fact that you should look at needs through the lens of two-class aggregates, and you should studiously avoid leaving any holes.

BC