[pefloresjr]

I think recruiting has been a big factor in 3-9, 4-2, and 4-8. Others (Samuel McF, Boston Card?) can do a better job than I of explaining in detail re: how recruiting--rankings aside--has been woefully inadequate for the past 4 or 5 cycles.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but recruiting, while not my only concern, is still my number one concern with this team. Having said that, it looks like 2023 is off to a great start. Maybe Jaxon Howard will deliver an early Christmas surprise.

Recruiting has been woefully REACTIVE and LACKING DEPTH AT KEY POSITIONS for the past 4 or 5 cycles. I would not say "inadequate" considering the on-paper talent we've been signing.

When on-paper talent dictates this team should be at least pushing for a top-25 ranking but it's one of the worst in the country on both sides of the ball, you blame recruiting (the actual act of landing recruits) and not development or roster management?

By woefully inadequate, I was thinking of holes left by underrecruiting at key positions and the fact that Stanford wasn't filling its 85-scholarship limit--self-imposed scholarship limits, as someone else put it. 

So if you look at recruiting rankings alone, then yeah, we should be in top four in the Pac-12 every year. But, unlike other teams, we can't dip into the transfer portal to fill holes when unfortunate things happen like career-ending injuries or starters turn pro or grad transfer.

To answer your question, I do blame development and roster management, but I would argue that inadequate recruiting--the actual act of landing high-quality recruits in a way that doesn't leave holes in positions of needs--is the biggest reason why 2019 and 2021 yielded such awful results.

But it does look like I'm the only one who feels this way...

I completely agree with you.  The overall average recruit number doesn't tell the story of our recruiting problems in recent years.  It relates more to years with really low level production at some positions.  

Cheersl
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I think recruiting has been a big factor in 3-9, 4-2, and 4-8. Others (Samuel McF, Boston Card?) can do a better job than I of explaining in detail re: how recruiting--rankings aside--has been woefully inadequate for the past 4 or 5 cycles.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but recruiting, while not my only concern, is still my number one concern with this team. Having said that, it looks like 2023 is off to a great start. Maybe Jaxon Howard will deliver an early Christmas surprise.

Recruiting has been woefully REACTIVE and LACKING DEPTH AT KEY POSITIONS for the past 4 or 5 cycles. I would not say "inadequate" considering the on-paper talent we've been signing.

When on-paper talent dictates this team should be at least pushing for a top-25 ranking but it's one of the worst in the country on both sides of the ball, you blame recruiting (the actual act of landing recruits) and not development or roster management?

By woefully inadequate, I was thinking of holes left by underrecruiting at key positions and the fact that Stanford wasn't filling its 85-scholarship limit--self-imposed scholarship limits, as someone else put it. 

So if you look at recruiting rankings alone, then yeah, we should be in top four in the Pac-12 every year. But, unlike other teams, we can't dip into the transfer portal to fill holes when unfortunate things happen like career-ending injuries or starters turn pro or grad transfer.

To answer your question, I do blame development and roster management, but I would argue that inadequate recruiting--the actual act of landing high-quality recruits in a way that doesn't leave holes in positions of needs--is the biggest reason why 2019 and 2021 yielded such awful results.

But it does look like I'm the only one who feels this way...

I completely agree with you.  The overall average recruit number doesn't tell the story of our recruiting problems in recent years.  It relates more to years with really low level production at some positions.  

Cheersl
Pete F.