[msqueri]

I would say that if there is one position we want to disproportionately load up on, it is defensive line, for two reasons (both of which you have previously touched on).  First, DL benefits from “old man strength”, so excepting the periodic freak of nature like Solomon Thomas, you are going to want to have a DL comprised principally of juniors, seniors, and fifth years, which means under most circumstances, your usable pool is going to be about 40% smaller than the number of D linemen on the team (more when you don’t get your fifth year seniors back).  Secondly, as you mentioned, it is harder to project high school defensive linemen than it is to project other positions, so you just have to increase your n to increase your probability of having enough usable d linemen.  So, while you normally want a little bit below 1 player per position per year (so, two interior linemen a year), for DL, I think you probably are looking to alternate between 2 and 3 a year, which would give you 10 or so (maybe one or two more if you have some fifth years, or a little less with attrition), of which about 5 should be upper classmen.  That gives you some wiggle room if a couple of them are total duds (as inevitably will be the case).

BC

I think that's all right. Nonetheless, it's still possible to have too many, especially if it means you're shirking other positions. We're arguably approaching the point where things have gotten imbalanced in terms of the number of DL we have in the pipeline compared to other positions, especially inside linebacker and corner back. With corner back I take some solace in the fact that experience/balance across classes really doesn't matter much at CB, so you can likely get away with about one corner per year or catching up in a particular year down the road. With inside linebacker, I'm less sanguine. I fear we're solving our DL pipeline issues but creating a situation where even if we can improve in the trenches we're not going to have anybody to make the tackles.

I don't love the idea of playing whack-a-mole with our problems and think there's a degree of that going on - DL and safety depth were issues for several years and now in the last few cycles we've been a bit over-the-top in recruiting those, which hopefully will solve the depth issues at those positions, but now we'll have depth issues at different positions.

But I don't want to suggest position recruiting is necessarily in tension or that struggles to recruit one position mean we shouldn't try to muscle up in the trenches when we can. The reality is that almost all teams have up periods/down periods at various positions. The coaches' job is to try to make as many positions as possible looking "up." When we answer the bell with recruiting at a position that's good news, so by no means do I want to suggest that restoring health to the DL pipeline is anything but welcome.

[msqueri]

I would say that if there is one position we want to disproportionately load up on, it is defensive line, for two reasons (both of which you have previously touched on).  First, DL benefits from “old man strength”, so excepting the periodic freak of nature like Solomon Thomas, you are going to want to have a DL comprised principally of juniors, seniors, and fifth years, which means under most circumstances, your usable pool is going to be about 40% smaller than the number of D linemen on the team (more when you don’t get your fifth year seniors back).  Secondly, as you mentioned, it is harder to project high school defensive linemen than it is to project other positions, so you just have to increase your n to increase your probability of having enough usable d linemen.  So, while you normally want a little bit below 1 player per position per year (so, two interior linemen a year), for DL, I think you probably are looking to alternate between 2 and 3 a year, which would give you 10 or so (maybe one or two more if you have some fifth years, or a little less with attrition), of which about 5 should be upper classmen.  That gives you some wiggle room if a couple of them are total duds (as inevitably will be the case).

BC

I think that's all right. Nonetheless, it's still possible to have too many, especially if it means you're shirking other positions. We're arguably approaching the point where things have gotten imbalanced in terms of the number of DL we have in the pipeline compared to other positions, especially inside linebacker and corner back. With corner back I take some solace in the fact that experience/balance across classes really doesn't matter much at CB, so you can likely get away with about one corner per year or catching up in a particular year down the road. With inside linebacker, I'm less sanguine. I fear we're solving our DL pipeline issues but creating a situation where even if we can improve in the trenches we're not going to have anybody to make the tackles.

I don't love the idea of playing whack-a-mole with our problems and think there's a degree of that going on - DL and safety depth were issues for several years and now in the last few cycles we've been a bit over-the-top in recruiting those, which hopefully will solve the depth issues at those positions, but now we'll have depth issues at different positions.

But I don't want to suggest position recruiting is necessarily in tension or that struggles to recruit one position mean we shouldn't try to muscle up in the trenches when we can. The reality is that almost all teams have up periods/down periods at various positions. The coaches' job is to try to make as many positions as possible looking "up." When we answer the bell with recruiting at a position that's good news, so by no means do I want to suggest that restoring health to the DL pipeline is anything but welcome.