[Langdude]

In the press conference, Shaw just said that there were no spots available for ILB, so that's why we did not sign any.

Really? So what about the guys you were recruiting for that position?

-m.

Just 1 guy, a mega-stud. Wesley Steiner. I guess the thinking was "if it's him then great, otherwise we're standing pat." I think this means Pryts is also returning, which means the ILB room is up to 7.

I disagree with the way these numbers are calculated. Shaw said we had "a couple spots at DL" and one spot at OLB, which means staff thinks about this in terms of RIGHT NOW, not in a couple years when the players will be contributing. Fatal flaw in the logic.

---

The "one more DL expected in this class" is current commit Lance Keneley, who has not yet been admitted and therefore could not sign today.

Thanks for the clarification, SMC. I thought they were after more than one ILB. My mistake.

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.

This reasoning also assumes that there will be no other sorts of attrition, but that is less ably foreseen.

-m.

[Langdude]

In the press conference, Shaw just said that there were no spots available for ILB, so that's why we did not sign any.

Really? So what about the guys you were recruiting for that position?

-m.

Just 1 guy, a mega-stud. Wesley Steiner. I guess the thinking was "if it's him then great, otherwise we're standing pat." I think this means Pryts is also returning, which means the ILB room is up to 7.

I disagree with the way these numbers are calculated. Shaw said we had "a couple spots at DL" and one spot at OLB, which means staff thinks about this in terms of RIGHT NOW, not in a couple years when the players will be contributing. Fatal flaw in the logic.

---

The "one more DL expected in this class" is current commit Lance Keneley, who has not yet been admitted and therefore could not sign today.

Thanks for the clarification, SMC. I thought they were after more than one ILB. My mistake.

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.

This reasoning also assumes that there will be no other sorts of attrition, but that is less ably foreseen.

-m.