[Goose]

I can vouch that this is true, especially on less often and in less volume. From direct observation.

Good to know! First hand is the best data on something like this.

I once again can vouch that Bloomgren was "just not putting in the effort." This is not an inference based on the results. It is a direct observation.

Ditto.

(The non-"mega whale" in 2017 was Drew Dalman, who by the way Bloomgren was very close to not offering.)

That I knew. It was surprising given he was also a "legacy". I had heard his High School career wasn't stellar, but not offering him seemed hard to believe. Glad it didn't work out that way, though he did have a bit of a "rough" start.

There really are dozens of "plausibly Power Five" OL a year with very good GPAs, plenty with 4.0s. I know this because I have seen them with my own two eyes (and so have guys like Carberry, Heff, and OL GA Dorian Keller) on Twitter, and we usually offer a bunch of them. (And sometimes we don't, much to my chagrin.)

Not "maybe 10 guys, a dozen at most." Dozens.

OK, so where is the error in the OP numbers? Is it that there are more than 150 OL in the top 1K High School prospects? Assuming an even distribution of all positions there should be (on average) 1000 / 22 * 5 or 227 OL in that group. That is probably an over-estimate because specialists like kickers aren't included and other specializations probably reduce the number. If we say 227, that says 227 * 0.047 (2021) or 10.5 guys would (on average) be admitted to Stanford. Allow some "preference" for athletes and you get maybe double that. That still isn't "dozens".

It is true that being admissible isn't as restrictive as actually being admitted. It is also equally true that many guys who are admissible will not want to attend Stanford. These two factors complicate identifying possible candidates. Is it possible some of the "dozens" you are looking at are not in the top 1K? Seems that is a probable explanation. Since there are 65 "Power 5" schools and each starts 5 OL, that means there are 325 "starters" in P5 schools that have to be replaced every year (on average). With only 227 candidates, that pretty much says they don't all come from the top 1K high school guys I guess. Of course, one could say many of the 325 aren't "P5 Starter" quality, but that is another issue :-)

When you say there are "dozens" of "qualified" candidates, it makes it appear you say recruiting OL should be "easy". As I am sure you know, there are plenty of guys with a 4.0 grade point that can't get into Stanford. They have to have good test scores (at least in the past) and they have to have done/will do the AP work. They also have to want what Stanford offers. For some reason I think finding the "right" guys to play at Stanford is a bit harder than you make it sound. We do seem to have at least our share of "misses".

---

Fwiw, Sarrell started at rt for four games for the Chargers when the starter went down this year. Watched as much as I could of those games. In the first, he was beaten two or three times for a sack or hurry. In the second game he improved, and by the fourth game I don't think he allowed a sack, maybe one hurry. He was fine on run blocking, getting up the field faster than the others. 

This is interesting in that run blocking always seemed to be a problem for him at Stanford. He virtually never played in a 3 point stance, always being very upright. For that reason he couldn't drive block very well. He also didn't seem to engage quickly and guys would run around him. Does he still play upright?

[Goose]

I can vouch that this is true, especially on less often and in less volume. From direct observation.

Good to know! First hand is the best data on something like this.

I once again can vouch that Bloomgren was "just not putting in the effort." This is not an inference based on the results. It is a direct observation.

Ditto.

(The non-"mega whale" in 2017 was Drew Dalman, who by the way Bloomgren was very close to not offering.)

That I knew. It was surprising given he was also a "legacy". I had heard his High School career wasn't stellar, but not offering him seemed hard to believe. Glad it didn't work out that way, though he did have a bit of a "rough" start.

There really are dozens of "plausibly Power Five" OL a year with very good GPAs, plenty with 4.0s. I know this because I have seen them with my own two eyes (and so have guys like Carberry, Heff, and OL GA Dorian Keller) on Twitter, and we usually offer a bunch of them. (And sometimes we don't, much to my chagrin.)

Not "maybe 10 guys, a dozen at most." Dozens.

OK, so where is the error in the OP numbers? Is it that there are more than 150 OL in the top 1K High School prospects? Assuming an even distribution of all positions there should be (on average) 1000 / 22 * 5 or 227 OL in that group. That is probably an over-estimate because specialists like kickers aren't included and other specializations probably reduce the number. If we say 227, that says 227 * 0.047 (2021) or 10.5 guys would (on average) be admitted to Stanford. Allow some "preference" for athletes and you get maybe double that. That still isn't "dozens".

It is true that being admissible isn't as restrictive as actually being admitted. It is also equally true that many guys who are admissible will not want to attend Stanford. These two factors complicate identifying possible candidates. Is it possible some of the "dozens" you are looking at are not in the top 1K? Seems that is a probable explanation. Since there are 65 "Power 5" schools and each starts 5 OL, that means there are 325 "starters" in P5 schools that have to be replaced every year (on average). With only 227 candidates, that pretty much says they don't all come from the top 1K high school guys I guess. Of course, one could say many of the 325 aren't "P5 Starter" quality, but that is another issue :-)

When you say there are "dozens" of "qualified" candidates, it makes it appear you say recruiting OL should be "easy". As I am sure you know, there are plenty of guys with a 4.0 grade point that can't get into Stanford. They have to have good test scores (at least in the past) and they have to have done/will do the AP work. They also have to want what Stanford offers. For some reason I think finding the "right" guys to play at Stanford is a bit harder than you make it sound. We do seem to have at least our share of "misses".

---

Fwiw, Sarrell started at rt for four games for the Chargers when the starter went down this year. Watched as much as I could of those games. In the first, he was beaten two or three times for a sack or hurry. In the second game he improved, and by the fourth game I don't think he allowed a sack, maybe one hurry. He was fine on run blocking, getting up the field faster than the others. 

This is interesting in that run blocking always seemed to be a problem for him at Stanford. He virtually never played in a 3 point stance, always being very upright. For that reason he couldn't drive block very well. He also didn't seem to engage quickly and guys would run around him. Does he still play upright?