I should be a little more clear here. My post is not about recruiting to fill immediate needs or even talking about "biggest" needs. It is about realizing that recruiting is both a science and an art. It was mostly in response to a Big Bang post in the Greg Gaines thread about him being MacIntyre's first big loss. Not picking on Big Bang in this instance either because everyone (including me) tends to get a little too worked up when certain recruits choose other schools.
Of course we need help everywhere, but we can help ourselves in some areas more than others. For example, if the 3rd running back on the board is much higher on your overall board than your 2nd wide receiver, you should target the 3rd running back instead of being consumed by strict numbers at positions. It generally goes hand in hand with the overall strength of that position in a given year. Obviously there is a limit to this line of thinking as well. The Hawkins 2007 offensive line class and Embree 2012 defensive line class are good examples of trying to do too much at one position group in a single class. We signed eight defensive linemen in that class. It was obviously a need, but at what price? That same class produced an incredible number of both elite and very good offensive line prospects out west, yet we mostly struck out. The signing day spin became it was not a big need, but that seems pretty silly now.
I always pay attention to who gets offered early by a staff. It is particularly useful with MacIntyre's staff since they have been very deliberate in offering players. Early offers can give you a good feel for how they view certain positions.
With running back, the new staff is offering some big guys. Kalen Ballage, Royce Freeman, and Vic Enwere. Not hard to see the coaches want at least one big back in this class and possibly two. So while it may not break the class if we miss out on any of the three, it certainly could help make a good class if we land one or two of those guys.
With offensive line, the coaches have offered four in-state offensive linemen (Dalton Risner, Sam Jones, Isaac Miller, and Isaiah Holland) and had Alec Ruth visit on Junior Day. All five have BCS offers, which is similar to the 2012 class where four in-state offensive linemen left the state. If the new coaching staff strikes out in much the same manner as Embree's staff did in 2012, it is going to be hard to say that the new coaches accomplished two important goals for this recruiting class: landing top choices and making headway with in-state recruiting.
With linebacker, there are ten reported offers out there, half of them in Texas. Plus you add in guys like Ballage/Enwere who may eventually end up at that position. It is pretty clear the new coaches want to add length (started with Markeis Reid) and to find that elusive traditional MLB prospect. If we land some of these early offers, it could be a good sign going forward for our efforts in Texas, as well as the added bonus of getting players who can play early (we do need to be finding some of these players in every class).
Contrast those three positions to quarterback for this class. It is becoming pretty clear that MacIntyre/Lindgren are looking to add an athletic quarterback for this class. They have been pretty stingy with offers, but have clearly targeted players like Darius Lee-Campbell, Cade Apsay, Manny Wilkins, and Marcus McMaryion. When Morgan Mahalak committed to Oregon, I posted it was hard to know where he fit on the quarterback recruiting board. He may have been at the top or he may have been placed squarely in a jumbled mix with several other players. If you look at his offers (particularly Oregon), it probably seems like a big loss, but it may not be if the coaches land one of the other players mentioned above. If the coaches offer Cade Apsay in early June and he accepts, do I really care whether we missed out on Mahalak or not? Not really.
Overall, just trying to add a little bit of nuance to the recruiting board instead of simply looking at star ratings, offers, etc.:wink2: