In short, they said that their opinion was that they landed De'Anthony Thomas, Darron Thomas, and Arik Armstead because they recruited those three guys at their position of choice (RB for DAT when everybody else was recruiting him to be CB, QB for Darron Thomas vs WR/S, DL vs. OL for Armstead). Their discussion was framed in the context of "what's best for the team?" but I think the more interesting question is if this is responsible to recruits. As a brief thought experiment, think about De'Anthony Thomas. Presuming (as many head coaches must have thought in order to recruit him as such) that DAT could have been a shutdown corner and would have if he had elected to do so, he'd be a much more draftable commodity than the RB he is now. His size and lack of touches in college will drive off a lot of pro teams, and those that would draft him will likely draft him as 3rd down back and kick/punt returner. It would be very difficult to believe that an NFL team would invest the time and effort to convert him to a CB, where he might not even pan out. Moreover, a cursory look at salaries in the NFL shows that cornerbacks make much, much more money than KR/PRs or 3rd down backs. By allowing prospects to languish rather than reach their full potential, is Oregon's staff (or any other college staff) shortchanging the recruit?