A thought on UCLA recruiting

I just got finished reading an enlightening interview with Scout.com national recruiting analyst Scott Kennedy, and one thing he said really stuck out to me.

"Big guys develop more slowly," Kennedy told Fox Sports' Lisa Horne. "Skill players are born, linemen are built. While we are ranking them, they are the farthest from being finished products, which makes them the hardest to project."

That simple fact - and it is fact - means one thing: Get more offensive linemen. If, comparatively speaking, a 2- or 3-star offensive lineman is closer in projectability to a 4-star than a 3-star wideout is to a 4-star, than it's just that simple.

Particularly, as on a football team, offensive linemen account for 23 percent of the starting lineup (5/22). If anything, you need to overcompensate at the position, because line play is so crucial and because devastating injuries occur at an alarming rate.

The problem for UCLA?

Over the past decade, of the Bruins' 214 listed committed recruits, only 16 percent were offensive linemen, and that is simply not enough.

SEE CHART

2002: 26 commits, 3 OL (one 3-star, two 2-stars, the team's two lowest-rated recruits).
2003: 19 commits, 2 OL (one a 3-star, one an unrated 2-star).
2004: 27 commits, 7 OL (one 4-star, three 3-stars, three unrated 2-stars including future starters Scott Glicksberg and Chris Joseph).
2005: 22 commits, 2 OL (one 4-star - Aleksy Lanis, who medically retired after his third year - and one unrated 3-star - Justin Brown, who only played two years).
2006: 22 commits, 6 OL (three 4-stars and three 3-stars).
2007: 12 commits, 1 OL (3-star Mike Harris).
2008: 23 commits, 2 OL (3-stars Jeff Baca and Connor Bradford).
2009: 24 commits, 6 OL (two 4-stars, four 3-stars).
2010: 21 commits, 4 OL (one 4-star, two 3-stars and one unranked JC transfer).
2011: 18 commits, 5 OL (three 3-stars and two 2-stars
(Based on Scout.com's verbal commit list)

Because strength and size is not at a premium among non-linemen, they are able to contribute more immediately. But you reasonably expect an offensive lineman to blossom into a contributor in his third year (junior or redshirt sophomore), into a starter his fourth year (senior or redshirt junior) and a potential all-conference pick as a redshirt senior. That's the hope at least. Well at UCLA, guys like Aleksy Lanis, Justin Brown, Nik Abele, Stan Hasiak and I'm sure others, haven't lasted that long.

Now the situation is a little clearer as to the Bruins' line troubles in the past decade. Rick Neuheisel has four recruiting classes under his belt, with 86 recruits and 17 offensive linemen, a 19.8 percent clip. Karl Dorrell, in his five years, had 102 recruits and just 18 offensive linemen, a 17.6 percent clip.

Neuheisel carries the tag of being a "skill-position" recruiter, someone who focuses - and succeeds at - the marquee positions. Clearly at UCLA, he has done better than his predecessor, though undone in large part to fluke injuries, missions and academic issues. But he's still not all the way there yet. That 19.8 percent should be at least 23 percent.

This year, though, should bring some hope.

So far in 2012, UCLA has 11 verbal commitments. Three of them are offensive linemen, or 27 percent. The key going forward is to not lose that ratio. Given the amount of sheer talent at the offensive line position in this class, particularly on the west coast, UCLA has an opportunity to do that. Anything less than seven offensive linemen in this class, in my mind, is a mistake.

Where else does UCLA not have depth going forward, or at least "the guy"? Or to be put more clearly: The Bruins should make sure they get a seventh - or heck, eighth - offensive lineman this year, instead of a third receiver, if that becomes an issue. Skill players transfer more (hello Shaq Evans, hello Joseph Fauria, goodbye Morrell Presley, goodbye Antwon Moutra), so they're easily replaceable.

But the battle is won on the offensive line.

If you have enough soldiers.