I'm not trying to polish a turd here but the fact of the matter is we signed a smaller class this year. If you bother to put aside sheer volume (we signed 500 2* players, we're #1!) the per player ranking of who we DID get would jump us ahead of Cal, BC, NC St, Neb, Ole Miss, K St, Ok St, MO, WA, IL & Auburn. We signed 32 players in '07 so the smaller class was absolutely expected. The other "weak" class in '06 (which was still top 25 mind you) has given us Lincoln, Vinson, Stocker, Fisher, Hancock, R Johnson, McClendon and Nelson. All of these players are either already starters, had playing time or have been mentioned as being legit on the depth chart.
The '09 class is pivotal. We have an entirely new offensive staff and I can't imagine there are going to be too many players commit on that side of the ball until they get some idea of what that staff will put on the field. Who could honestly blame them? Moreover, success (or lack thereof) on the field will go a long way to determining what recruits are going to think of the long term stability of the coaching staff as a whole, which brings in the D side of recruiting as well. In short, bunching up ones pantaloons in March over the '09 class just doesn't make sense to me.