Sorry if it s re-thread on JUCO's

[SoBristol]

...

But I think there's been a consistent tendency on this board to overrate our chances to land quality JUCOs. Every time we have a depth issue, there are lots of posts expressing "let's just go get a JUCO to plug that hole." It's not that easy for SU, given that there aren't a ton of quality JUCO programs in any relative proximity of our school to build relationships with and establish any semblance of a pipeline. ...QUOTE]

SU has challenges in recruiting in general --and has to pull players from Florida and Illinois, Michigan, even Wisconsin. There are other programs that have their pick of the players from those regions. It isn't that easy for SU (same as you said for JUCOs).

Yes, it isn't easy to get a JUCO to plug a glaring need. The staff would have to review the roster, and decide months ahead and start reaching out. Wait -- isn't that what we expect them to do? For example, if there is no QB on the roster behind Hunt? Or it is obvious we are too young in both lines?

Or, as this cycle, when Ward knows he needs help in the secondary, at LB, and at DE, and Babers needs a TE -- and goes out to recruit a little help? Might not be easy, but a better staff is getting it done.

 

[kcsu]

The best programs in college football all pursue and utilize jucos. They should be part of the mix. Out of a class of 25. 2 to 5 depending on need a year is fine.

 

[RMH44]

The best programs in college football all pursue and utilize jucos. They should be part of the mix. Out of a class of 25. 2 to 5 depending on need a year is fine.

Agreed...even Alabama signs a JUCO now and again.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

The best programs in college football all pursue and utilize jucos. They should be part of the mix. Out of a class of 25. 2 to 5 depending on need a year is fine.

5 is too many. It looks like we'll have at least 4 JUCO / grad transfers this year to cover for depth issues and to compensate for a really young roster. It's not going to be a year-over-year thing.

5 JUCO guys a year means fully a quarter of your roster didn't pan out or left for various reasons and left you with depth/talent issues over a 5 year period. That's not good.

 

[tep624]

I look at that list, and its really a mixed bag. Tiller was highly rated, and only came because we hired his HC. Ball was a solid rotation guy who had a pretty good senior year.

The next year, Goggins was a quality get. Hay started but was all over the board.

Diabate was a terrific player.

Zian Jones was a solid rotation guy.

In 2013, Arcinega was quality before injuries cut short his career. Kelley was a very good safety [would kill to land a guy like this THIS offseason], and John Miller became a starter.

No other names on that list are noteworthy. So by my count, 9 out of 24 emerged as quality contributors--which goes to show that even landing experienced guys isn't necessarily the surefire way to build quality depth.

Obviously too early to tell on the 2017 guys.

I think in general, the guys that were "recruited" had a pretty good return. Either were at least a 1 year starter or solid rotational player. The guys that were last minute fillers had literally no return. Hell, 4 of the last minute guys (Hines, Henderson, Howard, Moore) never even made it to fall ball.

 

[rackman18]

You nailed it right there! FHCSS signed a bunch of academic risks and was stuck scouring the JUCO ranks for bodies when they failed to qualify.

This year's JUCOs were signed early, on purpose and with a purpose, rather than after the Feb NLI signing day. We weren't forced to look for the best of the leftovers after the risky signees failed to qualify.

Or like the one, "DE" who I believe last year ended up at MSU, who milked us on signing til end and did not. I can't think of his name. I'm sure someone will. We don't need anymore of that.

 

[chugg21]

5 is too many. It looks like we'll have at least 4 JUCO / grad transfers this year to cover for depth issues and to compensate for a really young roster. It's not going to be a year-over-year thing.

5 JUCO guys a year means fully a quarter of your roster didn't pan out or left for various reasons and left you with depth/talent issues over a 5 year period. That's not good.

I'm ok with it this year as they will mostly be backdated to last years class and still give us a chance at bringing in 22-23 hs kids in this cycle.

 

[chugg21]

Or like the one, "DE" who I believe last year ended up at MSU, who milked us on signing til end and did not. I can't think of his name. I'm sure someone will. We don't need anymore of that.

Like to call that the reverse Thompson/White maneuver.

 

[SoBristol]

5 is too many. It looks like we'll have at least 4 JUCO / grad transfers this year to cover for depth issues and to compensate for a really young roster. It's a year-over-year thing.

5 JUCO guys a year means fully a quarter of your roster didn't pan out or left for various reasons and left you with depth/talent issues over a 5 year period. That's not good.

Your math is off. Roster has 85 spots - jucos typically have 2 years to play. When you add grad transfers (as Babers did with Etta-Tawo and Wilson) it is only for one year. Either way, these approaches can provide the flexibility to balance the roster and solve problems with deficits in talent in particular units.

Another way to look at this. When your high school recruiting does not pan out or players have left for various reasons (Shafer's class in 2014, for example), you might use juco recruiting to fill the gaps. At the same time, you bring in 22 players (or so) from the high school ranks. If that yield is better, fewer gaps to fill.

 

[LeMoyneCuse]

Your math is off. Roster has 85 spots - jucos typically have 2 years to play. When you add grad transfers (as Babers did with Etta-Tawo and Wilson) it is only for one year. Either way, these approaches can provide the flexibility to balance the roster and solve problems with deficits in talent in particular units.

Another way to look at this. When your high school recruiting does not pan out or players have left for various reasons (Shafer's class in 2014, for example), you might use juco recruiting to fill the gaps. At the same time, you bring in 22 players (or so) from the high school ranks. If that yield is better, fewer gaps to fill.

I know what I was saying with my math, even if I didn't present it in the right way. It's an extreme example, but if you take 5 JUCOs or grad transfers a year out of a class of 25 on an annual basis, that means you have five holes in a year, year after year. That's bad.

I'm all for using JUCOs as a stop gap. But stop gaps on an annual basis are a sign of bigger problems.

 

[SoBristol]

I believe we agree about this. There are signs of bigger problems at this stage. Sign 1: SU has had 3 losing seasons in a row, with too many games in which we were outmatched; Sign 2: the roster is unbalanced (too young) as a result of the weak yields from the 2013 and 2014 recruiting classes; Sign 3: the 2016 defense was one of the worst SU defenses I have ever seen.

We had five holes (at least) in this cycle: TE, both DEs, at least one DB spot, LB behind the 3 starters. As Babers gets better yields in his recruiting, there should be fewer glaring needs in future cycles. It is a year to year judgment.

 

[cusefan88]

Sorry if this is covered, do grad transfers count towards the 25 men in a class?

If not, let's hope we are pursuing another DT, DB, and maybe WR

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Sorry if this is covered, do grad transfers count towards the 25 men in a class?

If not, let's hope we are pursuing another DT, DB, and maybe WR

I've been told that everyone counts. Freshmen, JUCOs and Transfers.