for those who dont like Jucos

[kcsu]

There has been some debate about Jucos especially along the OL. In looking at our team this year here are the facts.

Starting middle LB: Dietab
DL rotation: Goggins, Walls, Zion,MPB
OL: Alexander
WR: Chris

 

[OrangePA]

Who has a problem with JUCOs?

 

[Townie72]

I'd be one who isn't crazy about Juco's ... but in the situation SU is in, they are probably a pretty good idea. Maybe even an absoluute necessity.

The complaints about Juco's I have heard are:

1, You only have them for two years in which they can play. So you don't get a chance to develop them the way you like. Home grown players as Jrs and Srs have been in the program for 2 or 3 years and have hopefully learned alot.
2. These guys went to Juco's for a reason. Frequently that reason is academics or other "issues" in their background. So you may be importing some problems and the more of these guys you have the more potential problems you have. One or two is OK. But 6 or 8 may not be.
3. Juco-heavy teams have a reputation that isn't all that savory. It's a "positioning" thing. How do you want your program and school thought of? A bunch of Juco's put me in mind of a program that's running close to the edge. It speaks of "desperation".
4. Bringing in Juco's could discourage younger players and inhibit recruitng. Thie is "recruting over" people on steroids. You work your way up the ladder at a starting job and here comes a player that gets in front of you in line.

I'd like to see no Juco's on the roster. I'd like to see no true freshman playing ... everybody wears a redshirt for their first year. I'd like to see SU field a team eery year with the starting positions loaded with 5th years seniors. But that's not reality. We are where we are. And using Juco's seems to be an indication that Marrone knows that to get better we have to start winning. And Juco's are a proven way to do that.

 

[RMH44]

I'd be one who isn't crazy about Juco's ... but in the situation SU is in, they are probably a pretty good idea. Maybe even an absoluute necessity.

The complaints about Juco's I have heard are:

1, You only have them for two years in which they can play. So you don't get a chance to develop them the way you like. Home grown players as Jrs and Srs have been in the program for 2 or 3 years and have hopefully learned alot.
2. These guys went to Juco's for a reason. Frequently that reason is academics or other "issues" in their background. So you may be importing some problems and the more of these guys you have the more potential problems you have. One or two is OK. But 6 or 8 may not be.
3. Juco-heavy teams have a reputation that isn't all that savory. It's a "positioning" thing. How do you want your program and school thought of? A bunch of Juco's put me in mind of a program that's running close to the edge. It speaks of "desperation".
4. Bringing in Juco's could discourage younger players and inhibit recruitng. Thie is "recruting over" people on steroids. You work your way up the ladder at a starting job and here comes a player that gets in front of you in line.

I'd like to see no Juco's on the roster. I'd like to see no true freshman playing ... everybody wears a redshirt for their first year. I'd like to see SU field a team eery year with the starting positions loaded with 5th years seniors. But that's not reality. We are where we are. And using Juco's seems to be an indication that Marrone knows that to get better we have to start winning. And Juco's are a proven way to do that.

The top teams play true freshmen when said freshman can contribute. Mandating all frosh to RS would, IMO, hurt recruiting.

A team loaded with 5th year senior starters would indicate to me that recruiting is sub par. Personally, I would prefer a nice mix of players from sophs through seniors which would alleviate the need to "reload" every year due to graduation.

 

[OrangeinBoston]

There has been some debate about Jucos especially along the OL. In looking at our team this year here are the facts.

Starting middle LB: Dietab
DL rotation: Goggins, Walls, Zion,MPB
OL: Alexander
WR: Chris

Even more important: 4 out of those 7 players are first time on the roster THIS year. So, perhaps the staff now has better JUCO connections and is better at evaluating JUCO talent and their ability to meet the academic requirements. Bring on the JUCOs! (Especially on the OL.)

 

[rrlbees]

The top teams play true freshmen when said freshman can contribute. Mandating all frosh to RS would, IMO, hurt recruiting.

A team loaded with 5th year senior starters would indicate to me that recruiting is sub par. Personally, I would prefer a nice mix of players from sophs through seniors which would alleviate the need to "reload" every year due to graduation.

This.

So few people get it. If you want the best freshman, they will play. Otherwise, don't recruit them. Saw an article this week about a top 20 team that has 14 /RF on the 2 deep. Saw another about a top 40 team that had a great recruiting year and 7 true frosh were starting.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[ImperialOrange]

JUCO's worked well enough for K State. I like it, especially on the lines, where guys are physically ready from day 1.

Also a team full of 5th year seniors means we aren't bringing in enough talent because A) you want guys good enough to play as true frosh and B) you want guys that have great seasons/potential which will result in early draft entrys ala Chan Jones

 

[CuseLegacy]

It will be interesting to see if the new NCAA academic requirements, that start in 2015, might increase the recruitment of JUCOs as freshmen recruits who might need more time adjusting to college academics will have to be red shirted.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect...he+tougher+academic+requirements+for+freshmen

 

[Townie72]

The top teams play true freshmen when said freshman can contribute. Mandating all frosh to RS would, IMO, hurt recruiting.

A team loaded with 5th year senior starters would indicate to me that recruiting is sub par. Personally, I would prefer a nice mix of players from sophs through seniors which would alleviate the need to "reload" every year due to graduation.

You may be right about the recruiting impact. And that wasn't really a serious proposal. But a player who was good enough to play as a frosh would probably be bigger, stronger and more experienced as a 5th year senior.

It's a truly exceptional player who can step in as a freshman. Generally speaking these frosh are pressed into service because of weaknesses in the roster.

 

[SoBristol]

Depends on how far you want to take "truly exceptional". Over the seasons, we have had frosh RBs and frosh WRs have significant impact (Bailey had a 100 yd game against ND; Sales, Lemon, Williams all played and contributed as frosh); Marrone had two frosh starters at LB (EJ Carter and Spruill); we have had several DBs play as frosh.
Ideally, with better recruiting, we land more prospects capable of making an early impact. Now, for the OL or DT it might take more time, but Jay Bromley worked into the DT rotation as a true frosh.

 

[RMH44]

You may be right about the recruiting impact. And that wasn't really a serious proposal. But a player who was good enough to play as a frosh would probably be bigger, stronger and more experienced as a 5th year senior.

It's a truly exceptional player who can step in as a freshman. Generally speaking these frosh are pressed into service because of weaknesses in the roster.

I agree that this was case here the last few years due to roster numbers but I'm not sure this statement fits when discussing schools that "select" more than they "recruit". The top recruits want the opportunity to play for a quality program and to play immediately.

 

[rocklloyd]

This.

So few people get it. If you want the best freshman, they will play. Otherwise, don't recruit them. Saw an article this week about a top 20 team that has 14 /RF on the 2 deep. Saw another about a top 40 team that had a great recruiting year and 7 true frosh were starting.

Historically, we don't get these kids. Ours need time to develop. Might we get them at some point? I hope the hell we do, but I think for now we're in the mode we have to develop our talent within the program.

 

[bnoro]

Who has a problem with JUCOs?

He's definitely referring to the many back and forths me and kc had over bringing in a "stud juco rb" even though one didn't exist. I prefer using scholarships on 4 year players. But in the case of our O-line and D-line, I like what we are doing with JUCOs. Hopefully we can go away from this in the future but for now I think they have to bring some in.

 

[kcsu]

He's definitely referring to the many back and forths me and kc had over bringing in a "stud juco rb" even though one didn't exist. I prefer using scholarships on 4 year players. But in the case of our O-line and D-line, I like what we are doing with JUCOs. Hopefully we can go away from this in the future but for now I think they have to bring some in.

Not true we had a post on the OL that went back and forth and ending up talking about Jucos . Hays was the primary topic and my point was simple if you have a hole Jucos can serve a very good role. Doug has done a great job with Jucos and this year is a perfect example of that. Without the jucos he has brought in this year and last we would be a much weaker team

 

[RF2044]

Not true we had a post on the OL that went back and forth and ending up talking about Jucos . Hays was the primary topic and my point was simple if you have a hole Jucos can serve a very good role. Doug has done a great job with Jucos and this year is a perfect example of that. Without the jucos he has brought in this year and last we would be a much weaker team

Nobody disputes that JUCOs can plug gaps, but some posters have a tendency to overstate the viability of this approach--as if any time we have a recruiting hole, all we have to do is bring in a JUCO and the problem is solved, when in fact many of them end up being little more than warm bodies. Hay is a poor example, because while he started [which makes your point], he started only because there was nobody to displace him, and his talent was questionable [which made the point everybody else in the thread was making].

Situationally, JUCOs can be a solid way to supplement depth. The big question is: are the JUCOs you're bringing in guys who are immediately bolstering the two deep and making contributory impact, or are they just taking up space. Because if it is the latter, then you're better off bringing in a high school guy.

Two often conveniently overlooked factors are that we aren't geographically in an area with prevalent JUCO talent, and the majority of JUCOs we land tend not to be high major, so they are gambles who generally come with big question marks.

Over the years, we've had our best luck bringing in DL JUCOs. Here's hoping for more of the same with MPB [in particular], Jones, and Walls. We've also had some intermittent success with one-offs at other positions--WR [Taj], a couple of TEs we brought in during the P era, and a kicker [Olindo!].

That said, going the JUCO route for OL hasn't worked out too well for SU over the years. In the P era, we brought in a big OL from California that was a total bust. Sklarosky didn't make much of an impact [he was originally brought in at DT]. Tiller was a solid player, Hay was very very shaky [putting it mildly], and Alexander doesn't look like he's going to pan out as hoped, either [and with luck, Louizell will prove me wrong this year]. So with all due respect, going out and signing more Hays / Alexanders isn't going to solve our problem, nor is it going to address the long-term issues we have at that position.

When people talk about bringing in JUCOs, like it is that easy to go out and land starting caliber players at a northeastern private school like SU, I automatically get skeptical about the viability of that approach. The first question is: where do we pull the JUCOs from, and the second is "are they good enough" to make an impact here? It has nothing to do with whether bringing them in to supplement recruiting is good or bad.

 

[SoBristol]

Nobody disputes that JUCOs can plug gaps, but some posters have a tendency to overstate the viability of this approach--as if any time we have a recruiting hole, all we have to do is bring in a JUCO and the problem is solved, when in fact many of them end up being little more than warm bodies. Hay is a poor example, because while he started [which makes your point], he started only because there was nobody to displace him, and his talent was questionable [which made the point everybody else in the thread was making].

Situationally, JUCOs can be a solid way to supplement depth. The big question is: are the JUCOs you're bringing in guys who are immediately bolstering the two deep and making contributory impact, or are they just taking up space. Because if it is the latter, then you're better off bringing in a high school guy.

Two often conveniently overlooked factors are that we aren't geographically in an area with prevalent JUCO talent, and the majority of JUCOs we land tend not to be high major, so they are gambles who generally come with big question marks.

Over the years, we've had our best luck bringing in DL JUCOs. Here's hoping for more of the same with MPB [in particular], Jones, and Walls. We've also had some intermittent success with one-offs at other positions--WR [Taj], a couple of TEs we brought in during the P era, and a kicker [Olindo!].

That said, going the JUCO route for OL hasn't worked out too well for SU over the years. In the P era, we brought in a big OL from California that was a total bust. Sklarosky didn't make much of an impact [he was originally brought in at DT]. Tiller was a solid player, Hay was very very shaky [putting it mildly], and Alexander doesn't look like he's going to pan out as hoped, either [and with luck, Louizell will prove me wrong this year]. So with all due respect, going out and signing more Hays / Alexanders isn't going to solve our problem, nor is it going to address the long-term issues we have at that position.

When people talk about bringing in JUCOs, like it is that easy to go out and land starting caliber players at a northeastern private school like SU, I automatically get skeptical about the viability of that approach. The first question is: where do we pull the JUCOs from, and the second is "are they good enough" to make an impact here? It has nothing to do with whether bringing them in to supplement recruiting is good or bad.

Have to say that a lot of those objections are vastly overstated.
We are in the northeast, but our DL jucos have come from the West Coast (or the South in the case of Ball and Walls) -- if you can go outside the region for linemen, you can do the same for skill positions. (UConn got its starting QB for this season from a Kansas Juco).
The point about Tiller, Hay and Alexander is that they were better than the other candidates we had from normal recruiting, and they helped. Hay, for sure, had its faults in pass blocking -- but who did we have who could compete with him?
Folks say the jucos come with baggage -- but you can say the same about some of our hs recruits who have to default to Milford, or high school commits who haven't made it here (Timbers) or don't do so well once here (Cater, Collier). Marrone's jucos have been average citizens once on campus.
We definitely want to do better with the normal hs recruiting, but at this stage, Marrone and staff should be looking at how to upgrade weak units with juco help.

 

[RF2044]

Have to say that a lot of those objections are vastly overstated.
We are in the northeast, but our DL jucos have come from the West Coast (or the South in the case of Ball and Walls) -- if you can go outside the region for linemen, you can do the same for skill positions. (UConn got its starting QB for this season from a Kansas Juco).

They aren't overstated at all--they are factual. Syracuse is not located in a geographic region with strong JUCO football, nor do we have the same kind of connections to strong JUCO football programs that many southern, southwestern, and west coast teams have. Do you dispute that?

Of course we CAN go outside of our geographic region to recruit JUCOs, especially in circumstances where you're looking for a single recruit at a certain position where bountiful PT opportunities are available [Taj Smith is a great example of this]. But bringing in a supplemental guy here and there to bolster depth is one thing; the limitations described above make it more difficult for SU to dip into the JUCO well as a sustained approach than it is for schools in the SEC, BIG 12, or PAC10.

Let's not pretend that it isn't much easier for southern schools to pull JUCOs from southern junior colleges, west coast teams to pull from the strong California based JUCOs, teams in the southwest to draw from junior colleges in their region, etc. than it is for a team like SU to consistently pull quality JUCOs from those same geographic areas. We have a quality connection with Nassau and have mined that quite well since Marrone / Anselmo came on-board. But NJC has a limited # of personnel that are D1 caliber, and there aren't too many other junior colleges in our backyard we can pull from.

The point about Tiller, Hay and Alexander is that they were better than the other candidates we had from normal recruiting, and they helped. Hay, for sure, had its faults in pass blocking -- but who did we have who could compete with him?

That is true, but again it doesn't change the factual observation that SU's recruiting of JUCO OL over the years has yielded mixed results [putting it kindly] dating back to the P era. OL is also a position, unlike many other positions where we've brought in JUCOs over the years, where the guys we've brought in have struggled to make a big impact.

Of the recent trio, Tiller was solid--no question. Hay was marginal, at best, and Alexander has yet to play. We didn't have anybody else to compete with them as you point out because there was a dearth of OL on the roster when Marrone took over. I didn't have an issue bringing when they were each being recruited respectively [and all three were in different classes--more on that later]. But ask yourself whether bringing in Tiller / Hay solve our OL issues, or are we still facing the same problems/ lack of depth 2-3 years later that we were before?

Please don't misunderstand: if we have the opportunity to somehow get involved with some 4-star OL prospect from a JUCO, of course we should do so. The problem is, historically the OL JUCOs we've pursued haven't produced, with Tiller being the notable exception. I'd love for us to land some JUCO stud who comes in and instantly solidifies the OL by nailing down a position for two years. The problem is, the guys out there who fit that description aren't the JUCOs who generally come to SU.

Folks say the jucos come with baggage -- but you can say the same about some of our hs recruits who have to default to Milford, or high school commits who haven't made it here (Timbers) or don't do so well once here (Cater, Collier). Marrone's jucos have been average citizens once on campus.

You are the one who introduced the issue of baggage, not me. All recruits have question marks to a degree, and thus are all gambles. I trust the coaching staff's judgement when it comes to the recruits they go after in terms of baggage. Tagging JUCOs as having "baggage" isn't a concern I have, and at best it is a generalization [Diabate is a good example--his only "issue" was that he only had one year of playing football experience, and went the JUCO route to get more game experience / exposure].

We definitely want to do better with the normal hs recruiting, but at this stage, Marrone and staff should be looking at how to upgrade weak units with juco help.

Here's what it comes down to for me: despite being behind the 8-ball when they took over, the coaching staff has done a commendable job of rebuilding the roster and infusing talent / athleticism into the pipeline with solid recruiting. Are we 100% where we need to be right now? Of course not, but we're headed there. And every single positional unit now has a lot more talent / depth / speed than it did three years ago--with the lone exception being OL.

Solving that issue long term will hinge on high school recruiting, bringing guys in and coaching them up. JUCOs should be viewed as supplemental to that process. You don't build a house by painting the walls first, you start off by building the foundation.

I don't have a problem with the coaching staff bringing in a JUCO [provided they land Officer and 2 other decent HS prospects along with him] at OL this year. What I object to from the thread that KCSU refers to above is the notion that we need to bring in 2-3 JUCO OL this year, and 2-3 JUCO OL next year. Long term, I don't agree with that approach.

People have responded to that with the straw man argument that recruiting JUCOs isn't situationally valuable--something that nobody seems to dispute.

 

[sufandu]

Historically, we don't get these kids. Ours need time to develop. Might we get them at some point? I hope the hell we do, but I think for now we're in the mode we have to develop our talent within the program.

It depends on how "historically" you'd like to go. Marvin Graves, Donovan McNabb, Rob Konrad, Quinton Spotwood, Kevin Johnson, Qadry Ismail, Dan Conley, Antwon Ponds, Morlon Greenwood, Rob Moore, Shelby Hill and I'm sure I'm missing quite a few, were all contributors as freshman and some were studs. We're not a selector school, but we've had our share of talented freshman.

 

[rocklloyd]

It depends on how "historically" you'd like to go. Marvin Graves, Donovan McNabb, Rob Konrad, Quinton Spotwood, Kevin Johnson, Qadry Ismail, Dan Conley, Antwon Ponds, Morlon Greenwood, Rob Moore, Shelby Hill and I'm sure I'm missing quite a few, were all contributors as freshman and some were studs. We're not a selector school, but we've had our share of talented freshman.

Ok how about recent history.

 

[SoBristol]

They aren't overstated at all--they are factual. Syracuse is not located in a geographic region with strong JUCO football, nor do we have the same kind of connections to strong JUCO football programs that many southern, southwestern, and west coast teams have. Do you dispute that?

...

...it doesn't change the factual observation that SU's recruiting of JUCO OL over the years has yielded mixed results [putting it kindly] dating back to the P era. OL is also a position, unlike many other positions where we've brought in JUCOs over the years, where the guys we've brought in have struggled to make a big impact.

ask yourself whether bringing in Tiller / Hay solve our OL issues, or are we still facing the same problems/ lack of depth 2-3 years later that we were before?
...I'd love for us to land some JUCO stud who comes in and instantly solidifies the OL by nailing down a position for two years. The problem is, the guys out there who fit that description aren't the JUCOs who generally come to SU.

Solving that issue long term will hinge on high school recruiting, bringing guys in and coaching them up. JUCOs should be viewed as supplemental to that process. You don't build a house by painting the walls first, you start off by building the foundation.

I don't have a problem with the coaching staff bringing in a JUCO [provided they land Officer and 2 other decent HS prospects along with him] at OL this year. What I object to from the thread that KCSU refers to above is the notion that we need to bring in 2-3 JUCO OL this year, and 2-3 JUCO OL next year. Long term, I don't agree with that approach.

Difficult to tell how much we really disagree, as you seem to agree that Marrone has done well with his JUCO recruiting. We have been taking 3 or so every year, covering a variety of positions, and as the original poster wrote, it looks like a history of success with Tiller, Ball, Goggins, Fisher, Diabate, Alexander, Hay and now 3 JUCOs in the two deep for the DL plus Clark coming on at WR. When people see what MPB adds to the pass rush, the case for supplemental JUCOs gets better.
Looking forward, the staff might want to be identifying a MLB and an OT. Just saying.

 

[RF2044]

Difficult to tell how much we really disagree, as you seem to agree that Marrone has done well with his JUCO recruiting. We have been taking 3 or so every year, covering a variety of positions, and as the original poster wrote, it looks like a history of success with Tiller, Ball, Goggins, Fisher, Diabate, Alexander, Hay and now 3 JUCOs in the two deep for the DL plus Clark coming on at WR. When people see what MPB adds to the pass rush, the case for supplemental JUCOs gets better.
Looking forward, the staff might want to be identifying a MLB and an OT. Just saying.

That's largely because you and the OP are arguing against a position I'm not making. I don't disagree that JUCOs are useful and I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't go after them as a supplement. I just look at the track record we've had specifically with OL JUCOs and the historical results haven't been nearly as positive as they have at other positions, and certainly doesn't jibe with the rosy picture you paint above.

By my count, we've had five JUCO OL since the '90s [there may have been more, but five that I recall]. A california kid [who drove cross country in a late model Cadillac--someone help me out, name escapes me] during the P era who came in touted as a prospective starter but who was a complete washout and left after one year. Sklarosky, who came in at DT, moved to OL, and ended up being a second string type of guy who had a minimal impact. Alexander, who by all accounts is a warm body until Pugh gets back and Hickey shifts over [and believe me, noone would be happier than me to see LA prove me wrong]. Hay, who was marginal, and Tiller who was solid. So you'll have to excuse me for being underwhelmed by arguments like you make above re: JUCO OL as a "history of success." Of the five, we had one pan out--and we only landed him because of his circumstances / relationship with Anselmo [keep in mind that Tiller also had a Miami offer--he was a nice pickup for us], one who was below average, and three who barely rate. Which is why I am skeptical when I see people suggest that the way to address depth / quality issues at OL over the next few years is to go the JUCO route.

 

[sufandu]

Ok how about recent history.

I suppose if the only history you want to consider is the worst era we've ever had, you'd be right. Even in the midst of that, we still had Delone Carter with a very good freshman year. It's not like I was going back to the 70's for the names I mentioned.

 

[SoBristol]

...I just look at the track record we've had specifically with OL JUCOs and the historical results haven't been nearly as positive as they have at other positions, and certainly doesn't jibe with the rosy picture you paint above.

...

I don't see the relevance here of ancient history. GROB brought in only 2 or 3 JUCOs in four years -- one reason why he failed. Marrone's higher reliance on JUCO recruiting (and success) is a key distinction in his approach vs. his predecessors. So, toss out what GROB or P did or did not do, and consider what Marrone, Anselmo and Adkins have been able to do in the past 4 years.

The success this year with the DL jucos (3 guys likely to have immediate impact) illustrates what can be done when the staff concentrates on fixing one unit.

No reason that we can't bring in 3 or 4 useful jucos every year. For next season, we are in decent shape in most units -- in part, because we have a transfer to help at WR and another transfer (Raymon, who may be eligible this season if that waiver comes through) for the DL. But Pugh is a senior and may pass on his 5th year if the NFL calls; and Chilbane and Alexander are gone. We will need some fixing in that unit.

 

[OrangeinBoston]

That's largely because you and the OP are arguing against a position I'm not making. I don't disagree that JUCOs are useful and I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't go after them as a supplement. I just look at the track record we've had specifically with OL JUCOs and the historical results haven't been nearly as positive as they have at other positions, and certainly doesn't jibe with the rosy picture you paint above.

By my count, we've had five JUCO OL since the '90s [there may have been more, but five that I recall]. A california kid [who drove cross country in a late model Cadillac--someone help me out, name escapes me] during the P era who came in touted as a prospective starter but who was a complete washout and left after one year. Sklarosky, who came in at DT, moved to OL, and ended up being a second string type of guy who had a minimal impact. Alexander, who by all accounts is a warm body until Pugh gets back and Hickey shifts over [and believe me, noone would be happier than me to see LA prove me wrong]. Hay, who was marginal, and Tiller who was solid. So you'll have to excuse me for being underwhelmed by arguments like you make above re: JUCO OL as a "history of success." Of the five, we had one pan out--and we only landed him because of his circumstances / relationship with Anselmo [keep in mind that Tiller also had a Miami offer--he was a nice pickup for us], one who was below average, and three who barely rate. Which is why I am skeptical when I see people suggest that the way to address depth / quality issues at OL over the next few years is to go the JUCO route.

You don't seem to allow for the possibility that the staff has better JUCO contacts now and knows better how to evaluante JUCO talent. Clearly, SU needs more solid H.S. recruits at OL for the coming season, but SU will need JUCO help to provide depth.

 

[RF2044]

I don't see the relevance here of ancient history.

The facts can be inconvenient when they don't support your argument. Especially because those who don't understand history are doomed to make the same mistakes.

GROB brought in only 2 or 3 JUCOs in four years -- one reason why he failed. Marrone's higher reliance on JUCO recruiting (and success) is a key distinction in his approach vs. his predecessors. So, toss out what GROB or P did or did not do, and consider what Marrone, Anselmo and Adkins have been able to do in the past 4 years.

The reason that Marrone turned things around is that he [and staff] are better coaches than GRob, and they did an outstanding job changing the culture of losing that gripped the program. Part of that was allowing people who weren't willing to commit to what would be required of players in our program walk--and that attrition created huge roster holes. Did this create some openings that the staff filled with JUCOs who otherwise might not have been recruited? Hard to say.

I feel like I keep having to repeat myself here, but I am NOT against recruiting JUCOs in general, and I view it as a solid approach to supplement recruiting. We've brought in some solid talent from the junior college ranks. For the record, I think the point you are making about JUCOs being a key factor in the turnaround is overstated, but I don't want this debate to branch off in yet another direction.

The success this year with the DL jucos (3 guys likely to have immediate impact) illustrates what can be done when the staff concentrates on fixing one unit.

Let's not count chickens before they are hatched. I am very, very, very excited to see what MPB can do, however. I said last February at signing day, and maintain it until today--he is the most important recruit from the class of 2012, bar none. I'm also hopeful that Zian Jones and Walls also show something, but there is no guarantee [see: Alexander, Louizell].

No reason that we can't bring in 3 or 4 useful jucos every year. For next season, we are in decent shape in most units -- in part, because we have a transfer to help at WR and another transfer (Raymon, who may be eligible this season if that waiver comes through) for the DL. But Pugh is a senior and may pass on his 5th year if the NFL calls; and Chilbane and Alexander are gone. We will need some fixing in that unit.

Your first sentence continues to argue a straw man position. Your last touches upon the point I've been trying to make throughout this thread. Unfortunately, there are no quick fixes with OL. We simply have to do better recruiting OL. If that means transfers [Penn State or elsewhere?], JUCO's, better high school recruiting or a combination of all three--whatever it takes. But people who advocate going out and signing 3 JUCOs to remediate the problems on OL are setting themselves up for disappointment.