Class of 2015 JUCO OT Calvin Steyn (CA) Visiting

[tep624]

Looking at this kid's tape I don't really see anything special which concerns me. Really like Dungey/Dunkelberger though. If we're going to bring in JUCO's they should have the upside of a kid like Dunkelberger. I don't see upside with Steyn.

I know people keep saying I'm nuts on this but are we absolutely certain he's not being looked at as a preferred walk-on?

 

[timkay99]

We aren't winning the ACC anytime soon. You develop some young guys. The type of JC kids we are pulling there is no guarantee they are the answer. I'd rather have 5 years to develop a kid then 2.

Winning the ACC doesn't matter. If that Juco kid takes you from a non-bowl team to a bowl team, then you take him.

Understand the point on high school kids, but give me a Juco OL who will rarely see the field (Lasker) vs. the Project OL who will never see the field.

 

[GoCuse44]

Casullo and Gedney both said on ESPN radio that this coaching staff needs to bring in JUCO players now.

 

[anomander]

Casullo and Gedney both said on ESPN radio that this coaching staff needs to bring in JUCO players now.

Casullo also said special teams don't matter.

Winning the ACC doesn't matter. If that Juco kid takes you from a non-bowl team to a bowl team, then you take him.

Understand the point on high school kids, but give me a Juco OL who will rarely see the field (Lasker) vs. the Project OL who will never see the field.

I've given up on this argument. People are sick of hearing it, and i'm sick of defending my reasoning.

But the highlighted part makes absolutely no sense.

 

[tep624]

Casullo also said special teams don't matter.




I've given up on this argument. People are sick of hearing it, and i'm sick of defending my reasoning.

But the highlighted part makes absolutely no sense.

I don't agree with you on the JUCO thing but I didn't quite understand that line either. A non-contributor is a non-contributor. Unless he means that a non-contributor JUCO is only on campus 2 years and then we can get rid of him and replace him. Then I guess it sorta makes sense.

 

[kcsu]

I have looked back at every Juco we have signed that showed up over the last five years. Almost all of them have contributed. Some as starters and many on special teams. Jucos serve a purpose and should be looked at on a year to year basis based on needs. To say that we should never recruit Jucos or that we should load up on them is foolish. The need should dictate our Juco interest each year.

 

[timkay99]

I don't agree with you on the JUCO thing but I didn't quite understand that line either. A non-contributor is a non-contributor. Unless he means that a non-contributor JUCO is only on campus 2 years and then we can get rid of him and replace him. Then I guess it sorta makes sense.

Casullo also said special teams don't matter.




I've given up on this argument. People are sick of hearing it, and i'm sick of defending my reasoning.

But the highlighted part makes absolutely no sense.

Because for as much as laser struggled, he contributed. We have a number of ol whom have yet to see the field (mcgloster, burton) who were recruited in this time frame as projects and may never see it.

Better to have the guy who is already a career backup vs the guy you are trying to grow into a backup

 

[Crusty]

Casullo and Gedney both said on ESPN radio that this coaching staff needs to bring in JUCO players now.

Link?

 

[anomander]

Because for as much as laser struggled, he contributed. We have a number of ol whom have yet to see the field (mcgloster, burton) who were recruited in this time frame as projects and may never see it.

Better to have the guy who is already a career backup vs the guy you are trying to grow into a backup

He was a turnstyle? Sure he contributed...to a whole lot of sacks. Playing doesn't equal contributing.

 

[chakka3421]

I'm ok with JUCOs. 1-2 each year just to keep those pipelines open make sense to me. HCDM had to go this route due to his lack of ability to develop a recruiting based coaching staff as he never really developed that part of the program all that well. Annomander I know you disagree with HCDMs ability to recruit but he admitted to me he never really liked that part of the job - his words "sitting in a family room trying to convince teenagers & parents to commit to SU was not his cup of tea".

I have followed Wayne Williams since high school and I think he will be an important and necessary piece to our DL puzzle next year. Lot of us had privileged childhoods with parents who pushed us and it was the normal thing to do after high school was to go to college. For others not so much.

However, only the OL and DL big uglies make sense as JUCOs to me - even if they only play mainly on the scout team or special teams - I personally don't like playing first team big uglies on special teams - we need depth on the line especially after this year's injury saga. If we need to regularly recruit skill players from the JUCO ranks (maybe a top 10 JUCO kid ok), that's when I would get worried.

 

[djorange1989]

Unless you tell me we are trying to bring in the second coming of Lawrence Phillips(off the field violence and all around criminal), I am all for bringing in anyone who can help make our team better. I don't want 15 Juco kids every year by any means but if we identify a few that can help us at positions of need, I am in. This kid Steyn doesn't look that impressive to me so I am ok if we don't bring him in. Because he doesn't impress me that much, not because he is a Juco

 

[anglerman]

Unless you tell me we are trying to bring in the second coming of Lawrence Phillips(off the field violence and all around criminal), I am all for bringing in anyone who can help make our team better. I don't want 15 Juco kids every year by any means but if we identify a few that can help us at positions of need, I am in. This kid Steyn doesn't look that impressive to me so I am ok if we don't bring him in. Because he doesn't impress me that much, not because he is a Juco

Come on guys it's very simple you bring in good players where ever you can get them. Every school takes JUCO kids from time to time. Stop making issues where there is none . Some of these conversations are ridiculous

 

[djorange1989]

Come on guys it's very simple you bring in good players where ever you can get them. Every school takes JUCO kids from time to time. Stop making issues where there is none . Some of these conversations are ridiculous

Amen brother. Between these kinds of debates and threads comparing Shafer to GROB my head may explode

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Come on guys it's very simple you bring in good players where ever you can get them. Every school takes JUCO kids from time to time. Stop making issues where there is none . Some of these conversations are ridiculous

I question how good some JUCOs are. If it's a guy we're on early like Williams, or a late bloomer like Dunkelberger, sure, they probably upgrade the talent. If they're someone we get in on late that's a band aid, well... I have doubt's about how much they can really help, and their recruitment might also signal an earlier recruiting failure. I'm also not comfortable saying whether a guy contributed. It's important to assess what they contributed to. Contributing to bowl teams, yeah, that has some value. Contributing to teams that didn't make bowls means we needed fewer contributors and more performers. I look at some of our JUCOs, and they see the field, but they're so clearly limited I think it's fair to wonder if they really help or if they're just a spot on the depth chart.

 

[anomander]

I question how good some JUCOs are. If it's a guy we're on early like Williams, or a late bloomer like Dunkelberger, sure, they probably upgrade the talent. If they're someone we get in on late that's a band aid, well... I have doubt's about how much they can really help, and their recruitment might also signal an earlier recruiting failure. I'm also not comfortable saying whether a guy contributed. It's important to assess what they contributed to. Contributing to bowl teams, yeah, that has some value. Contributing to teams that didn't make bowls means we needed fewer contributors and more performers. I look at some of our JUCOs, and they see the field, but they're so clearly limited I think it's fair to wonder if they really help or if they're just a spot on the depth chart.

This is 100% my exact feelings.

It's easy to say someone contributed because he played, but sometimes you have to factor into how they played when they were actually on the field. Playing doesn't equal contributing.

Looks like we are on an island though.

 

[RF2044]

I question how good some JUCOs are. If it's a guy we're on early like Williams, or a late bloomer like Dunkelberger, sure, they probably upgrade the talent. If they're someone we get in on late that's a band aid, well... I have doubt's about how much they can really help, and their recruitment might also signal an earlier recruiting failure. I'm also not comfortable saying whether a guy contributed. It's important to assess what they contributed to. Contributing to bowl teams, yeah, that has some value. Contributing to teams that didn't make bowls means we needed fewer contributors and more performers. I look at some of our JUCOs, and they see the field, but they're so clearly limited I think it's fair to wonder if they really help or if they're just a spot on the depth chart.

This is 100% my exact feelings.

It's easy to say someone contributed because he played, but sometimes you have to factor into how they played when they were actually on the field. Playing doesn't equal contributing.

Looks like we are on an island though.

That's an enormous sweeping generalization that both of you are making. We've had plenty--PLENTY--of JUCOs who've been major contributors, and severl of whom were of above average ability. That has zero to do with the quality of the teams they played on. A guy like Andrew Tilller played in the NFL. Does the fact that the team wasn't that good when he was here somehow change that he had the ability to get to the NFL and stick?

Did Deon Goggins contribute?
Did Taj Smith?
How bout Darius Kelly?
Wayne Williams?
We've also had numerous JUCOs who have played platoon roles on the defensive line, and contributed as reserves.

Sure--there have also been some who haven't made much of a dent. But you guys are painting with an awfully broad brush. Sign me up for a Goggins / Smith / Kelly / Tiller any day. But if the guy isn't D1 caliber, then don't recruit him. Same is true of high school prospects. So in my mind, it isn't a "JUCO" issue, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

That's an enormous sweeping generalization that both of you are making. We've had plenty--PLENTY--of JUCOs who've been major contributors, and severl of whom were of above average ability. A guy like Andrew Tilller played in the NFL. Does the fact that the team wasn't that good when he was here somehow change that he had the ability to get to the NFL and stick?

Did Deon Goggins contribute?
Did Taj Smith?
How bout Darius Kelly?
Wayne Williams?
We've also had numerous JUCOs who have played platoon roles on the defensive line, and contributed as reserves.

Sure--there have also been some who haven't made much of a dent. But you guys are painting with an awfully broad brush. Sign me up for a Goggins / Smith / Kelly / Tiller any day. But if the guy isn't D1 caliber, then don't recruit him. Same is true of high school prospects. So in my mind, it isn't a "JUCO" issue, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

My brush isn't as broad as your thinking. Remember, I said JUCOs we're on early are probably pretty good. Tiller was a priority recruit for us. I could be remembering wrong but I thought we had been involved with Goggins for a while too. We know we had a long involvement with Williams. Kelly I can't remember honestly. Is it fair to say that our best JUCOs have been guys we were on early? I think that's generally true.

I don't mind the JUCOs that are part of the plan all along, or that are late developing talents. I'm hoping that second type is Dunkelberger. When I see JUCOs filling out the last spots in a recruiting class though I'm extremely skeptical. It tells me something didn't go according to plan and maybe we're a little desperate, and we're making a play for the short term instead of the long term.

Which is funny, because I think a major problem most coaches have in games is playing for the short term.

 

[anomander]

That's an enormous sweeping generalization that both of you are making. We've had plenty--PLENTY--of JUCOs who've been major contributors, and severl of whom were of above average ability. That has zero to do with the quality of the teams they played on. A guy like Andrew Tilller played in the NFL. Does the fact that the team wasn't that good when he was here somehow change that he had the ability to get to the NFL and stick?

Did Deon Goggins contribute?
Did Taj Smith?
How bout Darius Kelly?
Wayne Williams?
We've also had numerous JUCOs who have played platoon roles on the defensive line, and contributed as reserves.

Sure--there have also been some who haven't made much of a dent. But you guys are painting with an awfully broad brush. Sign me up for a Goggins / Smith / Kelly / Tiller any day. But if the guy isn't D1 caliber, then don't recruit him. Same is true of high school prospects. So in my mind, it isn't a "JUCO" issue, and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Tiller, Goggins, Smith, and Kelly were all very good. Probably the very best we brought in. What has Wayne Williams done? A majority of the JUCO's have been depth chart fodder.

I am fine if they bring in 1 or 2 that are part of the plan, especially guys like Dunkleberg who have 3 years. I just don't want to see us make another late dip into the JUCO ranks like we did 2 years ago. There is a reason all of these posts have been in this thread.

 

[Crusty]

I would bring in anyone that could contribute on special teams and maybe run back a freakin kick.

 

[Statesman1]

I respect everyone's opinion on it, but I totally disagree. You aren't building a successful program with under the radar JC guys.

I'd rather take a chance on one of our legendary "under the radar" HS players, too. To me, an "Under the Radar" JC is French for not very good.

 

[timkay99]

I just don't want to see us make another late dip into the JUCO ranks like we did 2 years ago. There is a reason all of these posts have been in this thread.

Have we had successful dips into the HS ranks w/ kids we start recruiting at this late stage? I don't think our track record there is very good either. Guys who are pursued this late in the process are typically B-list kids. They have some sort of knock, be it level of competition, poor tool or 1 gd varsity year. Most are projected to be rotational/backup players. If the eval of the JUCO is that he is ready to be that and the current roster composition suggests you need the depth, then it should be a no brainer to pursue the JUCO.

For every Bromley, there is a Burton.

I don't think taking chances on guys like Pierce-Brewster/Trejo who don't work out is a bad thing. You miss on HS, you have that scholly for 4 years at least (which isn't always the case, but should be).

Contributing vs. playing, I don't understand. Lasker, for as poorly as he played, played a number of snaps and preserved a redshirt of one of our young OL. He was obviously deemed by the coaching staff to be one of (if not the best) OL backup. Josh Kirkland, Luke Arciniega are other depth contributors.

Looking at this years sr. class, here is the breakdown of non-contributors (IMO):

Freshman - Vigille, Hale, George, Kobena, Simmons

JUCO - Funderburke (essentially), Trejo

 

[CaliCuse]

Have we had successful dips into the HS ranks w/ kids we start recruiting at this late stage? I don't think our track record there is very good either. Guys who are pursued this late in the process are typically B-list kids. They have some sort of knock, be it level of competition, poor tool or 1 gd varsity year. Most are projected to be rotational/backup players. If the eval of the JUCO is that he is ready to be that and the current roster composition suggests you need the depth, then it should be a no brainer to pursue the JUCO.

For every Bromley, there is a Burton.

I don't think taking chances on guys like Pierce-Brewster/Trejo who don't work out is a bad thing. You miss on HS, you have that scholly for 4 years at least (which isn't always the case, but should be).

Contributing vs. playing, I don't understand. Lasker, for as poorly as he played, played a number of snaps and preserved a redshirt of one of our young OL. He was obviously deemed by the coaching staff to be one of (if not the best) OL backup. Josh Kirkland, Luke Arciniega are other depth contributors.

Looking at this years sr. class, here is the breakdown of non-contributors (IMO):

Freshman - Vigille, Hale, George, Kobena, Simmons

JUCO - Funderburke (essentially), Trejo

I don't get the B urton slam. The kid is still young and in the OLdevelopment process. I would look more at Robinson and Foy as the antithesis of Bromley.

 

[Frozen]

I don't get the B urton slam. The kid is still young and in the OLdevelopment process. I would look more at Robinson and Foy as the antithesis of Bromley.

So people shouldn't slam Burton because he's young and "in the process." But you can slam AJ Long all you want?

 

[timkay99]

I don't get the B urton slam. The kid is still young and in the OLdevelopment process. I would look more at Robinson and Foy as the antithesis of Bromley.

Foy and Robinson were starters who both battled injuries... I am harder on the OL then anyone.

Burton was a late recruit. Not a slam, but he hasn't seen the field and has been passed by others (Ward for example). I hope Burton wins a job next year.

 

[anomander]

Have we had successful dips into the HS ranks w/ kids we start recruiting at this late stage? I don't think our track record there is very good either. Guys who are pursued this late in the process are typically B-list kids. They have some sort of knock, be it level of competition, poor tool or 1 gd varsity year. Most are projected to be rotational/backup players. If the eval of the JUCO is that he is ready to be that and the current roster composition suggests you need the depth, then it should be a no brainer to pursue the JUCO.

For every Bromley, there is a Burton.

I don't think taking chances on guys like Pierce-Brewster/Trejo who don't work out is a bad thing. You miss on HS, you have that scholly for 4 years at least (which isn't always the case, but should be).

Contributing vs. playing, I don't understand. Lasker, for as poorly as he played, played a number of snaps and preserved a redshirt of one of our young OL. He was obviously deemed by the coaching staff to be one of (if not the best) OL backup. Josh Kirkland, Luke Arciniega are other depth contributors.

Looking at this years sr. class, here is the breakdown of non-contributors (IMO):

Freshman - Vigille, Hale, George, Kobena, Simmons

JUCO - Funderburke (essentially), Trejo

What in the world are you talking about? Last year alone our "late" haul was Jonathan Thomas, Denzel Ward, Juwan Dowels, and the 2 big DT's. Who knows how they turn out, but the first 3 were pretty highly regarded. I'd much rather take shots on guys like that.