Class of 2014 OT Jermaine Eluemunor, JUCO PA

[billsin01]

I thought the JUCOs were just temporary stop gaps? Now we're going after 2014s early?

I think it's safe to assume a JUCO is a stop-gap if he's offered and/or pops up very late in the process after several known targets have gone elsewhere. Offering a kid -- any kid -- in April/May or earlier is a pretty good sign the staff simply thinks the kid is a really good player. Where he's from or how many stars he has or whether or not he's a juco are much less significant, IMO.

 

[anomander]

I think it's safe to assume a JUCO is a stop-gap if he's offered and/or pops up very late in the process after several known targets have gone elsewhere. Offering a kid -- any kid -- in April/May or earlier is a pretty good sign the staff simply thinks the kid is a really good player. Where he's from or how many stars he has or whether or not he's a juco are much less significant, IMO.

Totally agree with this. I don't care if he is juco or right out of high school just as long as they can play. Even so it does look like we are looking hard at the jucos ranks once again. Personally I like the approach getting kids in who are physically ready to contribute immediately and not having to fight off the entire country for a talented kid.

 

[billsin01]

Totally agree with this. I don't care if he is juco or right out of high school just as long as they can play. Even so it does look like we are looking hard at the jucos ranks once again. Personally I like the approach getting kids in who are physically ready to contribute immediately and not having to fight off the entire country for a talented kid.

Yeah, things people get too worked up about during recruiting:

-- stars
-- location (local or FL kids especially)
-- A list vs. B list vs. whatever list
-- 40 times and vitals (generally self-reported by kids or their coaches)
-- fishes/loaves
-- class rankings
-- saving scholarships

To me, honestly, i love recruiting but I don't really get worked up about it too much. I break it down to these rules:

Early offers -- The more kids that sign early or accept an offer that was made early, the better.

I root for more stars as opposed to fewer stars, but accept that there is absolutely no way to predict what happens to any kid (let alone 20-25 of them) from ages 18-23. That sounds disturbingly like a mantra of some sort but it's honestly true -- even if the rankings were incredibly accurate there is still no way to project things like work ethic, grades, injuries, family tragedies, legal issues ...

Did we address needs? If you need a linebacker, we should sign a top target and at least one maybe two other guys who could project to LB.

Numbers are important -- what percentage of feb. signees actually make it to campus within a year and stay for at least 3 years? Hugely underrated part of recruiting, IMO.

Late attention -- How many of these guys sign and then start getting attention from other BCS schools later in the process? Always seems to be a good sign.

 

[TheCusian]

Yeah, things people get too worked up about during recruiting:

-- stars
-- location (local or FL kids especially)
-- A list vs. B list vs. whatever list
-- 40 times and vitals (generally self-reported by kids or their coaches)
-- fishes/loaves
-- class rankings
-- saving scholarships

To me, honestly, i love recruiting but I don't really get worked up about it too much. I break it down to these rules:

Early offers -- The more kids that sign early or accept an offer that was made early, the better.

I root for more stars as opposed to fewer stars, but accept that there is absolutely no way to predict what happens to any kid (let alone 20-25 of them) from ages 18-23. That sounds disturbingly like a mantra of some sort but it's honestly true -- even if the rankings were incredibly accurate there is still no way to project things like work ethic, grades, injuries, family tragedies, legal issues ...

Did we address needs? If you need a linebacker, we should sign a top target and at least one maybe two other guys who could project to LB.

Numbers are important -- what percentage of feb. signees actually make it to campus within a year and stay for at least 3 years? Hugely underrated part of recruiting, IMO.

Late attention -- How many of these guys sign and then start getting attention from other BCS schools later in the process? Always seems to be a good sign.

Eh - for me, it's simple: Did they get the kids they went after the hardest. I trust their talent evaluations over the star system, hype, etc.

 

[billsin01]

Eh - for me, it's simple: Did they get the kids they went after the hardest. I trust their talent evaluations over the star system, hype, etc.

I don't disagree at all (how is this different from early offers?), but kids actually getting to campus and roster balance are really important as well. You can fall off your chair when you sign Cecil Howard, or "finally get your guy" when you sign chad elliott but if they never play a down it's a bad thing.

 

[orangemass]

Mike1h
I've been informed that Syracuse offered Lackawanna CC (PA) OT Jermaine Eluemunor a while back. Kid is a stud and has a lot of offers

http://www.hudl.com/athlete/1747985/#highlights/18307397

There's some beef... Thickburger..

 

[RMH44]

Are we at the point already where we can afford to not go after a 4 or 5 star lineman because he is a JUCO? IMO, you take skilled linemen with size and good feet wherever you can find them. Even Alabama knows that.

Exactly...Alabama routinely mines the JUCO ranks for OLmen.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Yeah, things people get too worked up about during recruiting:

-- stars
-- location (local or FL kids especially)
-- A list vs. B list vs. whatever list
-- 40 times and vitals (generally self-reported by kids or their coaches)
-- fishes/loaves
-- class rankings
-- saving scholarships

To me, honestly, i love recruiting but I don't really get worked up about it too much. I break it down to these rules:

Early offers -- The more kids that sign early or accept an offer that was made early, the better.

I root for more stars as opposed to fewer stars, but accept that there is absolutely no way to predict what happens to any kid (let alone 20-25 of them) from ages 18-23. That sounds disturbingly like a mantra of some sort but it's honestly true -- even if the rankings were incredibly accurate there is still no way to project things like work ethic, grades, injuries, family tragedies, legal issues ...

Did we address needs? If you need a linebacker, we should sign a top target and at least one maybe two other guys who could project to LB.

Numbers are important -- what percentage of feb. signees actually make it to campus within a year and stay for at least 3 years? Hugely underrated part of recruiting, IMO.

Late attention -- How many of these guys sign and then start getting attention from other BCS schools later in the process? Always seems to be a good sign.

Great list. I'd add one more.

Class balance - Ideally I think you'd want your recruiting classes to look more or less the same by projected position breakdowns, year after year. For example, you always want a QB, one or two running backs, a handful of WRs and TEs, a good chunk of OLs, fairly even mix of DLs, LBs and DBs with some athletes and special teams specialists mixed in. I don't like seeing classes that have TONs of one type of player by position. If at all possible, keep the roster balanced not just by #s at each position, but also how those #s are spread across the different classes.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Totally agree with this. I don't care if he is juco or right out of high school just as long as they can play. Even so it does look like we are looking hard at the jucos ranks once again. Personally I like the approach getting kids in who are physically ready to contribute immediately and not having to fight off the entire country for a talented kid.

Spot on especially as it pertains to linemen. I'd rather have a high profile skill position player right out of HS to get acclimated with the QB and coaches but linemen aren't usually getting serious PT until a year or 2 in the system unless numbers dictate otherwise anyway. May as well get them after they have their weight room work in vs using scholies while they get in shape for D1 ball.

 

[OburgCuse]

Eluemunor is cutting his list to 6 tommorrow

 

[anomander]

i'd be very surprised to see us make the cut.

 

[CaliCuse]

There's some beef... Thickburger..

Looking at the recent depth chart its clear to me that OTs are at a premium for this team. Kyle Knapp is only 6'4" and probably more suited physically to be a guard than tackle.We need some height and potential back ther beyond Jon Burtonon the third level depth wise which in of itself is telling.couchburn

 

[tep624]

i'd be very surprised to see us make the cut.

He's got scheduled officials to UCLA, Arkansas, and Alabama, so I'm assuming those are 3 of the 6. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Northeastern school in there but PSU has offered so there's always that.

 

[anomander]

He's got scheduled officials to UCLA, Arkansas, and Alabama, so I'm assuming those are 3 of the 6. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Northeastern school in there but PSU has offered so there's always that.

i think he has a FSU visit scheduled as well, so I would throw them in there, plus Penn St. I think those 5 will almost certainly be in there, and then 6th would most likely be either Rutgers, or K ST. I guess Syracuse would have an outside shot at being #6. Even cracking the list would be a win in itself.

 

[anomander]

Bama, Ohio St, Ole Miss, USC, Arkansas, UCLA

 

[OrangeViking]

Bama, Ohio St, Ole Miss, USC, Arkansas, UCLA

****stick. Oh well, Next!