He signed @ 24 in 4 years....and I may be missing some that came in during the summer after NSD. It approached 30% of his total signings. Yeah...

(10-13-2017 06:52 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:43 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:08 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  So then, what needs to happen to shore things up? If interest drops too low... will that mean a bunch of JuCo's? That can be kind of hit or miss in it's own right.

Time.

Tuberville's numerous JUCOs were a contributing factor to our depth and talent problems. We may end up with one this recruiting cycle though.

Numerous? There's only been a handful. You make it sound like they were half the roster.

Let me check:

7 JUCOs in the '13 class
4 in '14
5 in '15
3 in '16

Fickell had 1 JUCO last year, and MIGHT have 1 this year. I think that's going to pay off.

Also, in looking back at those recruiting classes, I knew the OL recruits didn't last at an alarming rate, but there are some other names on there that were never heard from in other position groups. Those classes had tons of attrition from our highschool recruits, and our JUCO guys only had 1 to 3 years here tops. Tuberville's JUCOs were/are a contributing factor in where we are now.

Edit: Rath threw out 24 JUCOs in his time, so apparently I even missed some while looking back.

(10-12-2017 09:15 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Good Podcast from Mo Egger and James Rapien, discussing this same issue.


https://espn1530.iheart.com/featured/mo-...-bearcats/

Thanks for sharing.

Not only the JUCOs, the absolute number of "project" guys were astounding. I'm talking about the guys that played 0-2 years of high school football; former hockey, basketball, and track athletes; 220 lb TEs that you intend to add 80-100 lbs on to become offensive linemen; a guy from the Bahamas and another from Australia they tried to make a running back, then a TE and/or a linebacker; guys who only had offers from S. Alabama and FIU/FAU; etc.

Its one thing to find one diamond in the rough in a class, but when half of your class is made up of said guy that is a problem. The guy could be fast or strong as hell, but I'll take a guy who runs the 40 in a couple tenths of a second slower who has been well coached in football in a legitimate high school program over the talent every day of the week.

(10-13-2017 07:23 AM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(10-13-2017 06:52 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:43 PM)The T-Shirt Wrote:  

(10-12-2017 10:08 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  So then, what needs to happen to shore things up? If interest drops too low... will that mean a bunch of JuCo's? That can be kind of hit or miss in it's own right.

Time.

Tuberville's numerous JUCOs were a contributing factor to our depth and talent problems. We may end up with one this recruiting cycle though.

Numerous? There's only been a handful. You make it sound like they were half the roster.

Let me check:

7 JUCOs in the '13 class
4 in '14
5 in '15
3 in '16

Fickell had 1 JUCO last year, and MIGHT have 1 this year. I think that's going to pay off.

Also, in looking back at those recruiting classes, I knew the OL recruits didn't last at an alarming rate, but there are some other names on there that were never heard from in other position groups. Those classes had tons of attrition from our highschool recruits, and our JUCO guys only had 1 to 3 years here tops. Tuberville's JUCOs were/are a contributing factor in where we are now.

Edit: Rath threw out 24 JUCOs in his time, so apparently I even missed some while looking back.

There are a couple that came from really strange named schools that didn't sound like junior colleges. and a couple that don't show up on our radar until lateer in spring. Blake Yeager was another of his JUCOS but CLF gets him since he honored that offer when he got hired.

(10-13-2017 07:30 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Not only the JUCOs, the absolute number of "project" guys were astounding. I'm talking about the guys that played 0-2 years of high school football; former hockey, basketball, and track athletes; 220 lb TEs that you intend to add 80-100 lbs on to become offensive linemen; a guy from the Bahamas and another from Australia they tried to make a running back, then a TE and/or a linebacker; guys who only had offers from S. Alabama and FIU/FAU; etc.

Its one thing to find one diamond in the rough in a class, but when half of your class is made up of said guy that is a problem. The guy could be fast or strong as hell, but I'll take a guy who runs the 40 in a couple tenths of a second slower who has been well coached in football in a legitimate high school program over the talent every day of the week.

Yet more reasons for the current state of the roster. We took a couple of those guys in every class.

My point still stands that the number of JUCOs from the past regime aren't the primary problem with this roster. Would you really rather have even more Tuberville 4 year recruits on the roster right now or some 2 year JUCOs?

Forget the fact that the JUCO guys we brought in were low level guys. Instead of recruiting high school players and actually developing them and having them actually be upperclassman right now ready to contribute, almost all the 20 some-odd JUCOs have already gone on to their lives work by year #5. That's why it hurts. Causes a cycle of chasing voids in position groups.

I was fine with tubs taking jucos in that first class and to a lesser extent even into the second class. If you recall we had huge holes on the defensive line going into his first season. But I definitely wasn't a fan continuing to take jucos at a meaningful number in years 3 + 4 ( I'm always fine with taking one or two really high quality JUCOs in a class).

Recall though, that in that 2013 class Jordan, Hartsfield and Rod Moore we're rated 4 stars on at least one site. And it also included Johnny Holton, Howard Wilder and Hosey Williams that were good players for us.

(10-13-2017 09:35 AM)Racinejake Wrote:  I was fine with tubs taking jucos in that first class and to a lesser extent even into the second class. If you recall we had huge holes on the defensive line going into his first season. But I definitely wasn't a fan continuing to take jucos at a meaningful number in years 3 + 4 ( I'm always fine with taking one or two really high quality JUCOs in a class).

Recall though, that in that 2013 class Jordan, Hartsfield and Rod Moore we're rated 4 stars on at least one site. And it also included Johnny Holton, Howard Wilder and Hosey Williams that were good players for us.

He fly

(10-13-2017 08:20 AM)JackieTreehorn Wrote:  My point still stands that the number of JUCOs from the past regime aren't the primary problem with this roster. Would you really rather have even more Tuberville 4 year recruits on the roster right now or some 2 year JUCOs?

Agreed.

I'm not seeing where/ how his rather mundane quantity of JUCOs led us here vs guys who simply either broke down playing the sport, or simply walked away. Those are the holes that are hard af to fill, b/c those loses aren't accountable. When you take a JUCO you know what you're getting.

Besides, as noted, the previous regime did good work covering GAPPING holes on the DL in the 1st couple seasons that were left by the CBJ staff. Talk about attrition.

While we're left with little depth on the OL, the previous regime did indeed deliver handsomely on their promise to fortify our DL. Not hampered by the same issues as the OL, the DL is one of the few strengths of team at the moment.

All that to say, sometimes it's just how the recruiting cookie crumbles. Kids get hurt, they walk away from the sport, they're just not good. Strategy worked on the DL, not so much on the OL. Only further complicated by the notoriously difficult nature of finding quality OL guys in the first place.





mc

I also think the holes on the OL would not be nearly as bad if Stout and Armagast hadn't left the team after Spring Ball.

Of course not. That's part of he game every team has to deal with, though. But it would have been nice to have more than 3 walk-ons behind them.

The 3 walk-ons are all interior linemen. They were gonna get significant PT with or without Stout and Armagast.

] guess we were stacked on the OL, then.

Stacked, probably not. Sudden hole in the OT depth chart, yes.