(02-01-2018 08:10 AM)ThinkBigPine Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 07:27 AM)Marcus Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 06:12 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 04:22 PM)ThinkBigPine Wrote: [ -> ]According to twitter Juco OL Alex Dalpe will be OV this weekend.
Jeez, here we go again.
Clearly scrambling on the Oline.
My thoughts exactly.
Hey...we've had some pretty good JUCO guys come in and play immediately. Idarius Ray comes to mind. I know this shows we're off script with the OL recruitment, but at least they're still working this late in the cycle; the last staff would be 180 holes into the off-season if they had 21 guys signed in December.
(01-31-2018 06:12 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 04:22 PM)ThinkBigPine Wrote: [ -> ]According to twitter Juco OL Alex Dalpe will be OV this weekend.
Jeez, here we go again.
I guess I am out of the loop. What do you mean? Had we been recruiting this guy before? Did something happen?
(02-01-2018 08:27 AM)Banter Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 06:12 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 04:22 PM)ThinkBigPine Wrote: [ -> ]According to twitter Juco OL Alex Dalpe will be OV this weekend.
Jeez, here we go again.
I guess I am out of the loop. What do you mean? Had we been recruiting this guy before? Did something happen?
I believe Rath is referring to bringing in JUCOs. JUCOs help in the short term, long term it results in holes in position groups (like we have now with the OL).
I'm not quite sure what the issue is for us recruiting offensive linemen. It has been this way for a long time. We've been able to occasionally grab a 4-star/high 3-star at other position groups (including defensive line) but have not been able to get a stud hog. This issue predates the last couple OL coaches and even goes back to the Big East era.
(02-01-2018 08:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 08:27 AM)Banter Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 06:12 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 04:22 PM)ThinkBigPine Wrote: [ -> ]According to twitter Juco OL Alex Dalpe will be OV this weekend.
Jeez, here we go again.
I guess I am out of the loop. What do you mean? Had we been recruiting this guy before? Did something happen?
I believe Rath is referring to bringing in JUCOs. JUCOs help in the short term, long term it results in holes in position groups (like we have now with the OL).
I'm not quite sure what the issue is for us recruiting offensive linemen. It has been this way for a long time. We've been able to occasionally grab a 4-star/high 3-star at other position groups (including defensive line) but have not been able to get a stud hog. This issue predates the last couple OL coaches and even goes back to the Big East era.
More specifically, we've missed on just about every local OL recruit in recent memory. It really hurts with a rebuild when we're constantly reaching for projects at the line who never panned out in the past.
Hopefully things change and we can land one of the local good ones in '19 (Zeke Correll, Zach Carpenter, Johnathan Allen to name a few).
(02-01-2018 08:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 08:27 AM)Banter Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 06:12 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 04:22 PM)ThinkBigPine Wrote: [ -> ]According to twitter Juco OL Alex Dalpe will be OV this weekend.
Jeez, here we go again.
I guess I am out of the loop. What do you mean? Had we been recruiting this guy before? Did something happen?
I believe Rath is referring to bringing in JUCOs. JUCOs help in the short term, long term it results in holes in position groups (like we have now with the OL).
I'm not quite sure what the issue is for us recruiting offensive linemen. It has been this way for a long time. We've been able to occasionally grab a 4-star/high 3-star at other position groups (including defensive line) but have not been able to get a stud hog. This issue predates the last couple OL coaches and even goes back to the Big East era.
JUCOs help for two years. In general you get 3 years, if that, out of an offensive linemen. I fail to see the issue with this. If a JUCO guy is the best option on the table, they should take him.
(02-01-2018 09:18 AM)djtothemoney Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 08:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 08:27 AM)Banter Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 06:12 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 04:22 PM)ThinkBigPine Wrote: [ -> ]According to twitter Juco OL Alex Dalpe will be OV this weekend.
Jeez, here we go again.
I guess I am out of the loop. What do you mean? Had we been recruiting this guy before? Did something happen?
I believe Rath is referring to bringing in JUCOs. JUCOs help in the short term, long term it results in holes in position groups (like we have now with the OL).
I'm not quite sure what the issue is for us recruiting offensive linemen. It has been this way for a long time. We've been able to occasionally grab a 4-star/high 3-star at other position groups (including defensive line) but have not been able to get a stud hog. This issue predates the last couple OL coaches and even goes back to the Big East era.
JUCOs help for two years. In general you get 3 years, if that, out of an offensive linemen. I fail to see the issue with this. If a JUCO guy is the best option on the table, they should take him.
I think in many situations the same 1-year acclimation period applies to most JUCOs that we could get as well...so in many cases you're getting one learning year and one producing year.
The OL jucos we target historically are usually from division 2 type JUCOs and the players are way off the radar types both now and when they were in HS. They rarely pan out.
I think we can give Fickell the benefit of the doubt for the time being, he's not Tommy or Butch or BK.
(02-01-2018 09:20 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 09:18 AM)djtothemoney Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 08:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 08:27 AM)Banter Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 06:12 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Jeez, here we go again.
I guess I am out of the loop. What do you mean? Had we been recruiting this guy before? Did something happen?
I believe Rath is referring to bringing in JUCOs. JUCOs help in the short term, long term it results in holes in position groups (like we have now with the OL).
I'm not quite sure what the issue is for us recruiting offensive linemen. It has been this way for a long time. We've been able to occasionally grab a 4-star/high 3-star at other position groups (including defensive line) but have not been able to get a stud hog. This issue predates the last couple OL coaches and even goes back to the Big East era.
JUCOs help for two years. In general you get 3 years, if that, out of an offensive linemen. I fail to see the issue with this. If a JUCO guy is the best option on the table, they should take him.
I think in many situations the same 1-year acclimation period applies to most JUCOs that we could get as well...so in many cases you're getting one learning year and one producing year.
And then you've got another scholarship open so you can take another swing at finding somebody better and in some cases that can help even out your classes wrt to positions. I'm not saying JUCOs are ideal, but I have no problem adding a couple every year if necessary to fill holes. Of course they are going to be hit and miss but that's no different than high school kids and being older, you'd hope the jucos are more mature physically and mentally for what's ahead of them.
I'm also not too worried about past juco success %es at UC. This is a different staff and the kids they recruit are all individuals. I"m not really for or against Dalpe, but I am sure the staff is well aware of all the pros/cons we talk about here and the need to balance short term and long term needs and opportunities.
Right now we have more open scholarships than we seem to have high value targets remaining.
Assuming the LB grad xfer from Liberty actually makes it here in May he’d put us at 22.
So figure we have 3-4 left. If on the last weekend before the signing day we are bringing in a guy from a city college in California I’m not holding my breath for big surprises next Wed. when it comes to OL
(01-31-2018 09:23 PM)bearcatdp Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 05:42 PM)marcuscan Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 05:00 PM)bearcatdp Wrote: [ -> ] (01-31-2018 04:35 PM)marcuscan Wrote: [ -> ]I suppose that ends all debate on whether, or not, he's actually good enough to contribute for us. He'll now be taking his talents to Pittsburgh.
mc
So you're saying he would have ridden the bench here, right?
Me? No, I'm not saying that at all. There was some debate on here whether, or not, he was talented. Their line was pretty crappy, so the question was whether it was him or his cohorts that were crappy.
I have no opinion. I haven't watched him play. He woulda been an experienced, warm body..... worst case
mc
Sorry - totally meant that in jest. I hear it in my head as sarcasm but it doesn't translate to what is typed. My bad.
All good!
mc
I don't really care to do the leg work to look back at our previous JUCO OL guys, but I suspect that the success rate is likely the same as any other position group. Furthermore, it's likely as good, or perhaps slightly less, as we've had with transfers.
I think we're going to have a JUCO starter on the OL this year with, Mr. Yager. If i recall correctly he'll have the chance to give us 3 years after RSing last year.
mc
IIRC we have had maybe 2 decent Juco OL in a decade or more. Martinez way back and then the one guy 2 seasons ago - he was decent his last year.
The % of these guys who never really contribute is high. We are not talking to the same OL JUCOs big schools are. Everyone of them is an unpolished diamond hunt for us.
This is a position group this program needs to get a handle on regardless of who the HC is...its been a serious problem for a long time.
(02-01-2018 09:53 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 09:20 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 09:18 AM)djtothemoney Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 08:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 08:27 AM)Banter Wrote: [ -> ]I guess I am out of the loop. What do you mean? Had we been recruiting this guy before? Did something happen?
I believe Rath is referring to bringing in JUCOs. JUCOs help in the short term, long term it results in holes in position groups (like we have now with the OL).
I'm not quite sure what the issue is for us recruiting offensive linemen. It has been this way for a long time. We've been able to occasionally grab a 4-star/high 3-star at other position groups (including defensive line) but have not been able to get a stud hog. This issue predates the last couple OL coaches and even goes back to the Big East era.
JUCOs help for two years. In general you get 3 years, if that, out of an offensive linemen. I fail to see the issue with this. If a JUCO guy is the best option on the table, they should take him.
I think in many situations the same 1-year acclimation period applies to most JUCOs that we could get as well...so in many cases you're getting one learning year and one producing year.
And then you've got another scholarship open so you can take another swing at finding somebody better and in some cases that can help even out your classes wrt to positions. I'm not saying JUCOs are ideal, but I have no problem adding a couple every year if necessary to fill holes. Of course they are going to be hit and miss but that's no different than high school kids and being older, you'd hope the jucos are more mature physically and mentally for what's ahead of them.
I'm also not too worried about past juco success %es at UC. This is a different staff and the kids they recruit are all individuals. I"m not really for or against Dalpe, but I am sure the staff is well aware of all the pros/cons we talk about here and the need to balance short term and long term needs and opportunities.
I'd say that the counter to that point is the reason why many went JUCO instead of full college to begin with...so I don't believe we can make that assumption for many of them.
Dalpe was offered January 4th, as far as I can tell, so this isn't exactly out of the blue. His offer list - from what I can tell - is decidedly in the 'meh' range. Looks like UAB, UTEP, Hawaii, and Ohio.
(02-01-2018 12:14 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 09:53 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 09:20 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 09:18 AM)djtothemoney Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 08:44 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]I believe Rath is referring to bringing in JUCOs. JUCOs help in the short term, long term it results in holes in position groups (like we have now with the OL).
I'm not quite sure what the issue is for us recruiting offensive linemen. It has been this way for a long time. We've been able to occasionally grab a 4-star/high 3-star at other position groups (including defensive line) but have not been able to get a stud hog. This issue predates the last couple OL coaches and even goes back to the Big East era.
JUCOs help for two years. In general you get 3 years, if that, out of an offensive linemen. I fail to see the issue with this. If a JUCO guy is the best option on the table, they should take him.
I think in many situations the same 1-year acclimation period applies to most JUCOs that we could get as well...so in many cases you're getting one learning year and one producing year.
And then you've got another scholarship open so you can take another swing at finding somebody better and in some cases that can help even out your classes wrt to positions. I'm not saying JUCOs are ideal, but I have no problem adding a couple every year if necessary to fill holes. Of course they are going to be hit and miss but that's no different than high school kids and being older, you'd hope the jucos are more mature physically and mentally for what's ahead of them.
I'm also not too worried about past juco success %es at UC. This is a different staff and the kids they recruit are all individuals. I"m not really for or against Dalpe, but I am sure the staff is well aware of all the pros/cons we talk about here and the need to balance short term and long term needs and opportunities.
I'd say that the counter to that point is the reason why many went JUCO instead of full college to begin with...so I don't believe we can make that assumption for many of them.
I'd suspect it's initially more about academics for most. For others, sure it's about needing more physical and mental development (which of course bleeds into academics.) But that's kind of the point that they now have experienced two additional years to continue/finish growing/filling out and to develop/show maturity wrt to academics and "being on their own". It's not like we're taking all of them or being assigned some random players, we (and others) are cherry-picking those that have the most part have successfully developed via the juco process along with some late bloomers. So I think your position actually involves more "assuming" than mine.
My bottom line is I have no doubt there are jucos who can help this team over the next 2 years (or 3 in some cases). It's a question of finding the right matches and that's what the coaches success depends upon.
(02-01-2018 12:49 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 12:14 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 09:53 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 09:20 AM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ] (02-01-2018 09:18 AM)djtothemoney Wrote: [ -> ]JUCOs help for two years. In general you get 3 years, if that, out of an offensive linemen. I fail to see the issue with this. If a JUCO guy is the best option on the table, they should take him.
I think in many situations the same 1-year acclimation period applies to most JUCOs that we could get as well...so in many cases you're getting one learning year and one producing year.
And then you've got another scholarship open so you can take another swing at finding somebody better and in some cases that can help even out your classes wrt to positions. I'm not saying JUCOs are ideal, but I have no problem adding a couple every year if necessary to fill holes. Of course they are going to be hit and miss but that's no different than high school kids and being older, you'd hope the jucos are more mature physically and mentally for what's ahead of them.
I'm also not too worried about past juco success %es at UC. This is a different staff and the kids they recruit are all individuals. I"m not really for or against Dalpe, but I am sure the staff is well aware of all the pros/cons we talk about here and the need to balance short term and long term needs and opportunities.
I'd say that the counter to that point is the reason why many went JUCO instead of full college to begin with...so I don't believe we can make that assumption for many of them.
I'd suspect it's initially more about academics for most. For others, sure it's about needing more physical and mental development (which of course bleeds into academics.) But that's kind of the point that they now have experienced two additional years to continue/finish growing/filling out and to develop/show maturity wrt to academics and "being on their own". It's not like we're taking all of them or being assigned some random players, we (and others) are cherry-picking those that have the most part have successfully developed via the juco process along with some late bloomers. So I think your position actually involves more "assuming" than mine.
My bottom line is I have no doubt there are jucos who can help this team over the next 2 years (or 3 in some cases). It's a question of finding the right matches and that's what the coaches success depends upon.
Pretty much agree with this.
I just took a few moments to scroll back through recruits back to 2011. Looks like CTT took ~1-2 JUCO OL & CBJ took like 1 per class in 2 of his 3 years. Most contributed, none were necessarily outstanding. Also, it appears - per gobearcats stats - none were out & out flops. They tend to be rotation guys. Our misses through the years is definitely more concentrated in HS recruits, which....to be fair, is prolly right considering we take more of those, so of course there's going to be more opportunity for failure.
All in all, I'm fine with a JUCO, but our history with them on the OL shows us that we're getting rotational contributors. That as opposed to staples along the OL. There are no D. Bonds & Co. coming from the JUCO ranks. More like the guys that spell Bonds for a few snaps.
Our current OL definitely NEEDS some staples. However, we got some youngins who are going to be on the OL this year....they'll definitely need to supplement that youth with some serviceable kids with some experience beyond HS. Basically, we're looking at another year of very spotty play along the OL. We need some stop gaps, and we need to really hit it out the park with 2019 OL recruits.
mc
The last several years the vast majority of them that were contributing only contributed because spots were not going to high school players to deovelop over years. You rely on them that much you end up in a pit that you can’t get out of. Some of the guys you might be referencing that contributed were not very good but there was nobody else on deck.
But this is a different discussion than the one I’m having now about our OL recruiting since we are not focused on 5-7 JUCOS a class anymore.
Make no mistake this JUCO that were bringing in this weekend would never have gotten an offer had we not struck out on the other JUCOS and all of the other HS OL we targeted this cycle.
(02-01-2018 02:02 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]The last several years the vast majority of them that were contributing only contributed because spots were not going to high school players to deovelop over years. You rely on them that much you end up in a pit that you can’t get out of. Some of the guys you might be referencing that contributed were not very good but there was nobody else on deck.
But this is a different discussion than the one I’m having now about our OL recruiting since we are not focused on 5-7 JUCOS a class anymore.
Make no mistake this JUCO that were bringing in this weekend would never have gotten an offer had we not struck out on the other JUCOS and all of the other HS OL we targeted this cycle.
I'm curious to as why we are (and have for several years) struck out there. We have two stud running backs returning who are just sophomores. We have quality depth behind them and have good backs signed up for this year already. You would think the "big uglies" would be begging to come play for us since we will be a school that runs the football for the near future.
We've gotten some 4-star and high to mid 3-star guys to come here at other position groups (including d-line). What is it about offensive linemen that shy them away from UC?
(02-01-2018 02:02 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]The last several years the vast majority of them that were contributing only contributed because spots were not going to high school players to deovelop over years. You rely on them that much you end up in a pit that you can’t get out of. Some of the guys you might be referencing that contributed were not very good but there was nobody else on deck.
But this is a different discussion than the one I’m having now about our OL recruiting since we are not focused on 5-7 JUCOS a class anymore.
Make no mistake this JUCO that were bringing in this weekend would never have gotten an offer had we not struck out on the other JUCOS and all of the other HS OL we targeted this cycle.
Agree completely with all this. That is the one position where we have just flat out struggled to recruit quality players and its clearly shown up on the field.