JUCO FB Lorenzo Taliaferro

[freescooter]

I think there are several things going on here. first of all, Pasquoloni is trying ot make up for the late start he got last year. they Kept most of the guys Edsall had recruited, which was fine, but as we're seeing I think, Pasquoloni is looking for a little different type in his recruiting, so there are some real mis-matches. So they are trying to fill those with JUCO kids. They are doing the same with some spots where they just didn't think the guys they had were doing the trick. I'm guessing, and really hoping, that this year's JUCO recruiting is really a short term solution to fill some real gaps that they would have hoped ot have filled if Edsall had left in December and he was on board December 10th rather than January 20.

 

[gioff23]

I am trying to understand the dislike some seem to express to JUCOs. Top tier programs across the country look to bring in JUCOs - it seems to be working for many of them. Is it past history, fear of only getting 2-3 years out of a kid (as opposed to 3-4), other?

If the staff feels a kid can come in and elevate the program, I don't care what state he played HS football in, what position he plays, how many stars he was given or if he is a JUCO. Is it me?

 

[BNich]

No not just you. I agree as well. If he brought in a bunch of guys with only 1 or 2 years of eligibility I wouldn't be happy but all the guys he has brought in have 2-3 years left, which is GREAT imo. Not many freshmen have come to UConn and played from day 1. Most in the past have redshirted, their true freshman year and made an impact later in their careers. Bringing in guys with a little more experience and still 2-3 years is good for the program. It will hopefully elevate team play at key positions and breed long-term recruiting and on field success for a young D-1 program like UConn.

 

[MattMang23]

Half the kids we recruit out of HS only give us 2-3 yrs on the field anyway. JUCOs do the same. I see no problem bringing in JUCOs as patches where you're thin and if the kid will play right away. In other words, it shouldn't be what you're recruiting philosophy is based on but it's perhaps the best solution to finding a player that meets an immediate need.

 

[BNich]

Pr

Half the kids we recruit out of HS only give us 2-3 yrs on the field anyway. JUCOs do the same. I see no problem bringing in JUCOs as patches where you're thin and if the kid will play right away. In other words, it shouldn't be what you're recruiting philosophy is based on but it's perhaps the best solution to finding a player that meets an immediate need.

This is exactly what I was saying in the previous post. JUCO guys will give us essentially the same amount of playing time a normal HS recruit would, or has in the past anyway.

 

[Carl Spackler]

This first year of recruiting under Pasqualoni has made it clear to me that there are programs out there, college football programs that are scared tless about the growth potential of UConn when it comes to developing a top flight football program, and I'm fine with that. We're going to be players in the market place. UCONN.

As for targeting multiple JUCO players, it's a depth chart thing I think. There's a definite cycle in college football of young men athletes b/w the ages of 18-23.

There's a big difference between an 18 year old freshmen and a 19 year old sophomore, and a 22 year old, 23 year old fifth year senior when it comes to student athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, never mind what sport you're talking about. It could be water polo or lacrosse, or basketball.

Taking a 20-21 year old out of junior college, and plugging them into a roster, is about depth chart and maintaining level of competition, and having some kind of continuity in level of play through your 5 year cycle of players, because in this game, players go down and out. Always. You don't want to have a drop off from a 22 year old senior to an 18 year old freshmen around your roster, if you can avoid it, and you need to be bringing in freshmen that can play, if the depth chart gets to the point where you've gone through 3 or 4 players ahead of them.

We're on our way, and people are watching. Let em.

 

[rich1122]

This first year of recruiting under Pasqualoni has made it clear to me that there are programs out there, college football programs that are scared tless about the growth potential of UConn when it comes to developing a top flight football program, and I'm fine with that. We're going to be players in the market place. UCONN.

As for targeting multiple JUCO players, it's a depth chart thing I think. There's a definite cycle in college football of young men athletes b/w the ages of 18-23.

There's a big difference between an 18 year old freshmen and a 19 year old sophomore, and a 22 year old, 23 year old fifth year senior when it comes to student athletes, physically, mentally, emotionally, never mind what sport you're talking about. It could be water polo or lacrosse, or basketball.

Taking a 20-21 year old out of junior college, and plugging them into a roster, is about depth chart and maintaining level of competition, and having some kind of continuity in level of play through your 5 year cycle of players, because in this game, players go down and out. Always. You don't want to have a drop off from a 22 year old senior to an 18 year old freshmen around your roster, if you can avoid it, and you need to be bringing in freshmen that can play, if the depth chart gets to the point where you've gone through 3 or 4 players ahead of them.

We're on our way, and people are watching. Let em.

I think the JUCO/Transfer thing has to do with the number of kids who left the program or did not return after last year and the year before. It was a high number. Wiley, Frey, Jennings, Cambell, 3 receivers, Lang Difton, Endres more that I can't remember - left a big hole. Need experience.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I'm pretty sure that with the 2013 recruiting cycle, the focus will be much more on the incoming class of freshmen filling out the bottom of the roster for the future.

THis 2012 recruiting cycle has had a big time focus on bringing in players that will fill into the roster at different entry points in their cycle, further along. Transfers and junior college players. We've looked at a whole bunch of em.

Doubtful we'll do the same thing next year.

 

[Carl Spackler]

I think the JUCO/Transfer thing has to do with the number of kids who left the program or did not return after last year and the year before. It was a high number. Wiley, Frey, Jennings, Cambell, 3 receivers, Lang Difton, Endres more that I can't remember - left a big hole. Need experience.

Exactly. Our 2011 depth chart was a horror show. And I don't mean that to reflect in any way on the quality of players we had in 2011. Not in the least, it was a horror show because the positions on the field that had any sort of continuity in depth flowing from upperclassmen on down to lower classmen, were basically non-existent. SOme of that had to do with previous recruiting classes, a lot of it had to do with players transferring out. I do think it's important to note, where the players we had leave - went....and where the players we have coming in with experience - have come from. There's a pretty noticeable difference there.

But anyway, In that respect, I expect our roster going into the UMass game in Sept to look a whole lot different.

 

[BNich]

I completely agree with the past 5 posts. The transfers after the coaching transition killed us. But I really like the direction things are going. The future is bright. I keep saying this and I will keep believing it until proven wrong. Hope I am not the only one pumped!

 

[Dann]

i agree with all these posts as well. iowa is a great example of a program that is now realizing that our program isnt a little weight. they recruit the northeast hard like others, but they are scared that if we continue to build that they wont be able to pull the good kids out of here like they used to. i think the new psu staff eventually is going see the same thing. the next 2 years with PP i am looking for a couple things in recruit areas:
1)can we make a name in nj. we were never in with the big boys in nj(very few exceptions). samara is a example this year. do we improve in nj
2) nyc is slowly blowing up, can we sell the short trip up the highway like we do in bball
3) we have to atworst continue to be on a ever playingfield with bc in new england. i would argue this year we made out better but next year its looking like 20-30 new england kids will go bcs. thats a big # for the area, can we sell being new englands team over bc?
4)continue and improve fl/ga. i think for year 1 we did good in fl.
5) can we be a player in dc/va area now? i see positive signs there also...

 

[cu73etr]

I still believe PA is the gem. With all the things going on in Penn State and Pitt it left the PA market wide open. Temple is the huge benefactor in all of this. They have put together a pretty good class. This years Big 33 only has about 6 kids going to Pitt and Penn State combined. Rutgers and Iowa are also getting into PA. Nobody has a strong hold in the state. Just my opinion.