|
PonyFans.com •
Board Index •
Around the Hilltop •
Football •
Recruiting •
Basketball •
Other Sports
This is the forum for talk about SMU Football
Moderators: PonyPride, SmooPower
by Mickey » Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:10 am
SMU can be competitive next year if we sign some JUCOs. Need one player at several positions prioritized as follows:1.QB 2.DT 3.WR 4.CB 5.OL
This will provide some experience, balance and blend with some of our good recruiting classes,and allow time to develop a QB while not in a panic mode.
-
Mickey

-
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Tx, USA
by Pony_Fan » Sun Sep 28, 2003 11:56 am
Haa Haa - good luck with that one!
-

Pony_Fan

-
- Posts: 6130
- Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 4:01 am
- Location: Dallas,Tx, USA
by Charleston Pony » Sun Sep 28, 2003 12:13 pm
actually, many of those "JUCOs" will arrive next year in the form of our RS Fr, who will have 2 yrs of post-HS physical development. I'm talking about Urbanas, Morton, Guidry, Denman, Johnson, Rogers, etc... When everyone constantly complains about our needing JUCOs, are you hoping for guys that are 20-21 yrs old in the trenches, or are you just assuming every kid who plays JUCO ball is a better player than what we have on the roster? Unless you can sign talented JUCO players, the mere fact they are 20-21 yrs old doesn't guarantee improvement. My guess is that guys like Jones & Bonds are going to hard to displace from that defensive interior. Would it have been nice to have a couple more guys so we could have redshirted everyone of this year's recruits? Of course, but ther's no such thing as a "quick fix" via JUCOs unless they are more talented than the guys we already have.
-
Charleston Pony

-
- Posts: 28911
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Stonebridge Golf Club, NC
by Mickey » Sun Sep 28, 2003 12:54 pm
CP- Obviously, you don't sign Jucos unless they are better than the ones on the roster. If they are, sign them as a "quick fix."
[This message has been edited by Mickey (edited 09-28-2003).]
-
Mickey

-
- Posts: 659
- Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Dallas, Tx, USA
by BUS » Sun Sep 28, 2003 2:08 pm
YOu can't sign JUCO players if your not allowed to. That's the deal. Holier than thou attitude and we can do it without JUCO's.
MAJOR DEFECT in our MODEL.
Mustang Militia: Fight the good fight"
-

BUS

-
- Posts: 7273
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 4:01 am
- Location: Richardson, Tx usa
by Charleston Pony » Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:25 pm
BUS: from what I've read, the problem with JUCOs is the limited cirriculum SMU offers and the age old "transferable hours" issue. This appears to be a trend at every private school regardless of BCS affiliation. I don't see Notre Dame, Stanford, Duke, Wake, Northwestern, Rice, etc... loading up on JUCOs.
-
Charleston Pony

-
- Posts: 28911
- Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2000 3:01 am
- Location: Stonebridge Golf Club, NC
by BUS » Mon Sep 29, 2003 10:25 am
Who want's to load up. How about 4 TOTAL.
SMU will necer be a JUCO harlot but give me a break. No give the coaches and fans a break. Allow at least a few.
Tranferable hours.... BS I transfered into SMU. Had that extra year to make up what was not accepted.
It's an attitude - nothing else.
Turner, Copeland, Board of Trustee's ????
but attitude
Mustang Militia: Fight the good fight"
-

BUS

-
- Posts: 7273
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2000 4:01 am
- Location: Richardson, Tx usa
by OldPony » Mon Sep 29, 2003 10:40 am
KU came out of the depths of football hell this year. They signed about a dozen JUCO's and are close to top 25. Coincidence?
-
OldPony

-
- Posts: 1611
- Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 4:01 am
Return to Football
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests
|
|