What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

'10 CA LS Joe St. Germain (Virginia Tech - PWO)

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
Rivals
Scout
ESPN

St._Germaine,_Joe.JPG

Mater Dei HS (Santa Ana, CA)

Ht: 6-foot-1
Wt: 215
40:

Rivals rating: NR Tight End
Scout rating: NR
ESPN rating: not in database
 
Last edited:
We are very desperate for a long snapper, Drescher was a stud and you don't realize how important LS are until you have a bad one.
 
Unsubstantiated reports that St. Germain was a CU visitor last weekend and was hanging out with Eric Richter (hosting already?).

Likely a preferred walk on candidate who would immediately compete for the Buffs Long Snapper duties.

Chris Sailer Kicking has St. Germain rated as the #10 Long Snapper in the country. (5* D1 prospect). He also sports a 3.8 GPA and score of 1690 on his SAT, so getting admitted to CU is not an issue.

http://www.chrissailerkicking.com/top-recruits/1760/PlayerProfile.html

Here are Sailer's evaluations, by date, of St. Germain:

Joe is an incredible talent. Has the ability to be one of the top snappers in the country...easily. Shows great raw talent. Ball moves quicker and he is still learning the process. Within a year, he could be top three. Ball moves quick and has good consistency. Solid kid and long snapper 5-09

One of the most coacheable kids I have worked with. GREAT listener. Ball has the ability to get some very good speed on it. Accuracy is terrific. Very, very fast athletically. This kid can run 6-09

Joe is one of the fastest learners (and runners) I have ever had. The kid is like a sponge and the result is a terrific long snapper. Ball flies out of his hands. Very accurate and the speed is right there as well. Very hard worker with tremendous flexibility. Smooth and strong long snapper for his size. 7-09

Joe has really worked on getting his ball quicker and it has paid off. The kid lets the ball fly and it moves. Very athletic and blocks well for his size. Great form and his ball is always right there. It comes out like from a cannon. He is VERY fast. 11-09
 
I'm probably in the minority, but I'd offer a quality long snapper a schollie. This kid sounds like he fits that bill.
 
I found a Rivals profile and added it to his Allbuffs profile.

Rivals is listing a 1/15 visit date to CU, so St. Germain is confirmed as a visitor for last weekend.

Highflyer: I think you bring in a LS as a preferred walk-on and then grant a scholarship if he wins the jobs on FGs and Punts.
 
I'm probably in the minority, but I'd offer a quality long snapper a schollie. This kid sounds like he fits that bill.

Don't know why that would be in the minority. If you'll offer a kicker (or 4) or a punter or a returner a schollie, I don't know why you'd not want to do the same for another really important specialist...
 
Nothing's wrong with offering a ls. A very valuable asset. If we can get him as a preferred walkon better, but an offer would make sense.
 
Kid sounds good, but what I really want to know is does he get the ball out fast or slow??
 
I'm probably in the minority, but I'd offer a quality long snapper a schollie. This kid sounds like he fits that bill.

The guy will be paying OOS if he chooses to come on as a performed walk-on. Even if he's only a long snapper for 1 semester before he goes on scholarship that's $15,000+. That's a lot of coin to pay to hope that you can get on scholarship by Spring.

If he has shown he is good then just offer him. As long as he has some decent coaching then he should never struggle; I don't know how much Riddle worked with Drescher, but the guy was an NFL quality long snapper. Hopefully the lure of playing in the Big 12 at a respected university draws him in. I'm sure given his credentials he could walk-on to many programs.
 
The guy will be paying OOS if he chooses to come on as a performed walk-on. Even if he's only a long snapper for 1 semester before he goes on scholarship that's $15,000+. That's a lot of coin to pay to hope that you can get on scholarship by Spring.

If he has shown he is good then just offer him. As long as he has some decent coaching then he should never struggle; I don't know how much Riddle worked with Drescher, but the guy was an NFL quality long snapper. Hopefully the lure of playing in the Big 12 at a respected university draws him in. I'm sure given his credentials he could walk-on to many programs.

The advantage he has is with his academic numbers he should qualify for academic based financial aid. If he can get a chunk of it paid for then it makes it a lot easier.

At the same time our special teams last year were not exactly stellar. We are not at a point of turning down 4* guys at other positions due to lack of schollies. If he is that good then offer him, we are not good enough to overcome bad snaps on placements or snaps over our punter's heads. I have never been a kicker or holder (they don't let big guys do that) but logic says that if the specialist can count on a quick, consistent, accurate snap every time that is one less thing to worry about letting them focus on doing their jobs the right way.
 
I agree, offer the kid if he can do the job. Long snapping has not been an issue for the last four years with Justin. All we need is to get the kicking game straightened out and then have the snapper be the problem.
 
Rivals has him with a visit scheduled to Virginia Tech next week. I guess it's between the Buffs and the Hokies.

Given his academics and being from California, I've got to believe that CU-Boulder is a better fit than VTU and Blacksburg.
 
Rivals has him with a visit scheduled to Virginia Tech next week. I guess it's between the Buffs and the Hokies.

Given his academics and being from California, I've got to believe that CU-Boulder is a better fit than VTU and Blacksburg.

Boulder>>>Blacksburg, however
VT Special Teams>>>>>>CU Special Teams.
 
Blacksburg is a nice place and VT is really well thought of academically. Very similiar to CU in engineering field for sure.

Boulder is much cooler, closer to home, and would definitely be betterfor a California kid I'd think. Major dependent I'd guess though.
 
The advantage he has is with his academic numbers he should qualify for academic based financial aid. If he can get a chunk of it paid for then it makes it a lot easier.

At the same time our special teams last year were not exactly stellar. We are not at a point of turning down 4* guys at other positions due to lack of schollies. If he is that good then offer him, we are not good enough to overcome bad snaps on placements or snaps over our punter's heads. I have never been a kicker or holder (they don't let big guys do that) but logic says that if the specialist can count on a quick, consistent, accurate snap every time that is one less thing to worry about letting them focus on doing their jobs the right way.

This recruiting class won't even be close to the amount we can have (24 with the reduction?). STs start with the long snapper. It's a no glory position, but worth a scholarship if he's good. No need for a RS either since we don't have one on scholarship yet. Sounds like he has a motor and can also help on coverage. It helps that he can't get shoved until way after the snap too. If we had 4* knocking on our door I'd agree with you (MAYBE), but 1 scholarship for a 4 year starter is fine with me. I'd imagine it's hard to beat an incumbent LS too, unless he is bad. The way that I see it is that we are going to have available scholarships and if we can beat out other teams (think VT) because we can offer a scholarship then we should do it. Otherwise we are going to be under our limit of 85 again this year. May as well snatch up guys that can contribute right away, especially at a position of need.

I thought there were stringent rules about academic scholarships given to players on the FB team. There are 85 scholarship players, but only 105 or so players that can be on a team. If these "preferred" walkon players are given academic scholarships you can mess with the 85 limit. I understand he does have very good qualifications, but that's a rather gray area that I bet a lot of schools use a lot as well.
 
This recruiting class won't even be close to the amount we can have (24 with the reduction?). STs start with the long snapper. It's a no glory position, but worth a scholarship if he's good. No need for a RS either since we don't have one on scholarship yet. Sounds like he has a motor and can also help on coverage. It helps that he can't get shoved until way after the snap too. If we had 4* knocking on our door I'd agree with you (MAYBE), but 1 scholarship for a 4 year starter is fine with me. I'd imagine it's hard to beat an incumbent LS too, unless he is bad. The way that I see it is that we are going to have available scholarships and if we can beat out other teams (think VT) because we can offer a scholarship then we should do it. Otherwise we are going to be under our limit of 85 again this year. May as well snatch up guys that can contribute right away, especially at a position of need.

I thought there were stringent rules about academic scholarships given to players on the FB team. There are 85 scholarship players, but only 105 or so players that can be on a team. If these "preferred" walkon players are given academic scholarships you can mess with the 85 limit. I understand he does have very good qualifications, but that's a rather gray area that I bet a lot of schools use a lot as well.

If you read what I say you and I are actually in full agreement. My point is that if we give him a scholly it is not coming at the expense of getting some 4* potential all-american. Generally speaking, the more positions that you have high quality players on your team the more likely you are to be successfull, LS is a position that has much more impact on games than given credit for, makes a difference in more games than a lot of other more publicized positions, and takes a skill set that is not necessarily that easy to find or coach into a guy. If he is that good at it, give him the scholly and we have one less thing to worry about for four years.
 
Ah, ok. Must have misread it. Anyway, with the incoming class we are having it'd be nice to get some of the guys to gray shirt and build up that quality depth we so covet. That'd make room for Germain. If Drescher gets a good look at by the league then it'd be nice to pull in a guy as a preferred walkon. I would just hate for us to miss out on a good LS because our ST are already horrible. A few years back we were bad at hiking in the shot gun position and it killed us. If that happens on ST those momentum swings would be an even bigger disaster than what we see with all of the blocks, misses, returns for TDs. I'd hate to give up more ST points.
 
On the grayshirt thing, wouldn't it be better not to over-recruit this year?

As it stands, we're looking at only 14 available scholarships next year. Why cut into that number with prospects from a down recruiting year? It makes a hell of a lot more sense to bank on either having a good season or new coach to bring in a really good 2011 class. When it comes right down to it, if we suffer attrition that takes us below 85 schollies heading into the fall, I'd rather fill those spots by awarding schollies to senior walkons, get their grades in our APR for next year, and then have the slot open for a 2011 recruit.
 
On the grayshirt thing, wouldn't it be better not to over-recruit this year?

As it stands, we're looking at only 14 available scholarships next year. Why cut into that number with prospects from a down recruiting year? It makes a hell of a lot more sense to bank on either having a good season or new coach to bring in a really good 2011 class. When it comes right down to it, if we suffer attrition that takes us below 85 schollies heading into the fall, I'd rather fill those spots by awarding schollies to senior walkons, get their grades in our APR for next year, and then have the slot open for a 2011 recruit.

Depends on who we get. We need to honor those commits that we have now. If we can get some DTs and maybe a CB or two then it'd be ok if we don't have very many scholarships last year. If we take another OL or WR prospect that'll be too much. I just like it when we can guys to gray shirt as a lot of players that CU will need to rise back to the top don't have their man-bodies just yet. Next year is a big in-state recruiting year, but we thought that about this year too. Some guys may shake out while others don't. Even if we get a new coach next year the first year recruiting class of a coach isn't usually solid, unless the HC is replaced midseason (no way that happens, imo). We need guys that are solid prospects with a nasty attitude. I just look at some of the depth we have and while I don't just want a warm body, I want someone that looks to be a solid contributor in due time.
 
On the grayshirt thing, wouldn't it be better not to over-recruit this year?

As it stands, we're looking at only 14 available scholarships next year. Why cut into that number with prospects from a down recruiting year? It makes a hell of a lot more sense to bank on either having a good season or new coach to bring in a really good 2011 class. When it comes right down to it, if we suffer attrition that takes us below 85 schollies heading into the fall, I'd rather fill those spots by awarding schollies to senior walkons, get their grades in our APR for next year, and then have the slot open for a 2011 recruit.

The numbers work out to 14 but there are always things that happen to change that. I would guess that by LOI day next year the number is close to if not over 20.
 
The numbers work out to 14 but there are always things that happen to change that. I would guess that by LOI day next year the number is close to if not over 20.

If Hawk is fired expect a lot of transfers too. He may not be well liked by the fans, but it seems as if he has most of the players on his side.
 
St. Germain will not be a Buff unless something dramatically changes:

http://colorado.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1044163

How did his trip to Blacksburg compare with his trip to Boulder?

"Both of them were really good," St. Germain said. "They were about the same. The coaches at both schools were just as nice. But I liked Virginia Tech a little bit more."

********************

Joe Silipo is supposedly going to be a good LS for us in 2010, but we really have very little besides him. IMO, we need a walk on LS in a bad way this cycle. It would allow a year for him to redshirt, bulk up, and learn from a vet like Silipo before taking over for 4 years. I really don't want to wait until 2011 to recruit our next LS.

The good news is that the vast majority of Chris Sailer's top-rated Snappers are un-committed and from either California or Texas.

Scrolling down his list, I found a Colorado kid at #32:

http://www.chrissailerkicking.com//site_img/SNAPPERS/Oswald,_Brandon.JPG

BRANDON OSWALD
High School: Mountain Vista HS Class of 2010
Snapper
State: CO
Class Rank: 32
Height: 6'4
Weight: 200
SAT/ACT: 30
GPA: 3.94

PLAYER REVIEW
Brandon has good potential. Lots of good potential. Very consistent with average speed. When he works on getting back instead of straight up, his speed and consistency will increase dramatically.

Oswald,_Brandon.JPG


I'm going to put a profile together on Oswald.
 
St. Germain has accepted a preferred walk on opportunity at Virginia Tech.

CU needs to bring in a PWO long snapper this year. Very important. Some good Colorado kids on the board, too.
 
Back
Top