Question for those more knowledgeable than myself: Do you feel that the overall roster talent level has improved in recent years - say beginning with the Chizik years up to the present? Worse? (!) Or about the same?
Overall Talent Level
- Thread starter CycloneCurt
- Start date
Yes there is more talent. It may partially be a by-product of Rhoads really building up the roster and improving depth across the board. Rhoads just getting the team back to semi-even playing field has made a huge difference.
Other than QB, the glaring issue this year is the schedule. I think back in 07, the bigger issue was talent across the board, and that team appeared to face a far easier schedule in terms of out of conference play.
While the outside may not see the strides, I think its pretty easy to see ISU in a much better place than 07.
Other than QB, the glaring issue this year is the schedule. I think back in 07, the bigger issue was talent across the board, and that team appeared to face a far easier schedule in terms of out of conference play.
While the outside may not see the strides, I think its pretty easy to see ISU in a much better place than 07.
I think there is a definite but slight increase in talent as compared to Dan's last couple years. Chiz did bring in a few good players and Paul has shored us up even more with some hidden gems.
Hopefully he can do that to an even greater extent and continue to develop the guys that we have, because we still have a ways to go before being able to say we have average Big 12 talent.
The last 2 years, I believe we were overachieving on defense, but you can't count on that to improve us beyond where we're at.
Hopefully he can do that to an even greater extent and continue to develop the guys that we have, because we still have a ways to go before being able to say we have average Big 12 talent.
The last 2 years, I believe we were overachieving on defense, but you can't count on that to improve us beyond where we're at.
I think the talent is better - I think this team would probably beat the 2000 team and would probably smack around the 2001 and 2002 teams. The major problem is the talent level as a whole is better in the Big 12 than it was a decade ago - Missouri, Oklahoma St, Texas Tech, and Baylor are all playing at higher levels than they did a decade ago. I think our talent level is better, we're just fighting an increasingly more difficult conference. Oh - and going through 3 coaches in 5 years certainly doesn't help, either...
I think it might be too early to tell if the talent level has improved, IMO. I think we are recruiting more athletic people, but that doesn't always equal more talent.....if that makes sense. I think we need a couple more years to really be able to tell.
I think the coaches are definitely getting a little more out of the talent we do have.
I think the coaches are definitely getting a little more out of the talent we do have.
I think one of the biggest things is the talent level now fits what we are trying to accomplish on the field. I think McCarney, and Chizik, brought in good players that couldn't comntribute to what the team was trying to accomplish. Players that fit your scheme are more important than kids with a few more stars who are lost in your system.
I agree about the talent level getting better, not just at Iowa State, but in the Big 12 as a whole. Not that stars guarantee wins, but when I get excited about bringing on a few 3-star recruits, I go over to other Big 12 team sites and notice they've signed many more -- plus some 4-star and, in some cases, 5-star recruits.
Even though he burned us, it would've been interesting to see what Chizik could've done here had he stayed. We all know he can recruit -- and you can't win a national title without some ability to coach.
We are deeper for sure, but I don't think our best players now are that much better than our best players back in the McCarney years. With McCarney we would have a good starter and then have a walkon as his backup. 4 year starters were pretty common. With Rhoads we are starting to build a team with depth, and it will be rare for an underclassman to start. Building depth is the first part, now starting to get NFL players at every level is the next step.
I think the talent level has gone up every year since atleast 2005. Especially the last 3 years. I would rank our talent level, in the Big XII (10 teams), at 8th. Just above K-State and Kansas. But the gap between us and Tech, OSU, Mizzou, A&M and Baylor (Briles has brought in big time talent) is much, much smaller. If not, even.
D-line is probably the largest gap in talent, but we're getting better.
D-line is probably the largest gap in talent, but we're getting better.
Most of the high-end talent on this team is from Chizik. Maybe that is just because his recruits are juniors and seniors now, but LJ, Benton, Osemele, Ruempolhamer, Burris -- all Chizik recruits.
Uhh, sorry we arent even remotely on the same planet talent wise as Oklahoma State and to a lessor extent aTm.
This. Depth is WAY better now than under Mac. I remember when Mac signed Leaders and Curvey. Those two were basically four year starters who played every down of every game. Berryman would have been a four year starter too if he hadn't gotten in trouble. And there was no one behind those guys. Conversely, CPR brings in a JUCO DL this year not to start, but to be the 4th DL in a rotation and possibly compete to start in 2012. I think that CPR has better depth at RB, OL, DL, DB than Mac or Chizik usually had.
My one complaint is at WR and TE. IMO Mac had some nice WRs with the Danielson/Whitver/Young/Montgomery group and then the Blythe/Davis/Flynn/Sumrall/Hamilton group. They've went downhill since then. Neither Chizik nor Rhoads has been able to recruit a WR that would challenge for a spot in either one of those groups. At TE, CPR started with Catlett/Franklin/Hammerschmidt. Now it's just Hammerscmidt. There hasn't been a good plan really to replace the other two or fill the pipeline other than the JUCO Brun and hoping Pierce Richardson develops.
Overall, I think that the starting talent is fairly similar, maybe slightly better, under CPR compared to Mac and Chiz, but the depth is better for the most part. Out of the three staffs, I'd rate them like this:
Recruiting
1.Chiz
2.CPR
3.Mac
Game day coaching
1.CPR
2.Mac
3.Chiz
Grades/Legal issues
1.CPR
2.Chiz
3.Mac
S&C
1.CPR
2.Chiz
3.Mac
Player retention
1.CPR
2.Chiz
3.Mac
Depth
1.CPR
2.Chiz
3.Mac
Motivation
1.Mac
2.CPR
3.Chiz
Planning/strategy
1.CPR
2.Chiz
3.Mac
Last edited:
and our dline isnt anywhere near what it was in 2005. that is the only area we have had a nearly imposible time filling. we used to have at least one really good one... over last few years not so much.
I would agree that the gap between us and Tech/Baylor is very close. Mizzou, OSU and A&M have quite a bit more talent than we do. Not even close at this stage. We might very well have the best coaching staff out of those 3 and at least two or three of those schools mentioned will likely underachieve as they usually do.
I agree, except for the QB position, which can mean the difference of a game or two.
I also think the 2005 squad was better yet, at least the first team guys.
I agree with most of what you said, except for this one. I don't know how you can possibly give Chiz the #2 spot in planning/strategy when he had a 5-19 record at ISU, largely due to his planning and strategy. Let's take the Colorado game for instance - last play of the game, ___ and goal from the 1 with :01 on the clock, when we've effectively run the ball right down Colorado's throat the entire game, we run the ball outside and it gets absolutely stuffed, as if they knew it was coming. Not to mention he tried forcing a square peg into a round hole by insisting on playing a defense (cover 2) that we simply did not have the personnel to play.
Yeah, Chizik has had success at Auburn - he actually hired some coordinators that actually know how to coach and strategize their side of the ball instead of hiring a couple of fishing buddies that made a pact two decades earlier.
I'm not saying Mac was this outstanding, underappreciated strategist - he wasn't. But holy **** Chizik's strategies were a big part of his failed tenure at ISU....
Chizik is a "CEO" head coach. That type of coach can succeed with superior talent but will crash and burn with a team that is rebuilding/developing. This is directly reflected in his records at ISU and then at Auburn. We also saw an example of this with Texas last year. CEO Mack Brown and his staff did not handle the transition to the post Colt McCoy era well at all either.
ISU needs a coach that can get the most out of existing talent and build for the future. Illustrated by CPR winning a bowl game the first year with Chiziks players.
Last edited: