No talent? Or poor coaching?

Cyrocks

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2009
6,528
6,541
113
In another thread, I joked with an Iowa fan when he said ISU doesn't have many football players who could start at Iowa. Three at the most is what he thought.

I never really disagreed, or agreed with him.

Here are my questions: Does ISU lack talent on the football team? Or is poor coaching the reason for ISU's lack of success in recent years? Or is it a combination of both?

Just curious to see what everyone else thinks.
 
Take a look at Boise State's classes. Nothing but 2 and 3 star kids. Coaching is huge-normous. Our kids need to be coached.
 
Combination. Rhoades will help though. Chizik was awful.
 
A bit of both. Hasnt ISU and Iowa split the last 6 games? ISU has gave Iowa all they wanted in our losses, not sure you can say the same about Iowa in their losses. Talent wise these programs are not as far apart as Iowa fans say they are. Someone looked at recuriting rankings over the past few years and ISU and Iowa have been close. For some reason the ISU coaches coach their best game against Iowa. So you tell me the difference.
 
Considering that Iowa really hasn't been that far ahead of us in recruiting, I would say coaching. Also, there are more than 2-3 that could start at Iowa.
 
Our skill position players have always been at the same level as the Hawks for several years now. The difference is in the trenches.
 
Considering that Iowa really hasn't been that far ahead of us in recruiting, I would say coaching. Also, there are more than 2-3 that could start at Iowa.

Please name them. I think Arnaud, L. Johnson, S. Johnson and Darks would start for Iowa.
 
Take a look at Boise State's classes. Nothing but 2 and 3 star kids. Coaching is huge-normous. Our kids need to be coached.

If you really believe this, here's a question for you. How does Boise State attract coaches who are so much better than anyone else's coaches at teaching the game? Boise State has done it for a long time under a lot of different coaches. Why are they always able to attract better coaches than 99 percent of the teams who also recruit nothing but 2 and 3 star kids?

I think it has more to do with evaluating than coaching. They can attract overlooked 2-3 star kids and they compete against teams that are not getting high-end recruits either. They build a winning atmosphere with these kids in a weak conference, build up their confidence and think they can take on anyone.

That attitude is a big part of why they are able to compete occasionally with the big boys of college football. If you have confidence and a winning attitude, you can sometimes overcome a lack of talent against those teams that should be better on paper.

I know one thing for sure. It's much more complicated than just better coaching. Everyone has professional coaches on staff. Some are better and some are worse, but I would think the difference is not that great, otherwise they'd be brick masons instead of coaches.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cmhawks99
Since Greene is gone you wouldn't take A-Rob? Serious question, I don't know what Iowa's got for guys taking over at RB.

I gotta believe they liked what they saw out of Jewel. I love ARobs, but he hasn't had a consistent season yet.
 
Talent is the primary reason, IMO. We had zero playmakers on offense last year. Plus, we were very young. We need a guy like Sed Johnson to emerge as that guy or perhaps a Money Reynolds. We also need ARob to stay healthy for an entire year. In addition, we had an average offensive line at best.

We don't even need to discuss the defense, although I think coaching held that unit back a bit. There's some talent on the defense, but too many holes on the Dline and LB.
 
Dan McCarney was way worse on gameday and Chizik.

Okay granted McCarney did have some not so great gameplans. Chizdick on the other hand was one of the worst gameplanners on the planet. Kansas for example. WHY WOULD YOU GO CONSERVATIVE? KEEP POURING IT ON DON'T LET UP THEY COULDN'T STOP US!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron