I hope your right. I really, really do. But I have yet to see anything concrete to indicate that any of our young DBs are more talented than LJ or Benton, or that any of our young WRs are more talented than DR, or, most importantly, that our young OL have the same upside as Hicks or KO. Not trying to bag on you, but we see that statement every year about our young players and recruits, and the talent level hasn't varied all that much. But I do feel better about our young players in some positions like RB, QB, and DL.
are we underdeveloped or under talented?
- Thread starter CYcojoe
- Start date
I hope your right. I really, really do. But I have yet to see anything concrete to indicate that any of our young DBs are more talented than LJ or Benton, or that any of our young WRs are more talented than DR, or, most importantly, that our young OL have the same upside as Hicks or KO. Not trying to bag on you, but we see that statement every year about our young players and recruits, and the talent level hasn't varied all that much. But I do feel better about our young players in some positions like RB, QB, and DL.
I think one of the issues with ISU is that we typically recruit "less talented" players from HS because that is what we can get. So when those players are thrust into starting roles early they are not on the same level as an older player with the same base talent level because the older players have had another year or two to develop and learn the game/system.
We have a ton of first year starters in some critical postitions like OL, RB and QB. I think for the most part these players can physically compete it will just take another off season or two to further develop.
Defensively I think we are under talented up front which puts so much more pressure on the back 7. I would love to see this change but we have all heard CPR say that DL is the hardest position to recruit because of the talents needed to be successful compared to the # of kids who possess those talents. Hopefully we can improve to a greater degree but I just dont see ISU having dominant DL until we can continually compete in the conference.
We have a ton of first year starters in some critical postitions like OL, RB and QB. I think for the most part these players can physically compete it will just take another off season or two to further develop.
Defensively I think we are under talented up front which puts so much more pressure on the back 7. I would love to see this change but we have all heard CPR say that DL is the hardest position to recruit because of the talents needed to be successful compared to the # of kids who possess those talents. Hopefully we can improve to a greater degree but I just dont see ISU having dominant DL until we can continually compete in the conference.
At least on defense, the majority of our problem has been the D-Line. When Paul and Wally got here there was nothing. Building depth and having a strong line will do wonders for the defense.
I think the future of our linebackers is looking good even after Jake and AJ graduate. Not completely sold on the secondary yet, but I'm sure they'll do great.
I'm less confident of the talent on the offensive side, but we'll see how that develops.
Last edited:
How about underperforming? In a few games our team didn't give the other team a chance to beat the Cyclones because they were too busy shooting themselves in the feet. You can't convince me that this team was incapable of playing with Texas, they just didn't plain and simple.
Chizik's 1st class when he took over for Mac was a plethora of JUCOs(2007). 12 JUCOs If I remember right. That right there (along with attrition in the 07 class) took away a share of "would be red shirt-seniors" for THIS TEAM. Chizik did what he needed to do at the time, but long term that heavy JUCO 07 class hurt the program this year, and especially last year.
Rhoads took over only about 30 Chizik players, and probably less than 20 with any game experience. He didn't get a stocked cupboard from Chizik.
As pointed out in the long post earlier, the 08 class produced a lot of current players, but the amount of them is lacking.
Rhoads has done a great job keeping recruits in the program, especially from the last couple classes. Something McCarney struggled with from 04/05/06 and played a role in his demise.
I used to get sore ankles from the city/beer softball league. Tough to deal with the next day at work. 
Great post. We are in a day & age where we expect instant satisfaction. If it takes 3 minutes to get your food in a drive-thru window, people freak out.
The VERY LAST thing we need to do is toss around the idea of firing coaches. Not to bring up Iowa, but they have had the same coaching staff for 12 years or so. Are they bland? Yup. Boring? Maybe. Successfull? Yes.
It rarely does anybody any good if you fire people before they have a chance to get their guys into place and build some depth.
We can sit here and make excuses year after year about why we are not competive in the Big 12. Obviously the "correct" way to run a program is to recruit incoming freshmen, coach them up for a couple years, get them on the field for 2-3 years, maybe even 1 year, then let the next group take over and etc. like the Texas and Oklahoma's of the world do it. They can attarct far more recruits to do this than whatg we can. Also, having some continuity on your coaching staff year-in and year-out is a huge factor. Now obvioulsy we are not amongst the ranks of Texas and Oklahoma, I believe, like it or not, we need to hit the JUCO's hard every year if we want to compete in the Big 12. This is exactly what Bill Snyder has done at K-St... I know Ames, Iowa is a lot better than Manhatten, Kansas! I understand you may get some bad apples but if we want to base this programs on wins then we have to do it the unconventional way unfortunately. I just don't believe we can get the players needed to compete in the Big 12 year-in year-out by developing them and expecting them to play when opportunity arises at ISU. I do beleive we have a great coaching staff in place and keeping them is high priority...we just need to find the right pieces to the puzzle and I believe we can find them annually at the JUCO's! The question is will Cylclone Nation be able to scrap conventional wisdom and embrace a new way of thinking?
Not a new way of thinking. DMac went a little JUCO heavy with a class or 2 at the end. Unfortunately for him, most of them didn't work out. Just went to review numbers, 2002 class had 8 JUCOS, significant contributors were Collin Menard and Waye Terry, if you consider either significant. 2004 had 6, contributors being Tim Dobbns and LaMarcus Hicks. 2005 had 7, contributors being Jon Banks, Alvin Bowen, and one of the Fisher twins. This kind of shows the risk/reward of JUCOs. Of those 3 classes, 33% (7/21) JUCOs had a significant contribution to the team. Granted, there are some very good players there, but it's still a big risk using Scholarships on JUCOS.
The difference between those years that DMac took JUCOs versus the CPR recruiting classes? DMacs HS kids were almost entirely 2* atheletes. 2002 was the notable exception where Austin Flynn and Stevie Hicks (both 4*) highlighted a pretty good recruiting class, numbers wise. However, 2004 and 2005 contained a total of 27 2-star HS players. CPR's classes of '10 and '11 contained 15.
There are 2 ways to build a program, take big risks (with potentially big rewards) on JUCOs, or work hard at recruiting the best HS players possible and develop them. CPR is doing a better job of the second than DMac was, and therefore isn't required to try #1 as often. I think JUCOs will always be a part of ISU recruiting, but I like the way CPR recruits much better than I did DMac.
The difference between those years that DMac took JUCOs versus the CPR recruiting classes? DMacs HS kids were almost entirely 2* atheletes. 2002 was the notable exception where Austin Flynn and Stevie Hicks (both 4*) highlighted a pretty good recruiting class, numbers wise. However, 2004 and 2005 contained a total of 27 2-star HS players. CPR's classes of '10 and '11 contained 15.
There are 2 ways to build a program, take big risks (with potentially big rewards) on JUCOs, or work hard at recruiting the best HS players possible and develop them. CPR is doing a better job of the second than DMac was, and therefore isn't required to try #1 as often. I think JUCOs will always be a part of ISU recruiting, but I like the way CPR recruits much better than I did DMac.
We are .500* under a coach** who followed the worst*** coach in Iowa State history****.
Meditate on that.
*Or so.
**Who coaches things like tackling and blocking.
***by winning percentage.
****Yes. History. That is worth a day of meditation on its own. Imagine how much further along we'd be if he had only followed a better coach, like Jim Walden(.335), Donnie Duncan (.432) or Vince Difrancesca! (.232)
Meditate on that.
*Or so.
**Who coaches things like tackling and blocking.
***by winning percentage.
****Yes. History. That is worth a day of meditation on its own. Imagine how much further along we'd be if he had only followed a better coach, like Jim Walden(.335), Donnie Duncan (.432) or Vince Difrancesca! (.232)
I would argue that talented players at the college level fit any system. Period. The teams with the most guys that will play on Sunday are in the Top 10 most of the time. It just can't be denied. LSU's players would fit in OU's system or Missouri's system or Iowa State's system. Seriously, how many NFL guys do we objectively have? KO, Knott?? I don't know. Maybe more. We have some talent but it is relative to some of the talent and teams we've seen the last few weeks and will see. How many NFL players did we see at UCONN? Even Iowa's NFL talent is down. It shows on the field. That's not to say a group of developed upper class players can't compete and get better. Rhoads and company know this and are obviously working on both ends to improve our program.
I would argue you are completely wrong. Pat White is the only QB to win four bowl games. He doesn't fit every system. Denard RObinson wouldn't start at QB at USC. Jeff Demps couldn't line up in the I and pound it down your throat. LeMichal James, same thing.
Then you change what you do to simply maximize your talent. Do we have the talent at the positions you describe to do any of that? No. So we do what we do. Do you think Rhoads and Herman would tell any of those kids you mentioned we don't have a scholarship for you based on system? I don't think so. Also, the teams you mention get to choose the players they want most of the time to fit what they do - the best players! We don't. If you are Auburn do you run the same offense you did last year? Not in the same way you don't. People can argue system all they want but it still takes talent to win. Most every college program runs some variation of the same offense at this point - all focused on maximizing speed and talent at the skill position. With the exception of a few Big Ten schools. And to that point, you don't think Demps could be a tailback at Wisconsin? Some teams get to choose between the top tailbacks is the only difference. We don't.
Disagree. You can't tell me just about any team in the nation wouldn't take those guys and find a place for them. Just look at a guy like Terrell Pryor. Ohio State had nothing but game-management, pro style QBs before him. OSU still took him despite the fact he was a mobile QB. This stuff happens all the time.
Rhoads could have stuck with what our team was best suited for, but maybe he felt it was best to take his lumps and evolve to the spread offense like the rest of the Big12. We clearly didn't have the pieces, and we still aren't completely there. But its starting to come along and it will be worth it in the end. Fans seem to think finding a way to use your best player is easy, but you would be surprised how many coaches go to a different team and change the systems and start recruiting completely different times of players.