Recruting Strategy

**guitarchitect7** · 01-31-2007, 09:25 PM

Obviously by looking at the current commitments, there has been a clear focus on the defense and Offensive line.

I like the strategy behind it, but question if possible focus on other areas could have been possible. First, this does not represent my opinion, but just another perspective to look at for the current class.

Offensive line was a clear issue last year with the team. So the focus on this is smart. Experience players are needed as we hopefully have recieved with our JC's that are coming in. We got a few high schoolers that will hopefully pan out in a couple years for the team.

But once you get past those guys, most everyone committed is a defensive player. Now offense isnt our main concern, but wouldn't some depth to our team be helpful. I see that we still have Bates. We have also picked up two RB's and two WR's, but as someone else has noted in other threads; where are the TE's, FB's and few more at the posistions that we already got commits to.

What do you all think?

**Cato2handjam** · 01-31-2007, 09:31 PM

Being that Gene was from the Defensive side of the ball, coaching wise, it doesn't surprise me that he has gone after those guys first. Our D needed the revamp for sure. I also like the fact that he addressed the O-line. With the talent coming in at RB and our respectable passing tandem, a solid O-line was at the top of the need list. Tight Ends and Full backs are like second basemen in baseball, plug and play.

**ajjohnson** · 01-31-2007, 09:34 PM

The speculation is we are going to more of a spread offense, so I don't we will have a fullback on the field most of the time. The line seems to be a consistent weakness, so I think they are on the right track. Running back was also a huge need that was nicely filled, I don't think TE was as big as a concern as the line and RB and agree with the approach.

**darts180** · 01-31-2007, 09:37 PM

OK Guitar, here is my explanation of why you are seeing what you are in terms of recruiting stratagy........

Football, at its essence is a physical game. Teams dictate tempo of games by winning the battle up front on the offensive and defensive lines. Part of the problem that has caused Iowa State to NEVER rise above mediocrity is that we have consistently been dominated in that area by any good team that we have played.

We continued to recruit skill position players, while relying on walk-ons (some really developed) to man the trenches on the defensive side of the ball. And when was the last time that we had a good, let alone dominant, offensive line???

Gene gets it, you have to win the ugly battles to win the game, and there are no uglier battles than the ones up front.

We will recruit more skill players as we go along, I am sure. But in order to be able to compete for more than just the 6th place bowl, although it is a tremendous tremendous honor to go to Houston, no doubt about it, we need to become a physical team. As fans we should aspire for better. I think that JP does, and I am POSITIVE that Gene does.

**Wesley** · 01-31-2007, 09:38 PM

Think Texas Texch football...

**letsgostate** · 01-31-2007, 09:39 PM

There are still some possible recruits out there that could fill a tight end spot nicely. Plus if you look at what's coming, could Arnaud end up a tight end? He's still after some good athletes that can fill other spots. There are a LOT of recruits that still list ISU as a strong option that are not committs yet. This will be interesting.

**GoShow97** · 01-31-2007, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by guitarchitect7

Obviously by looking at the current commitments, there has been a clear focus on the defense and Offensive line.

I like the strategy behind it, but question if possible focus on other areas could have been possible. First, this does not represent my opinion, but just another perspective to look at for the current class.

Offensive line was a clear issue last year with the team. So the focus on this is smart. Experience players are needed as we hopefully have recieved with our JC's that are coming in. We got a few high schoolers that will hopefully pan out in a couple years for the team.

But once you get past those guys, most everyone committed is a defensive player. Now offense isnt our main concern, but wouldn't some depth to our team be helpful. I see that we still have Bates. We have also picked up two RB's and two WR's, but as someone else has noted in other threads; where are the TE's, FB's and few more at the posistions that we already got commits to.

What do you all think?

Rome was not built in a day. Sometimes you have to take what you can get when you can get it. But yeah, i agree.

**Stormin** · 02-01-2007, 05:11 AM

I think he is taking the right approach. We had some gaping holes to fill on the OL. And on the Defensive side, our BIG problem last year (besides Moser) was the loss of Nick Leaders. Now we have lost Curvey. So I consider DL to be a top priority. Especially at DT. Mac always had trouble getting numbers here. At TE, we have Barkema returning and Catlett and others must be deemed to be adequate for now. You have to like the pickup of Bass at RB. And we have picked up some immediate help at DB. Lots of Juco's, but I think they fill needs and feel they will all be integral parts of our team. I think that Chizik by plugging these holes with Juco's and with what we have returning feels that he can compete right now. And if these Juco's pan out, we might be okay.

One thing I have noticed, is that Chizik does NOT recruit smallish DB's. He has NO ONE under 6 foot on his list of recruits. So I look for us to be much more physical. I don't look for too much soft coverage. I look for an attacking defense. I think we lost a lot of DL penetration when we lost Leaders, and our safeties s*cked. We really missed Moser and Paris.

**cyclonenum1** · 02-01-2007, 07:16 AM

Gentlemen-

As it says in the LSU FB weight room..."FOOTBALL IS A COLLISION SPORT". Chizik understands this and he is recruiting guys that can win collisions...guys that are big and fast!

As a defensive coach, he is going to focus on that side of the ball. I like this...as they always say...you win championships with defense! However, it will be a defense that will not look like what you are used to. He wants to employ an aggressive, attacking, blitzing, and turnover-creating type of defense. This is what most pro teams do and what top college coaches do (like Saban). In today's game if you play a soft defense and try to cover everyone with no pressure...the offense wins the battle 80% of the time because something comes open sooner or later.

On the offensive side of the ball there is a reason he hired a head coach to be OC...he will be running the show. We are definitely going to open it up and try to stretch the field both horizontally as well as vertically. Once we do this, I think you will see us run more than some believe. However, I think our plan will be to set up the run with the pass rather than vice-versa. I do not believe we will take the Texas Tech approach of throwing 60 times a game.

**sdsmith4** · 02-01-2007, 08:20 AM

Arnaud will not be a TE, he will be a QB, WR, S

**isuarch80** · 02-01-2007, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley

Think Texas Texch football...

We will not be Tech football...think Texas/Auburn football, where Chizik saw how offenses were run and won with his defense.

You get guys on both sides of the ball to control the line of scrimmage, you run the football with single back so the option to throw is always there and keeps the D honest. You have lightning fast LB's that can blitz and cover anyone from a #3 WR to the TE and RB, and you play safeties deep to not get burned.
The QB controls the game and understands his options and reads. Auburn is known for its running game, Texas definitely has the WR history but is overlooked constantly and the number of guys who rushed for a 100 ypg last couple of years. Just because you put 3 and 4 wr's out there doesn't mean you can't run the ball, or shouldn't!!!

This will not be Tech, just a better pro offense that beats people up and hopefully gets the guys that can run past the other team as well!!!

**BryceC** · 02-01-2007, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by sdsmith4

Arnaud will not be a TE, he will be a QB, WR, S

Why is everybody in such a hurry to move Arnaud out of the QB spot? I think he'll be a great QB for Chizik's system.

**benjay** · 02-01-2007, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by cyclone#1

I do not believe we will take the Texas Tech approach of throwing 60 times a game.

Agree. McFarland believes in a balanced attack, and he will use the run and pass equally.

**cyingreen** · 02-01-2007, 09:13 AM

darts180 gets it. Who wins up front wins most games, not counting turnovers, etc.

**ISUFan22** · 02-01-2007, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by darts180

We continued to recruit skill position players, while relying on walk-ons (some really developed) to man the trenches on the defensive side of the ball. And when was the last time that we had a good, let alone dominant, offensive line???

This strategy led to both successes and demise. It's a strange deal.

Early in D-Mac's tenure his staff targeted the good-ole-boys. Big, mean guys that wanted to work. Didn't get too many really good skill players to compliment them.

Somewhere along the line the pendulum swung completely the other way. Lots of skill guys but only a few good men.

Guys like Moses, Wallace, Hobbs, Bylthe, Meyer, etc - have helped us win games. They can only carry you so far. Guys on the offensive/defensive line have helped cost us games - mostly on the offensive line. Not to mention, the kicking game.

A balance is needed and if you're going to lean one way - I think ya go after the beef.

Once those big boys knock the guy across the line on his can a few times - a back that only runs a 4.9 in the 40 yard dash soon looks like a 4.4 guy.