Not sure if this was ever posted from free content of scout, but bears last month signed Aaron Brandt, 6-7, 320.
Scout.com: Bears Sign OT Aaron Brant
Scout.com: Bears Sign OT Aaron Brant
Last edited:
Predictions - Football
- Thread starter mpc4isu7
- Start date
I forgot about Stephenson...
I did not say curv was the only loss....I said he was the only "irreplaceable" loss on that list of 3 you provided. D Jack was good but not dominant and we played what...5 games without him. Our safety play should improve with Smith comeing back and new people coming in. Moorehead was serviceable but replaceable and between Taylor, Parker, and new people coming in we can get the same production. I would rather have T Mac on the team, but he did not want to be here, and I think we will have good enough LB play to compensate for his loss and I thint Tuba and Fere will be able to clog up the middle to keep O'Linemen of the backers. And I bet we see both those 300 + lber's in the game at the same time in some situations....plus I think we have some good lineman coming in. Can't judge anything from Spring practice because so much will change....
And I suspect Mcfarland will have the o'line playing well enough to get Brett some time.....not great but good enough.....
I am not saying we will win the North, but I think we will win more than 4 games. New coaches, new s@c program, and new attitude makes a huge difference. Chizik would not have come here if he did not think he could win in the 1st year. Mac was such a horrible decision maker and some of the assistants were not good. I expect a lot better year than most. I say six - seven wins and by Chiziks 3 rd year we win the north. Maybe I am niave but from what I am seeing and hearing I don't think so. I think this years team will be more physical, mentally tough, fundamental, and better coached than last year.......
Last edited:
Tell me what player we have that will be Jackson's caliber anywhere in the secondary this year.
Just because McKinzie didn't want to be here doesn't justify him not being a big loss. Again, we don't have a player with his talent yet.
Define irreplaceable.
When it relates to '07, I'd define irreplaceable loses from '06 as players where we have a significant drop-off between the player that left and the player(s) that will take their place. We have more than one irreplaceable player that left us after '06.
By the end of '07 that tune may very well change and I would expect it to in some cases, otherwise our staff isn't developing some of the younger talent we do have. Yet it won't be some drastic change that will happen right away or even in one year.
Just because McKinzie didn't want to be here doesn't justify him not being a big loss. Again, we don't have a player with his talent yet.
Define irreplaceable.
When it relates to '07, I'd define irreplaceable loses from '06 as players where we have a significant drop-off between the player that left and the player(s) that will take their place. We have more than one irreplaceable player that left us after '06.
By the end of '07 that tune may very well change and I would expect it to in some cases, otherwise our staff isn't developing some of the younger talent we do have. Yet it won't be some drastic change that will happen right away or even in one year.
This is exacltey what I am talking about, and not to pick on you, but ISUfan22 only mentioned 3 players ...here:
"I completely disagree. I'll give you a few names...
Curvey
Jackson
McKinzie
I didn't even include the offensive linemen who are on NFL rosters. We certainly did not lose the weakest players."
I siad out of that list Curv hurt the most...the rest we can replace and get solid production from.
Moorehead was NOT a dominating lineman. He was the sack record leader because we had no one esle to play in that spot. Don't get me wrong...I liked him but he was a "journeyman" dend. I did not say TMac was not good but I bet we get someone in there that can get 8 - 12 tackles per game. I am not going to say we are sunk because he left....plug a guy in that wants to be here. Mckenzie was not "proven" before the Toledo game last year....
Answer me this....
How many games and tackles did TMac play in or have before Toledo last year.....ZERO!
People are forgetting about Tuba Rubin..who I think will have a good year this year....
How do you know how much a guy has improved from last season to this season without seing them play a down? They went throug Spring, Summer drills, and will have gone through Fall camp.....players are going to improve. I have faith that Chizik and Bolt will have them ready. Jackson was good, but I think we can get the same production from players we have or that ar coming in.....
I think you forget he was a transfer from Michigan State, a kid they were high on yet was lost in the depth chart - from what I understand.
So a guy from a average Big 10 team that couldn't get enough playing time there, came to ISU and started every game in his first year he could play. He was a stud for us.
That should tell ya a bit about our talent (or lack thereof) as it compares to other teams around the nation.
I'm curious just how you think we'll easily replace some of these guys and get solid production from them. Most guys that were either on the bench for a 4-8 team or are newcommers to Division I football.
Seriously, the same type of production as Jackson could give us? Seriously? I take it you're holding that injury against him. Jackson was a great corner for us and I say again, is a NFL-caliber corner if not for that silly injury. The kid lost out on millions of dollars.
It's about talent - you've either got it or you don't. That cane be groomed, of course. These guys can improve and I expect them too. There is also a very important thing called experience. No one has close to the experience in the secondary as Jackson brought onto the field last year. For that matter, we don't have the leadership in the secondary. You need leaders on the field. Our secondary was poor with Jackson as the other three left big holes. We got a heck of a lot worse when he went down.
So a guy from a average Big 10 team that couldn't get enough playing time there, came to ISU and started every game in his first year he could play. He was a stud for us.
That should tell ya a bit about our talent (or lack thereof) as it compares to other teams around the nation.
I'm curious just how you think we'll easily replace some of these guys and get solid production from them. Most guys that were either on the bench for a 4-8 team or are newcommers to Division I football.
Seriously, the same type of production as Jackson could give us? Seriously? I take it you're holding that injury against him. Jackson was a great corner for us and I say again, is a NFL-caliber corner if not for that silly injury. The kid lost out on millions of dollars.
It's about talent - you've either got it or you don't. That cane be groomed, of course. These guys can improve and I expect them too. There is also a very important thing called experience. No one has close to the experience in the secondary as Jackson brought onto the field last year. For that matter, we don't have the leadership in the secondary. You need leaders on the field. Our secondary was poor with Jackson as the other three left big holes. We got a heck of a lot worse when he went down.
Last edited:
A guy that committed to ISU...decommitted...went to MSU...did not like it....came to ISU....them left for USF....tells you something about his character.Playing time at MSU was not an issue...he siad he just did not like it up there and left. I never siad he was not good..he was...what I am saying is I think we can put Garrin or Bibbs in the middle and get 8 - 12 tackes per game. I did not say Jackson was not good, but he was not shut down good, I think people will step up. They do not have to match T Mac's tackle total. I would rather have a ILB with 90 tackle on the season for a 6 win team. Then a 129 tackle ILB on a 4 win team. I think we get 2 wins just because we have a whole new staff....
This is college football...most players ride the bench for a while. Either they are red shirts or someone is ahead of them in the Depth chart. A lot of ISU's good players did not play as Freshman. And I am not holding Jacksone injury agianst him....I merely pointed out that we played 5 games without him....
Last edited:
Just because you'd rather have less tackles for an ILB and more wins doesn't mean that's the formula. :wink0st:
Good coaching and talent however, usually is the forumula for W's. Both will take time. Yeah, I did say both.
We do need to remember this is Gene's first head coaching gig. To think it will be a completely smooth transition for him would be a bit presumptuous.
Good coaching and talent however, usually is the forumula for W's. Both will take time. Yeah, I did say both.
We do need to remember this is Gene's first head coaching gig. To think it will be a completely smooth transition for him would be a bit presumptuous.
If you review Coach Chizik's coaching history, you will find he has not stayed in any one place for long. A surprise winning season at ISU, maybe two and he is gone for the money annd glory elsewhere. Even more so should he not prevail on the staff chaplain issue.
That may be. Only time -- and Chizik's performance as head coach -- will tell. But would you prefer Chizik to be bad to mediocre for 5+ years, or have two or three really good years at ISU and then bolt for somewhere else? I'll take the latter, every time, no questions asked.
Wasn't Gene also the Assistant Head Coach at Texas? Granted, it's not Mack Brown himself, but shouldn't that count for something?
I prefer the best of both worlds: winning Cyclone football and coaching stability.
Usually, one begets the other.
As the whole process of hiring a football coach was occurring, Jay Norvell emerged as a candidate. He had and has a similar resume to Coach Chizik. It is the nature of the beast that coaches move around anymore, because they are trying to build a resume for a potential head coaching job, the more experience the better.
Now that he has attained his dream (a head coaching job in a BCS conference), we don't know what Gene Chizik values in a community for his young family. I personally agree, if he is successful here, then a big boy comes calling, he will more than likely leave. But to guarantee that is presumptuous (sp) at best, and defeatist at most. It is that great fear, will a good coach stay in Ames, Ia???
I think the most important element in the whole scenario is seeing JP's plans through. If we can continue to NOT act like second class citizens, and BELIEVE that we can be successful, whether Gene stays or not, the pieces will be in place to continue success.
This goes along with the whole "little brother" stuff that makes me mad enough to fire off on a guy, who even though Cy is in his name, almost every post he has made is pro Hawkeye, anti Iowa State. The proof will be when we finish the stadium, and the donations are large enough that we can not only sustain the athletic department, but can bring back sports (baseball). IT CAN HAPPEN PEOPLE. The problem is that a whole way of thinking that has been ingrained into the psyche of Iowa State fans will have to change before it becomes reality.
Wow! I just realized that I'm catching flack from those who think my realistic expectations for Iowa State's 2007 football team are too "watered down"...
...and those who think my expectations are too "demanding":
There really is no pleasing everybody. If I've ticked off both sides of the debate, I must be on to something good! :rofl8yi:
Now, on to the present issue:
Well, that wasn't one of the options you gave me, Mr. Tremain. Your automatic assumption was that Chizik would leave after a good season or two, and I merely responded that I would rather see that happen than to see him put five or more lousy teams on the field. And boy, does your reply open an enormous can of worms...
This is a classic "chicken or the egg" argument. Which one begets which? Are they interchangeable? Does it matter which one we start with?
Let's say "winning" begets "stability." If that's the case, then your assumption that Chizik will leave after a couple of good years refutes your own argument. He's got a fantastic deal at Iowa State, with lots of money for facility improvements and assistant coaches. What's to say he won't reward Iowa State's commitment to him with some loyalty? Other coaches who have turned programs around have rebuffed the "big names" to show loyalty to the school that took a chance on them. Hayden Fry at Iowa, Bill Snyder at Kansas State, and (recently) Greg Schiano at Rutgers all come to mind. Why can't we expect Chizik to stay and grow what he started?
Conversely, let's say "stability" begets "winning." How do you define "stability"? Is there a threshold number of seasons that a coach has to be at the program before it achieves "stability"? Is eight years long enough? If so, Jim Walden should have been a winner according to your theory. Surely 12 years of "stability" begets winning, right? Well then, how do you explain Dan McCarney's .397 winning percentage in his 12 years in Ames -- including .417 over his final four seasons (the point at which his program should have been well-entrenched)?
With all due respect to your hypothesis, an excellent coach committing to staying and building a program is what begets stability -- and winning. If Chizik isn't the one to do that at Iowa State, who, in your opinion, is?
...and those who think my expectations are too "demanding":
There really is no pleasing everybody. If I've ticked off both sides of the debate, I must be on to something good! :rofl8yi:
Now, on to the present issue:
Well, that wasn't one of the options you gave me, Mr. Tremain. Your automatic assumption was that Chizik would leave after a good season or two, and I merely responded that I would rather see that happen than to see him put five or more lousy teams on the field. And boy, does your reply open an enormous can of worms...
This is a classic "chicken or the egg" argument. Which one begets which? Are they interchangeable? Does it matter which one we start with?
Let's say "winning" begets "stability." If that's the case, then your assumption that Chizik will leave after a couple of good years refutes your own argument. He's got a fantastic deal at Iowa State, with lots of money for facility improvements and assistant coaches. What's to say he won't reward Iowa State's commitment to him with some loyalty? Other coaches who have turned programs around have rebuffed the "big names" to show loyalty to the school that took a chance on them. Hayden Fry at Iowa, Bill Snyder at Kansas State, and (recently) Greg Schiano at Rutgers all come to mind. Why can't we expect Chizik to stay and grow what he started?
Conversely, let's say "stability" begets "winning." How do you define "stability"? Is there a threshold number of seasons that a coach has to be at the program before it achieves "stability"? Is eight years long enough? If so, Jim Walden should have been a winner according to your theory. Surely 12 years of "stability" begets winning, right? Well then, how do you explain Dan McCarney's .397 winning percentage in his 12 years in Ames -- including .417 over his final four seasons (the point at which his program should have been well-entrenched)?
With all due respect to your hypothesis, an excellent coach committing to staying and building a program is what begets stability -- and winning. If Chizik isn't the one to do that at Iowa State, who, in your opinion, is?
You are absolutely right, he came here to win. The difference is, and you can already see it, that he has not spent ONE SECOND of his time in Ames looking for reasons to not win.
There are a lot of built in excuses why it can't be done here. Listen to our neighbors to the East and West, they will tell you all of them. Again, it was used over and over by the people running the program. Gene is here to change all that, and you know what??? If he does, then he will get a bigtime offer from somewhere. But I will tell you, a change in the mindset of the fans will allow the next guy to build on what Gene, and to a much lesser extent Dan, started here.
I, for one, am excited, and nervous, as can be. I am dreading the wtf was Gene doing threads that will pop up this Fall. But it is the growing pains of a fanbase learning to have expectations, and not just saying they do.
Some of you guys are right - I am CLEARLY not a dedicated Cyclone football fan because I don't EXPECT a first year head coach to take a bunch of JUCO transfers directly to the Big XII championship. . .
I am not big on predicting the entire season. A lot can happen to every team between now and game time. A good coach (like Chizik) will be focused on one thing...winning the next game on the schedule...Kent State in this case. After that he will focus on the next game...and so on.
He will have his players focused on carrying out their assignment and beating their opponent on each play...not worrying about the last play or the next play.
I feel confident that we will win at least one game we are not supposed to win. I also firmly believe that we will have a winning season and by year's end people will begin wondering "what is going on in Ames, IA?".
He will have his players focused on carrying out their assignment and beating their opponent on each play...not worrying about the last play or the next play.
I feel confident that we will win at least one game we are not supposed to win. I also firmly believe that we will have a winning season and by year's end people will begin wondering "what is going on in Ames, IA?".
22 you keep saying how Jackson is a key lose he was a key lose when he went down early in the OU game so he was gone for half the year. ISU had to throw in a true freshman in to get on the job training when he really needed a readshirt year (like McDowell) to get a big 12 build. By the Missouri game Dernard Williams was playing really well even better then Jackson was a some points last year. Garrin also got put into playing before he should have but not after playing minutes and getting time in the weight room to get bigger I think he will be just as good at T Mac and bibbs may come in a be better just like Allen may come in and be better then Singleton and Williams. Also tuba start the season in shape and be better bacause he has played a year at DL on OL. I think the team attitude and coaching will get them to 7 wins, will be upset win they lose yes because I am a die hard fan. I won't call the season a failure if they go 4-8 again as long as the team plays hard the whole year and doesn't give up like they did last year. You always set your goals higher then expected so you have to work to meet them and have that be a challage.
What's that quote from Owen Wilson in Armageddon?
"I'm 90% excited and 10% scared. Or is it the other way around? Can you strap me in extra tight? I don't want to fall out..."
I'm with ya on this darts - it will be very interesting this fall and how certain things change. Last fall was certainly entertaining at times and I know full well I provided some of it.
As for the discussion (yet again) as to what will happen if Gene does well here...
If he wins enough in Ames to get a "bigger" job and leaves - I'll shake the man's hand, thank him and wish him well. He certainly won't get big offers by going 6-6, 7-5 or a best year of 8-4. He's going to have to win some serious games to garner that attention. We're talking 9-3, 10-2, plus. Those are North title and even Big 12 title records folks.
So I'd be glad for the wins, sad to see him go yet very excited as to the next coach we could lure in here after showing - yes, you can win at Iowa State.
But I'm not going to contemplate that, usher our coach out before he's even coached a game. I'd like to enjoy his tenure, starting with this year. While I'm not the overflowing cup of optimism that some are, I am damn excited for the '07 season. I'm even more excited for the prospect of things to come.
