Current team's recruitment

[tazclone]

When he came in, we were two years removed from a bowl game.

Think about what you said here. People act like ISU was on stable ground when Chizik took over. Not really the case. I love hearing people say how much talent he inherited and how he should have won the first year he was here. Well DMac didn't do so well the season before with that same group of guys and they weren't thrust into a new system. So maybe those guys weren't the world beaters we thoguht they were. And the majority of those guys were Seniors.

I am not a chizik fan. I think the guy was an ***, It hink he made a HORRIBLE hire at DC, I am glad he is gone and I am ecstatic we have Rhoads but I remember plenty of people saying you can't judge a new coach for 3 years until they get their players. I even know some that were saying 4 years. FWIW- Ferentz had fewer wins his first two years and inferited a better program. So when peope point to his record I just roll my eyes. My point is, I think he would have had more success than what people give him credit. AGAIN, I AM GLAD HE ISN'T HERE.

 

[tazclone]

Mac was 5-17 his first two years.

Walden had gone 0-11-1, 3-8, 3-8 the previous three seasons.

The three years previous to that moron taking over we went 4-8, 7-5, 7-5

There is no double standard, people expected great things out of Gene Chizik. He had a talented senior laden team tossed into his lap, and he failed on all levels

That talented senior laden team won 4 games the prior year with an easier schedule.
Ferentz had a worse record his first two years and took over a better program. does he suck as well?

Not saying I like chizik nor do I want him back but if you are going to pull records out to draw conclusions then make sure you look at some of the others as well

 

[Stewo]

Chizik inherited a decent amount of talent when he came in. I'd say it was the same that Rhoads had/has. It's all about the coaching. GC sucked and overall, his assistants did as well. Rhoads is a football coach with a chip on his shoulder.

 

[Bobber]

Chizik had a lot more to sell when he came to town than Dan McCarney had(facilities, bowl game success, some decent talent already in the system).

A lot of people on this site tore down McCareny at the end because they thought recruit quality was dropping. If that was the case why are nearly 50% of the current starters McCarney recruits? Because if they were truly that "bad", they wouldn't be starting.

I think some people want to defend Chizik because they have a lot invested in him emotionally and in past posts about him.

I think Paul Rhoads is a better coach than both Dan McCarney and Gene Chizik(smarter coach and recruiter than both of them).

I just don't think Gene Chizik was much of an upgrade if at all over Dan McCarney. I'd score them pretty similar overall. Maybe Chizik had a slight edge in recruiting, but McCarney was much better at PR and game day motivation.

 

[Steve]

A lot of people on this site tore down McCareny at the end because they thought recruit quality was dropping. If that was the case why are nearly 50% of the current starters McCarney recruits? Because if they were truly that "bad", they wouldn't be starting.

The % of starters argument is weak and doesn't validate any of the 3 coaches. It's almost always about the guys who have been in the program 5, 4, and 3 years with some influence by the Jucos.

By default, McCarney comes out ahead this year, Chizik next year, and Rhoads the year after.

 

[CloneIce]

Say what you want about chizik, he did raise the consciousness and expectations while at ISU.

How so? He lowered the bar based on everything I saw.

 

[tazclone]

I really hate to say this but Chizik is responsible for a lot of our success this year. The Oline had a lot to do with him as well as the idea that he brought ARob back to the team. Without those two things I think our results would be a lot different. At the same time, we haven't seen a lot of talent from chizik yet in the LBs or really the defense in general. When you think of the defense, Benton and LJ are the guys that Chizik brought in in "his classes" up to this point that have contributed. I would give each coach every signing classes that has signed when they were coach. Some people would say you give them half the class, but the fact is the coach that is there signed there guys, they are theirs. I really expect to see a lot of Rhoads' guys move into roles in the next year or two and kind of overtake the program. To this point, I think Rhoads' staff has done a better job getting the guys we need to be successful.

I disagree about giving coaches the classes they sign. Guys like Klein, Reeves, ?Washington, etc were committed long before and didn't waiver. One thing chiz did was told guys not commit unless they knew 100% they were committed to ISU and he wanted them to shut down recruiting once they verballed. Some credit for the lack of turnover during the coaching change could be given to the fact that guys wanted to be at ISU (more than the coach) and the other part to Rhoads rerecruiting. Yes, Rhoads kept them here but hey would be here if chiz was still here. I think you will see guys like McDonough, Klein, Reeves, Black, Lange, Ruemplehammer, Maggit, and Broomfield all contribute going forward. Don't forget Bell,Lyle, and Banks were chiz recruits as well.
He did miss on a DE but he was in on some highly ranked ones right before he left.

 

[CloneIce]

No. That's how he lowered the bar. When he came in, we were two years removed from a bowl game. He didn't win enough games in two years to become bowl eligible for one season. He lowered the bar. My expectations are always bowl game or bust, but that doesn't mean that he didn't lower the quailty of football during his brief stint.

Actaully when he came in we were just one year removed from a bowl game. Mac got shown the door after winning 4 games.... a feat which did not even accomplish in either of his years.

 

[CloneIce]

That talented senior laden team won 3 games the prior year with an easier schedule.

They won 4.

 

[Stewo]

Actaully when he came in we were just one year removed from a bowl game. Mac got shown the door after winning 4 games.... a feat which did not even accomplish in either of his years.

Yeah, but Chizik got kids that were 2 classes from the bowl game. That's what I meant.

 

[tazclone]

Chizik inherited a decent amount of talent when he came in. I'd say it was the same that Rhoads had/has. It's all about the coaching. GC sucked and overall, his assistants did as well. Rhoads is a football coach with a chip on his shoulder.

See this is where I disagree. You can be successful in different ways when you take over. you can

1. Take the talent you have and scheme to fit that talent and utilize their strengths. This will get more immediate results but it may or may not be better for the long run- See Kelly at Cincy
2. You can take your schemes implement them right away and then recuit the palyers to fit those schemes. Usually less success up front but more stable for the long haul. See Ferentz, check michigan in a year or two, see tOSU, TT, WV, GT, etc.

I think you can find examples where both work and I would argue that you see both examples on our squad right now and saw both examples last year. Our offense is more of a scheme and then get the players whereas our defense is more scheme to the talent you have on hand. Last year, I thought McFarland changed things up to fit the players more on offense. Especially Arnaud.

I don't think it is fair to say all of chizik's assistants sucked. Our special teams last year were better than this year. McFarland was very productive especially after he adapted to a different system. Our WR's seemed to develop more last year, and our OL was well coached. Stephens even gives McFarland a lot of credit for his technical development.

The defensive side was horrible. There is no doubt about that. DL coaching was horrible (although people really like Pelton), and it is hard to tell if our DB's were bad from coaching, inexperience, or scheme. I think it was all three.

 

[tazclone]

Chizik inherited a decent amount of talent when he came in. I'd say it was the same that Rhoads had/has. It's all about the coaching. GC sucked and overall, his assistants did as well. Rhoads is a football coach with a chip on his shoulder.

I think this staff maybe wins two more games than chiz did if they played the same schedule(Kent St with Edelman and Jarvis is debatable) Can't prove it and it is debatable but that is the same schedule we will have two years from now. Winnable games on the road and the out of reach games at home.

 

[Stewo]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't say that all of the assistants were bad, because they weren't. Now, the one thing I've noticed with this staff is their ability to put our players in a position to play their best and win. IMO, that's what a smart, logical coaching staff does. I don't like the idea of coming into a new school and redoing both sides of the ball, scheme wise. That's the biggest reason why I don't like Chizik's coaching. A smart coach will understand the situation that they are in and adjust fire. Our staff now, does exactly that. KF was successful at Iowa because he had a smart staff and was at a school that they knew they could recruit to. That's why it's different to me.

 

[tazclone]

They won 4.

Thanks i fixed it

 

[Bobber]

The % of starters argument is weak and doesn't validate any of the 3 coaches. It's almost always about the guys who have been in the program 5, 4, and 3 years with some influence by the Jucos.

By default, McCarney comes out ahead this year, Chizik next year, and Rhoads the year after.

How so?

My point is if McCarney's recruits were so weak they wouldn't be starting. We'd be fielding a team of Freshman and Sophmores.

 

[CrossCyed]

Our three Team MVPs, in my mind, were brought on by all three coaches - Chizik (A. Robinson, who was recruited by Mac and quit before being brought back by Chiz), Jesse Smith (Mac - as a walkon) and Rhoads (Sims).

 

[tazclone]

I don't like the idea of coming into a new school and redoing both sides of the ball, scheme wise.

So our schemes this year were the same as last year?

Rhoads and Co. changed up schemes on both sides of the ball. It is no different except Wally did a better job adapting his scheme to the talent available and I would argue that McFarland did a better job adapting the offense to the talent available. Herman had the benefit of inheriting players recruited to run the spread. McFarland did not.

 

[Bobber]

Our special teams last year were better than this year.

How so? Our kick off coverge has been awesome this year.

Maybe the kicking game.

 

[CloneIce]

I think this staff maybe wins two more games than chiz did if they played the same schedule(Kent St with Edelman and Jarvis is debatable) Can't prove it and it is debatable but that is the same schedule we will have two years from now. Winnable games on the road and the out of reach games at home.

Yeah, its hard to say on alot of the games.... but I think this staff definitely wins the Toledo and UNI games. Who knows about the rest?

I think Wally would have put together a real salty defense with players like Rubin, Ace Bowen, and Banks.

I think Mcfarland did a pretty solid job coordinating the offense and coaching the O-line in both of his seasons, so I don't think we really gain anything on offense over those two seasons.

 

[Stewo]

So our schemes this year were the same as last year?

Rhoads and Co. changed up schemes on both sides of the ball. It is no different except Wally did a better job adapting his scheme to the talent available and I would argue that McFarland did a better job adapting the offense to the talent available. Herman had the benefit of inheriting players recruited to run the spread. McFarland did not.

I should have explained it better. I meant that in the sense that a new scheme was being instilled without having the horses and knowing it going in. If there is to be a change of scheme, it needs to be to the players abilities. I say this from an ISU fan's prospective. Now, if we are talking about Florida, Texas, etc., then it's different because they have the athletes to play the game, whatever the scheme.