Paul Rhoads Recruiting Lesson
- Thread starter Aclone
- Start date
Agreed, that all just simple conjecture on his part. Sans Knott, Klein, and Farniok nothing of those players have done anything.
One last thing. Is anyone really complaining about stars? I think most peoples concern, as it is mine, is that we aren't recruiting against or with peer schools. It just highly unlikely we are going to identify 25 under the radar guys and be able to beat schools that all agree on who is talented and who isn't talented.
If CPR can do that it will be incredible.
If CPR can do that it will be incredible.
You absolutely can. I will gladly debate you if you want to do it in a respectful manner.
Iowa State has never recruited well. Ever. This class, at this time appears to be no exception. BUT, Paul Rhoads had done a great job of building depth. He hasn't missed on kids from a academic standpoint and thus most of our 25 member classes are on campus still. That is what was missing during McCarney and Chizik years. I love the depth and think it's the only way CPR can push us over the edge. We will be able to live past injuries where in years past injuries crippled us b/c we had walk ons in the two deeps.
So I can sing CPR's praises while at the same time being concerned with our CURRENT class when it compares to the other Big 12 members. It's not mutually exclusive.
In that muck up of a thread/conversation yesterday, someone brought up Mizzou. Couldn't sleep last night, so I looked up Mizzou's recruiting classes on Rivals. To me, Mizzou is more relatable to our situation then say, Iowa's and Ferentz. Beings it's our home-state, Iowa gets brought up a lot, but Ferentz's position to build Iowa up was not like Pinkel's at Mizzou. Fry had established Iowa for a decent length of time. Iowa was relevant. I don't think before Pinkel that Mizzou had been 'relevant' for any decent length of time.
So, in Pinkel's 1st four years, he has one pretty good one with a team led by Brad Smith @ QB - goes on to NFL career as WR. Chase Daniel comes in 2005, I believe, as a 3*. He leads the team to new heights. Recruiting classes start to become rated higher, but not top-25. 2006 is good as it has a few 4* - including Jeremy Maclin. However, what rounds it out is soem 2* players like Sean Weatherspoon (a 6'1" 190lb Safety - believe he is a much bigger LB for the Falcons now) and Denario Alexander. What happens, though, is Pinkel gets a 5* in Blaine Gabbert. Mizzou jumps to the 25-level. One 5* moves a class from near 40 to the 25-range. Just a couple or even one higher rated recruit moves the ranking for one class quite a bit. Looking over Mizzou's classes, more 3* & 2* players ended up better than their 4*-plus rated players. Much like ISU's track record the past several years with 4* rated recruits. Sad to admit, but very few ended up contributing.
FYI - just want to make known using Pinkel & Mizzou just because they were brought up yesterday. Pinkel is a tool & I am not advocating we should conduct ourselves as Pinkel/Mizzou has/does. Also, Mizzou has geographic recruiting advantages. Not trying to go there either. Simply looked at history of Mizzou football and their path from when Pinkel took over to now.
Last, think the size of our recruits is key. Not necessarily weight as a recruit, but their height. Acquire players that are athletes and have the frames to make them bigger & more explosive. Couple DBs at 5'10", but LJ came in at 5'10" 177 lbs (think he ended up @ 200-205). With depth, we can keep bringing in classes to put into the S&C program & come out in couple years producing on the field.
So, in Pinkel's 1st four years, he has one pretty good one with a team led by Brad Smith @ QB - goes on to NFL career as WR. Chase Daniel comes in 2005, I believe, as a 3*. He leads the team to new heights. Recruiting classes start to become rated higher, but not top-25. 2006 is good as it has a few 4* - including Jeremy Maclin. However, what rounds it out is soem 2* players like Sean Weatherspoon (a 6'1" 190lb Safety - believe he is a much bigger LB for the Falcons now) and Denario Alexander. What happens, though, is Pinkel gets a 5* in Blaine Gabbert. Mizzou jumps to the 25-level. One 5* moves a class from near 40 to the 25-range. Just a couple or even one higher rated recruit moves the ranking for one class quite a bit. Looking over Mizzou's classes, more 3* & 2* players ended up better than their 4*-plus rated players. Much like ISU's track record the past several years with 4* rated recruits. Sad to admit, but very few ended up contributing.
FYI - just want to make known using Pinkel & Mizzou just because they were brought up yesterday. Pinkel is a tool & I am not advocating we should conduct ourselves as Pinkel/Mizzou has/does. Also, Mizzou has geographic recruiting advantages. Not trying to go there either. Simply looked at history of Mizzou football and their path from when Pinkel took over to now.
Last, think the size of our recruits is key. Not necessarily weight as a recruit, but their height. Acquire players that are athletes and have the frames to make them bigger & more explosive. Couple DBs at 5'10", but LJ came in at 5'10" 177 lbs (think he ended up @ 200-205). With depth, we can keep bringing in classes to put into the S&C program & come out in couple years producing on the field.
Last edited:
Why because that doesn't suit your agenda?
He is a picture perfect illustration, and that is why you need to ignore it. A local kid with exceptional athleticism that was scouted by two highly successful local coaches that both completely failed in their evaluation. He is a perfect example of the fallacy that the opinions of other coaches is the key criteria that validates a recruits worthiness.
This bolded statement is ridiculous. You are saying that there are high-level BCS players that no one knows about. Agreed. There are certainly SOME quality players out there that, for whatever reason, do not get many looks from BCS programs. What bothers me about your post, though, is you are insinuating that Rhoads is somehow working harder than other coaches to uncover these gems, or that he is somehow smarter/better at evaluating talent than other coaches. But again, there is NO EVIDENCE thus far to suggest that this is the case.
Are you telling me that with this year's recruiting class you have gained commitments from 10 BCS quality players that no one except Rhoads knew about? That you trust his judgment because he works harder than other coaches to identify these players and can see the potential in these kids that not a single other coach has seen?
Another thing I noticed is the extensive list of players you listed who are supposed to prove this theory of yours, yet in reality have proven absolutely nothing. Sure, there are some lightly recruited players that have played early. But the majority of Iowa State's roster is filled with players who didn't have many BCS offers. Somebody has got to play, and odds are it is going to be someone without other offers.
You cannot expect to build a competitive roster by relying on a perceived ability to uncover "hidden gems" that other programs overlooked. Because the recruiting stars DO matter. A four star player is 333% more likely to be drafted when compared to a two star recruit, and over 200% more likely when compared to a three star recruit.
If Paul Rhoads thinks he can build a roster that will eventually be able to consistently compete with the big boys in the Big XII by acquiring talent that he feels has been overlooked, he isn't going to be around for long.
And for you to assume every player he recruits is capable of becoming a standout player is just as asinine.
That would be entirely unproductive. Anyone that chooses to criticize, yet attempts to disclaim accountability for that criticism is not worthy of debate.
You can't back your opinions with substance (ie. actual scouting of individual players). All of your conclusions are based on circumstantial criteria. You choose to discount and/or ignore facts that disprove your circumstantial conclusions. Therefore, I realize you have an agenda, and debating you would be pointless.
You're point is valid, we should trust the coaches and all because they have done well in the first three years with a variation of this strategy.
However, we are in a much better place than we were 3 years ago and it's ok for people to expect more high profile recruiting. The goal is obviously to always be getting better on the field, and we are. It is disappointing when we aren't becoming obviously better at recruiting. Not that it isn't working, but the higher profile kids haven't come this year yet. The under the radar players could be great for all anyone knows, but we have been competitive on the field and should expect to be competitive when it comes to recruiting the same players teams in our league recruit.
However, we are in a much better place than we were 3 years ago and it's ok for people to expect more high profile recruiting. The goal is obviously to always be getting better on the field, and we are. It is disappointing when we aren't becoming obviously better at recruiting. Not that it isn't working, but the higher profile kids haven't come this year yet. The under the radar players could be great for all anyone knows, but we have been competitive on the field and should expect to be competitive when it comes to recruiting the same players teams in our league recruit.
Lol, nice write up Aclone. I don't want to add anything other than to point out that this is the reason Rhoads hedged himself when asked if he was going to /wanted to retire at ISU. There are lots of people out there who are never happy and never will be no matter the results that you can show them. Rhoads knows that there is awful lot of stuff that can happen.
I guess what concerns me is that fans really think that 3 years under Rhoads and 2 low tier bowl games and still a losing record over all under him, equates to immediate success on the Recruiting trail. With what ISU has done lately, even though in our minds we are greatly improved, it's tough to realisticly think we can directly compete with anyone on the recruiting trail in our conference yet. Maybe we could duke it out with Kansas, but honestly, every other school has a distinct advantage, weather that be being in Texas, tradition, recent success or a boatload of money.
By ISU standards, we are leaps and bounds above where we were a few years ago. On a national standpoint, we are a team who is 18-19 over the last 3 years, with a history of being a bad football program. That reputation doesn't get turned over over night. It's a tough road, I understand the frustration with not getting guys we 'd like. I jsut don't get why people think we passing on more highly rated guys if we really thought we had a shot at them. Maybe it's as simple as the coaches made a call and the kid said, "I am not interested in ISU." Its' not an easy sell.
How can people complain with the product CPR has put on the field? We've been better every year since his arrival. Athletically we look like we belong on the field. I got more enjoyment out of last season than the previous ten. Thanks Aclone, much appreciated.
