Or, they have so much talent at S they are trying to figure out how to get their best 11 on the field like they talk about every year.
DEPTH CHART IS OUT!
- Thread starter cyclone4L
- Start date
Yes, players will want to be at the top of the depth chart and if a player is out talenting another player but the other player is outworking the more talented player the coaches may put out a depth chart with the harder worker at the top. It can be and often is used as a motivational tool, especially in the preseason.
Poster's name definitely does NOT check out.
Not sure where to put this, but I finally looked up Chase Sowelll’s track numbers.
Huh.
Well, it worked for Lafester Rhodes!
www.athletic.net
Edit: fixed
www.athletic.net
Huh.
Well, it worked for Lafester Rhodes!
Chase Sowell - TX Track and Field Bio
Chase Sowell - TX Track and Field results and photos on Athletic.net
www.athletic.net
Edit: fixed
Chase Sowell - TX Cross Country Bio
Chase Sowell - TX Cross Country results and photos on Athletic.net
www.athletic.net
They were hurt. There’s also OR’s. The Iowa State depth chart has never been completely accurate.
Your argument that the ISU football team is better off without two stud NFL WRs than with them is nonsensical. Just take a step back and give it the old smell test.
Also, what led you to believe the defenses could just ignore the ISU 3rd WR last year but now need to account for them since we don’t have Higgins and Noel? Nonsense.
I agree they will be greatly missed, but did you watch the bowl game where Higgins was absent? Noel did alot of damage, but some of the others stepped up and made plays. IMHO its going to take a game or two to produce fruit. The talent appears to be there to be successful, maybe not as instant as last season, but we have the TE's to lean on until it happens.
I don’t recall saying anything about four 500 yard receivers.
I think instead of 1,250, 1,250 (two studs, it would be better to have 1,000, 1,000, 840, 500.
Because the third (and fourth) guy open things up for the first two.
No, nonsensical is you saying that’s my argument. Matter of fact, you thinking that is just plain buck stupid.
My argument is that it’s far better to have three or even four stud receivers, rather than being limited to two guys.
*Edited for a semblance of politeness.
I mean, seriously. I’d think that my posts about how good Sowell, Townsend, Overby and Eskildsen could be might have been a clue? A tiny little one? Hello?
To be clear, Higgins got of to a slow start in his first season here in ‘23–and still had 983 yards.
That’s not expecting too much from our new guys.
Please stop underestimating our players.
Last edited:
I think the points are:
In a 4 or 5 receiver set I know who I am going to key on when there are two guys on pace for over 1,000 yards and nobody else who is doing much. When you have 4 or 5 guys on pace for 600-800 yards there isn't a clear answer to who you are going to help on. Line it up and look to see which matchup(s) favor you.
Yes, everybody wants a stud receiver(s), but spreading the ball around to multiple very capable receivers also creates difficult decisions for defenses.
Not saying it is better, but just that it isn't cause for doom and gloom.
- Yes, stud receivers are hard to replace.
- You don't have to replace one to one - multiple players can replace the production of one guy.
- It is easier to key on (give help on) two guys than it is to cover multiple guys who are all very capable.
In a 4 or 5 receiver set I know who I am going to key on when there are two guys on pace for over 1,000 yards and nobody else who is doing much. When you have 4 or 5 guys on pace for 600-800 yards there isn't a clear answer to who you are going to help on. Line it up and look to see which matchup(s) favor you.
Yes, everybody wants a stud receiver(s), but spreading the ball around to multiple very capable receivers also creates difficult decisions for defenses.
Not saying it is better, but just that it isn't cause for doom and gloom.
I know nothing about any of them, and don't have high expectations of anyone in particular frankly. But I will say, new guys in the CMC system get some chances early, but playing time increases gradually.
E.g. with Higgins, you saw him flash a bit early that first year and thought "whoa that guy is special" but he wasn't Randy Moss out of the gate. His usage increased and then last year he was kind of a cheat code. Just hoping one of those guys can separate himself and be a stud.
Remember when posters here were disappointed with a young Jaylin Noel? I do. Give these guys time. Nothing improves a player more than reps on the battlefield.
There is zero tape on Sowell and Townsend in the Iowa State offense.
And the scant amount of tape on Eskildsen and Overby is likely very little like how they’ll be used this year.
In either case, opposing coaches can get some idea of what the player can do.
Just for one example, who you don’t want to try to cover with a linebacker.
Sure! There’s no way they’d ever guess that it might be similar to the way we used Higgins and Noel!
Even though these two were brought in and are similar to Higgins and Noel, one short and shifty, the other is taller and a burner, they're not the same players. Players. Formations. Plays.
You can have two stud receivers and still spread it around. It’s actually easier for the other guys to get open in that situation.
All this stressing out over the WR room and you know we’ll end up flooding the field with Tight Ends. 
As we should.
As we should.
