Is ISU looking at any guys in the Portal?

  • After Iowa State won the Big 12, a Cyclone made a wonderful offer to We Will that now increases our match. Now all gifts up to $400,000 between now and the Final 4 will be matched. Please consider giving at We Will Collective.
    This notice can be dismissed using the upper right corner X button.

CoachHines3

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Oct 29, 2019
7,243
13,965
113
big kat bryant from auburn would of been a dream transfer to land but he's going to ten i see.
 

Frak

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 27, 2009
10,725
5,968
113
IMO the roster is pretty much set. I don't think with how senior heavy the roster is, you really want to go get another grad transfer. It would take someone who is a definite starter and major upgrade. Now, if they can find an underclassmen (even if he has to sit this fall), I'd be all for that. They are going to need all the help they can get in 2022. Actually, next December/January, the transfer portal should be pretty fun to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cyputz and Stormin

ISUCubswin

Well-Known Member
Mar 3, 2011
23,235
6,271
113
My Playhouse
I was most curious about WRs since I feel like that is a positional weakness for us other than Hutchinson.

We offered around half the portal 4 star WR when they were in high school, but they’ve either caused problems at their current school or have gotten little to no playing time.
 

ZRF

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2015
4,392
2,114
113
What I’ve been saying: an experienced edge to replace JaQuan’s production. McDonald really benefitted from his presence.

The benefit is reduced with the defense we play. There were a lot of situations, even in passing downs, where we sent 3 guys. That means teams could double both Bailey AND McDonald fairly easily. It's why I'm not a fan of the frequency with which we only rush 3 guys. The game is won and lost at the line of scrimmage and even IF you have stud lineman it's hard to consistently beat double teams. We need to create more (favorable) one on one matchups.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 83cy

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
45,603
34,892
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
The benefit is reduced with the defense we play. There were a lot of situations, even in passing downs, where we sent 3 guys. That means teams could double both Bailey AND McDonald fairly easily. It's why I'm not a fan of the frequency with which we only rush 3 guys. The game is won and lost at the line of scrimmage and even IF you have stud lineman it's hard to consistently beat double teams. We need to create more (favorable) one on one matchups.
The flip side to that is when you bring 3 so often - even on "obvious passing downs" - they get pretty comfortable double teaming. That can make the blitz that much more effective when it does come. I guess I'm kind of a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of guy. I'm sure Heacock will tweak the defense both to fit personnel and to show offenses a new wrinkle like he does every year, but I don't think there will be substantial changes.
 

nrg4isu

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2009
1,802
2,864
113
Springfield, Illinois
The benefit is reduced with the defense we play. There were a lot of situations, even in passing downs, where we sent 3 guys. That means teams could double both Bailey AND McDonald fairly easily. It's why I'm not a fan of the frequency with which we only rush 3 guys. The game is won and lost at the line of scrimmage and even IF you have stud lineman it's hard to consistently beat double teams. We need to create more (favorable) one on one matchups.

I'm going to have to disagree here, mainly on the fact that our defense has been consistently top 3 in the conference with this scheme in place. To me, your thinking is traditional and it does make sense - except that offenses have planned for exactly what you're talking about for a long time now to negate the threat. Mainly having QB's get the ball out of their hands quickly.

The game IS won/lost at the line of scrimmage still - but the second part of your sentence is the problem. Why do we need studs to beat double teams? I'd argue that we don't, at least not the vast majority of the time. What we do want is to confuse the QB and make him move off his spot, and challenge the short passing game. Obviously the opponent matters. What we're doing works really well for the games we play. Perhaps it doesn't lend itself towards the NFL (yet?), but I don't buy the argument that we need to change to a 4 man front because something in our scheme isn't working.
 

heitclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Jun 21, 2009
15,458
12,570
113
44
Way up there
What I’ve been saying: an experienced edge to replace JaQuan’s production. McDonald really benefitted from his presence.

Bailey was obviously great and probably not a talent you can easily replace but his biggest benefit to McDonald is being in the rotation. We don't need a Bailey quality player, we just need another big 12 caliber DL to add to the mix. Depth was our biggest asset up front last year. Will got better as the game when on because he was fresh.
 

CycoCyclone

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Apr 6, 2009
5,501
823
113
Urbandale
The benefit is reduced with the defense we play. There were a lot of situations, even in passing downs, where we sent 3 guys. That means teams could double both Bailey AND McDonald fairly easily. It's why I'm not a fan of the frequency with which we only rush 3 guys. The game is won and lost at the line of scrimmage and even IF you have stud lineman it's hard to consistently beat double teams. We need to create more (favorable) one on one matchups.
I miss Ray Lima in there, that stud DT would be a decent transfer option
 
  • Agree
Reactions: khardbored

CYCLNST8

Well-Known Member
Jul 19, 2008
10,839
12,241
113
Urbandale
www.gimikk.com
I'd like the 3 man front a lot more with a dominant DE. It'd help if McDonald added about fifteen pounds of muscle in the offseason. I like our cloud scheme, but we're asking a lot of our secondary when it takes a while to collapse the pocket. Our MLB is often a shadow/delayed blitzer, and Vance struggles a bit with mobile QBs. Lanning was a natural at it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BigCyFan and 83cy

CyCloned

Well-Known Member
Oct 18, 2006
13,534
6,883
113
Robins, Iowa
IMO the roster is pretty much set. I don't think with how senior heavy the roster is, you really want to go get another grad transfer. It would take someone who is a definite starter and major upgrade. Now, if they can find an underclassmen (even if he has to sit this fall), I'd be all for that. They are going to need all the help they can get in 2022. Actually, next December/January, the transfer portal should be pretty fun to watch.

I agree, thing could be pretty well set, but there are some really good guys out there transfering, like the OL that OU got from TN. ISU has a lot of guys at WR, but it doesn't have a guys that can get behind a defense, or if they can, they sure have not shown it so far. ISU only needs guys that are going to be a major upgrade to what they have on the roster. A stud DT, DE, OL, WR or safety that is looking at a chance to play on a team that is going to be very good.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: BigCyFan

cymonw1980

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Nov 23, 2015
848
1,381
93
Raleigh, NC
I'd like the 3 man front a lot more with a dominant DE. It'd help if McDonald added about fifteen pounds of muscle in the offseason. I like our cloud scheme, but we're asking a lot of our secondary when it takes a while to collapse the pocket. Our MLB is often a shadow/delayed blitzer, and Vance struggles a bit with mobile QBs. Lanning was a natural at it.

Agree with your point on McDonald. I hope another year with Andrews will see some weight gains (no real increase year to year based on the reported numbers from cyclones.com; 220lbs 2018, 230lbs 2019, 230lbs 2020). McDonald is incredible when we know it's a passing play and he can just go get the QB... But I think his size works against him in our base defense. If he doesn't put on weight, I think our base defense would likely be one of the Peterson's (Zach or Blake) or even Cory Suttle vs. McDonald (but just my guess). We need to be able to clog up the line to stop the run... last year that was Bailey (261), Lee (301), Uwazurike (310). Asking McDonald to step into Bailey's role may not be realistic. Love his upside and probably the best pro prospect on the D-Line, but not sure if he has the size needed for the base 3 man front when we need to defend both the run and the pass... if it's 3rd and 10, we can give up some rush yards in exchange for his pass rush. I assume expanding on his roll this year will likely be dependent on how much weight he can put on.
 

Steve

Well-Known Member
Apr 11, 2006
4,201
758
113
Agree with your point on McDonald. I hope another year with Andrews will see some weight gains (no real increase year to year based on the reported numbers from cyclones.com; 220lbs 2018, 230lbs 2019, 230lbs 2020). McDonald is incredible when we know it's a passing play and he can just go get the QB... But I think his size works against him in our base defense. If he doesn't put on weight, I think our base defense would likely be one of the Peterson's (Zach or Blake) or even Cory Suttle vs. McDonald (but just my guess). We need to be able to clog up the line to stop the run... last year that was Bailey (261), Lee (301), Uwazurike (310). Asking McDonald to step into Bailey's role may not be realistic. Love his upside and probably the best pro prospect on the D-Line, but not sure if he has the size needed for the base 3 man front when we need to defend both the run and the pass... if it's 3rd and 10, we can give up some rush yards in exchange for his pass rush. I assume expanding on his roll this year will likely be dependent on how much weight he can put on.
Your summary of McDonald’s weight confirms that he is one of those guys who struggle to put on weight. He’s been trying to do it for 3 years and only gained 10 lbs. The projections of adding 15 lbs seem like a real stretch even with the new S & C staff. 5 or maybe upper single digits are probably the best case. It’s more likely to see improvement from gains in strength, explosiveness, & technique.