Better this year?

[Cyclonestate78]

So therefore it always works out that way.

Gotcha.

You have to look at things and use logic. ISU has recruited and brought in some quality young talent but in most cases these kids simply aren't physically ready to be on the field straight out of HS. They also have guys that are physically ready to be on the field right away but they don't know the system yet. There is a balance there. Knowledge of the system, being physically ready to handle playing in the Big XII... these young guys have to be ready to an acceptable level in both areas or they are a liability on the field.

There are certainly guys that have talent and probably more talent then some of the guys listed ahead of them on the depth chart but putting them on the field when they simply aren't ready puts the team as a whole at risk. Ask Gene Chizik about that... He flooded the field with young guys that were questionable as to if they were ready to play or not. Sure they might have been the best players in talent available at their positions but their lack of experience and physical maturity was exposed. CPR and his staff have been giving kids time to develop, learn the system, so when he puts these young talented guys on the field they are in the best possible position to have success. It is a slow process but typically nets the best results.

Don't be fooled... ISU has some very talented kids that will be seeing the field this year and I wouldn't be shocked at all to see ISU in a bowl game even with this meat grinder of a schedule we have.

 

[jaretac]

The coaches are excited. Yeah...Chizik's coaches where excited, too. So was Mac in his winless/1 win season. That doesn't mean anything.

Someone brought up the D. I think it could be better. That will help.

Why do you think that? What evidence do you have?

I understand what you are doing, trying to make people think and prove; however, you can't require require proof for the offense and just accept the defense.

One thing I find encouraging is that we have 3 players who started last year who have been passed or are dangerously close to being passed in the depth chart by players were behind them last year. One of these is on Offense, one on Defense and one on special teams.

The second thing I find encouraging is that almost all the players that will be seeing significant time have already played either at ISU or at least at the college level. We won't have a bunch a true freshman out there. There is no doubt that this is the best depth this team has seen in a very very long time. How all this is going to translate into wins, we won't know until the season is over, but there is reason to be concerned but also optimistic. I see this team much like the 2001 team. Most people thought we would tank, but instead we went bowling again led by a Junior College transfer.

 

[cyhiphopp]

...

Coaches say crap like that all the time. It means little once the season starts.

...

Have you paid attention to our coaching staff over the last few years? They are some of the most straight forward, no BS coaches I have ever seen. Chizik was consistently full of **** and constantly spewed coach speak. I don't think I have seen that once out of CPR. Ever. Pretty much everything he has said about the team has turned out to be true. CPR said last year that the team should be better, but might not have as many wins. They were arguably better on D by the end of the year. the offense didn't show a lot of improvement, but I think it is time for some new blood at QB. In the end, they came up one pass away from being bowl eligible again.
Same with the assistants. They aren't telling us that everyone looks great which would be pure coach speak. They are saying that specific players are stronger and faster, and how that will help them. They are telling us that specific players need improvement or aren't ready. All of the coaches have specifically addressed where the team is in regards to depth. Our O-Line looks like it will have more depth than it has had in my memory. They were able to redshirt an entire class and those guys have passed up JuCo tranfers, who should be bigger and stronger, on the depth chart. CPR has been raving about the RSFr OL since last year.

All in all I completely trust CPR and the staff. They are not sunshine pumpers. To assume that they are full of it is an insult when they have shown no evidence of BSing us.

 

[rholtgraves]

I don't see why people think the DL is going to be better, maybe we have a little more depth at the DE position but it is basically the same guys from last year and they had one of the worst run defenses in college football.
The defense may be improved but it is till not a good defense, that is until they can show differently on the field.

 

[Ficklone02]

I don't see why people think the DL is going to be better, maybe we have a little more depth at the DE position but it is basically the same guys from last year and they had one of the worst run defenses in college football.
The defense may be improved but it is till not a good defense, that is until they can show differently on the field.

I keep hearing about guys who were undersized last year going against o-linemen 60 lbs heavier than them now having put on 30 lbs, and with the same mobility as last year. Shane seems to have done a nice job with this group.

 

[Yes13]

Tau'fo'ou > Knott/Klein
Neal > Maggitt
A Young > Reeves

I hope your kidding.

> means class seperation, not better than in this situation.

 

[Yes13]

I don't see why people think the DL is going to be better, maybe we have a little more depth at the DE position but it is basically the same guys from last year and they had one of the worst run defenses in college football.
The defense may be improved but it is till not a good defense, that is until they can show differently on the field.

If you don't think Maggitt + Lattimer plus 15 pounds > Neal + Parker, or a year older Rump + improved McDonough > Rump and an undersized B. Johnson I don't think anyone can help you.

 

[bosco]

I don't see why people think the DL is going to be better, maybe we have a little more depth at the DE position but it is basically the same guys from last year and they had one of the worst run defenses in college football.

If there is more depth than the "same guys" will be fresher and play better and then hence be better.

The defense may be improved but it is till not a good defense, that is until they can show differently on the field.

The topic is if they will be better. I don't know if anyone is saying they'll be an Alabama defense.

 

[PabloDiablo]

> means class seperation, not better than in this situation.

Then I agree :smile:

 

[brett108]

Where is the evidence they have been replaced by more talented players? And if they are more talented, why weren't they playing last year instead of the guys who played in front of them? I get the scheme thing but there's a law of diminishing returns at work there. I'm not sure I expect a lot from that element though it is a solid point.

Paul Rhoads said this is the most talented team he has had at ISU. I guess you can assume that you know more than he does about his own team.Sounds like you would be arguing from a position of strength.:wink:

 

[RustShack]

I don't see why people think the DL is going to be better, maybe we have a little more depth at the DE position but it is basically the same guys from last year and they had one of the worst run defenses in college football.
The defense may be improved but it is till not a good defense, that is until they can show differently on the field.

The DL was better last year at the end when Lattimer started playing more. Hes a stater now. McDounough is back to from after his illness. He actually might be the biggest surprise on the defense. Maggit is stepping up over last years starter Neal, you don't think its because hes better? Reumpolhamer and actually all of them have another year together, working hard in the weight room, and experience. How do you not see improvement there? Or do you not think athletes get better every year?

 

[rholtgraves]

If there is more depth than the "same guys" will be fresher and play better and then hence be better.



The topic is if they will be better. I don't know if anyone is saying they'll be an Alabama defense.

Im not saying people are saying we are going to be alabama, but they are saying 'we know the defense will be good this year'. There is no evidence to suggest we have a good defense. We have an average to below average defense mostly because of the DL. We were ranked 80 something in rush defense last year, 60 something in passing yards allowed, 80 something in passing efficiency rating. 87 in overall defense. Im assuming probably around 11th in the big 12 in defense.

I said the defense would be improved but they will have to make major improvements to be a considered a good defense, especially against the run. And increasing weight doesn't mean they will be better defensively. Getting a rest doesn't mean they will be better. All it means is we a stronger, more rested average to below average DL. Maybe they will prove me wrong but I have yet to see any evidence to suggest otherwise and neither does anyone else.

 

[rholtgraves]

The DL was better last year at the end when Lattimer started playing more. Hes a stater now. McDounough is back to from after his illness. He actually might be the biggest surprise on the defense. Maggit is stepping up over last years starter Neal, you don't think its because hes better? Reumpolhamer and actually all of them have another year together, working hard in the weight room, and experience. How do you not see improvement there? Or do you not think athletes get better every year?

I didn't say they won't be improved, I said they may be improved but it is still not a good DL.

 

[RustShack]

I didn't say they won't be improved, I said they may be improved but it is still not a good DL.

Keep doubting Lattimer and McDounough.

 

[bosco]

Im not saying people are saying we are going to be alabama, but they are saying 'we know the defense will be good this year'. There is no evidence to suggest we have a good defense. We have an average to below average defense mostly because of the DL. We were ranked 80 something in rush defense last year, 60 something in passing yards allowed, 80 something in passing efficiency rating. 87 in overall defense. Im assuming probably around 11th in the big 12 in defense.

I said the defense would be improved but they will have to make major improvements to be a considered a good defense, especially against the run. And increasing weight doesn't mean they will be better defensively. Getting a rest doesn't mean they will be better. All it means is we a stronger, more rested average to below average DL. Maybe they will prove me wrong but I have yet to see any evidence to suggest otherwise and neither does anyone else.

Sounds like we are arguing 2 different things. Being better vs being "good".

 

[Frak]

If you don't think Maggitt + Lattimer plus 15 pounds > Neal + Parker, or a year older Rump + improved McDonough > Rump and an undersized B. Johnson I don't think anyone can help you.

Yeah, let's look at the DL to start the year last year:

DE Parker (just too short), Maggitt (way undersized)
NG Rump (first year starting, undersized), McDonough (undersized, coming back from illness)
DT Johnson (undersized, injury prone), Laing (undersized, very inexperienced)
DE Neal (way undersized), Lattimer (new to position)

...and what we have now

DE Lattimer (1/2 year of starting, dominant at times), Scott/Nelson (both way undersized, likely just pass rush guys this year)
NG Rump (1 year starting under his belt, almost 300 lbs), Woods/Jensen (inexperienced)
DT McDonough (has playing time under his belt and NOT undersized, Laing (same)
DE Maggitt/Neal (both have played snaps, both are near 250 lbs)

I agree, it's not an all-star DL, but it is head and shoulders better than last year's. If they somehow get Simon on board to be a depth guy inside, I believe that this is ISU's best DL since the Curvey/Leaders/Berryman/Moorehead DL of 2005.

 

[dualthreat]

I made a list of where i think this team will fall compared to the past 10-15 years of Iowa State football.

2002 7-7
2000 9-3
2011 7-6
2005 7-5
2001 7-5
2004 7-5
2010 5-7
2009 7-6
2008 2-10
1999 4-7
2007 3-9
2006 4-8
1998 3-8
2003 2-10


Yes, i think they will be even better than the 2005 team. Remember, COACHING goes into that as well. I think if the 2011 team played the 2005 schedule, they would win 9-10 games.

 

[Omaha Cy]

Iowa State has gotten by on a wing and prayer the last 2 years while allowing a lot of rushing yards, and getting 1 sack a game. This defense is set up to make some strides and it has some legit play-makers on it. ISU has LIVED OFF TURNOVERS and REDZONE DEFENSE for 2 years. Now the pieces are in place to REALLY cause some turnovers and force the opponent into some mistakes. Seriously, this team is ready to play good defense, and surprise a lot of people. Its all about to come together.

My main thought with the defense is that they can shave off 25-30 yards a game on the ground. thats taking points away. That's better field position for the offense.

Lattimer can play a full season and get 7-8 sacks(or more) by himself, and the team can rack up 20-25 or more. This defense can really make a huge stride in terms of how tough it will be for most teams in the conference to score on them. Don't scoff at Lat getting 8 or more sacks. Kurtis Taylor who was not as good posted roughly 6 a season his last 2 years.

It also compares nicely to the 2009 defense that had a lot of seniors coming back...EXCEPT this team has a far better group of returning big name type players.

Every facet of this defense will be improved.

 

[bosco]

Yeah, let's look at the DL to start the year last year:

DE Parker (just too short), Maggitt (way undersized)
NG Rump (first year starting, undersized), McDonough (undersized, coming back from illness)
DT Johnson (undersized, injury prone), Laing (undersized, very inexperienced)
DE Neal (way undersized), Lattimer (new to position)

...and what we have now

DE Lattimer (1/2 year of starting, dominant at times), Scott/Nelson (both way undersized, likely just pass rush guys this year)
NG Rump (1 year starting under his belt, almost 300 lbs), Woods/Jensen (inexperienced)
DT McDonough (has playing time under his belt and NOT undersized, Laing (same)
DE Maggitt/Neal (both have played snaps, both are near 250 lbs)

I agree, it's not an all-star DL, but it is head and shoulders better than last year's. If they somehow get Simon on board to be a depth guy inside, I believe that this is ISU's best DL since the Curvey/Leaders/Berryman/Moorehead DL of 2005.

Any improvement on the DL will have an exponential positive impact on the rest of the D.

If you look at the Passing yards of the teams prior to Texas and then from Texas on you see marked improvement on the Passing D. Here is the average passing yds and sacks prior to the Texas game compared to the Texas game and after:

Prior to Texas : 236| .7
Texas and after: 202| 1.0

Also the D held Mizzou to 172 yds passing. The same offense that put 308 passing yds on OU.

This DL has the same starting 4 returning.

 

[Omaha Cy]

AND I WILL ALSO ADD THAT PAUL RHOADS WAS A DEFENSIVE GANGSTER AT PITT FOR 7 YEARS.

Yeah I needed to scream that out. Schedule: Come get you some of ISU!

Im ready to carry Longhorn fans over my head to the top deck and throw their sorry ***** over. Im pumped up like a mofo right now to see this defense!