For those freaking out about DL recruiting

[mt85]

SO you wanted us to just take some DTs even if they weren't Big 12 caliber?

Either that or he is saying that our staff sucks because they didn't get the ones they did recruit.

Paul Rhoads earlier this year said they were looking to take one DT in this class. They clearly attempted to do that, but Paul Rhoads has also said that it isn't the recruits that you miss on that hurt you. It is the ones that you sign that can't compete that hurt your program.

I'm sure Paul Rhoads would have loved to sign Louvan Green, but he wasn't going to compromise the future of his program by bringing in a player that they weren't confident could compete at the Big XII level.. He is way smarter then that. Too bad some of our fans aren't.

 

[clonedude]

This is what they said they were recruited as, so unless Rhoads is being disingenuous and penciling them in elsewhere, his adequate number argument does not hold water. You cannot have it both ways.

This is true.

Rhoads said that everyone will play the positions listed to start out.

We tried to get more DL, but failed. Plain and simple. Do you really think CPR is going to come out and say that yesterday?

Even CW should be smarter than this? Put the kool-aid down.

 

[JUKEBOX]

This is true.

Rhoads said that everyone will play the positions listed to start out.

We tried to get more DL, but failed. Plain and simple. Do you really think CPR is going to come out and say that yesterday?

Even CW should be smarter than this? Put the kool-aid down.

Just because they start a position doesn't mean they are going to stay at that position.:wacko:


Lattimer switched to DE because he didn't think he'd get playing time at LB.
He got recruited at LB. He doesn't play LB. :shocked:

 

[Rhoadhoused]

Mizzou was the worst running team in the Big 12 last year. That accounts for our line holding up. What did Daniel Thomas do to us again? His 181 yards and two TDs were basically had running over our interior two.

Was the offense bad? Yes. But did we actually recruit some more offensive playmakers? We did.

Were our DTs bad? Yes. Did we land any DT? ....................

As someone I know once said, you can't have it both ways. Ever think that the coaching staff evaluated if they needed offensive playmakers or defensive lineman more, and then decided on offense? Just because we need Dline doesn't mean we should ignore other positions that we also need, and might even need more. Especially if there aren't any Dlinemen we think will be good enough to contribute.

 

[clonedude]

Just because they start a position doesn't mean they are going to stay at that position.:wacko:


Lattimer switched to DE because he didn't think he'd get playing time at LB.
He got recruited at LB. He doesn't play LB. :shocked:

So Rhoads already knows that some guys will fail at the positions they wish to play?

For example... does he know that Lemke will end up at DE, before he even tries out at TE?

This is pretty simple folks... we have more scholarship QB's than DT's right now. I don't think that's the numbers they are looking for... at least I sure hope not.

And I don't know too many QB's or WR's that end up at DT.

 

[bosco]

So Rhoads already knows that some guys will fail at the positions they wish to play?

For example... does he know that Lemke will end up at DE, before he even tries out at TE?

This is pretty simple folks... we have more scholarship QB's than DT's right now. I don't think that's the numbers they are looking for... at least I sure hope not.

And I don't know too many QB's or WR's that end up at DT.

Replace Nealy with a 2* DT
Replace QB Richardson with a juco DT
Replace Quenton Bundrage with a no star DT.

Does this make the class look better?

 

[clonedude]

Replace Nealy with a 2* DT
Replace QB Richardson with a juco DT
Replace Quenton Bundrage with a no star DT.

Does this make the class look better?

What?

First of all, were we limited to only taking 22 kids this year?

Even if we were, yes, I could probably find 3 guys on this year's commit list that I would have rather seen be DT's. I'm not going to name anyone, I don't think that's right, but it wouldn't be anyone that you listed above. Those might be our 3 best recruits we landed?

 

[Rhoadhoused]

So Rhoads already knows that some guys will fail at the positions they wish to play?

For example... does he know that Lemke will end up at DE, before he even tries out at TE?

This is pretty simple folks... we have more scholarship QB's than DT's right now. I don't think that's the numbers they are looking for... at least I sure hope not.

And I don't know too many QB's or WR's that end up at DT.

I honestly think that Rhoads believe those kids will eventually switch positions. He wants to let them have a shot at their favorite position, and if it doesn't work out they will be more accepting of the transition to the position Rhoads thinks they will be better at. I also think that these extra numbers at QB will sort themselves out as the depth chart moves around to out underclassmen above upperclassmen.

Also do you think a kid that is 6'2'' 210 out of high school isn't big enough to play Dline? That is JQ Daniels and he is a very, very good athlete to boot. That is what we need on our dline. Size/athleticism

 

[clonedude]

SO you wanted us to just take some DTs even if they weren't Big 12 caliber?

Nearly everyone we get is not Big 12 caliber when we get them. You hope to develop them into Big 12 caliber players though. That's what we have to do at ISU.

But if you don't even have the warm bodies on the roster to develop, it's kinda hard.

A lot of people didn't think Brandon Jensen was worth a scholarship, but at least he's got the size and frame to possibly develop into a great DT for us. I'm just not sure you can take a 220 lb linebacker and make him a 285 lb DT? I know it's been done, but it's just not very likely. You can usually take a 250 lb DE or TE and make them a good DT though. Laing and McDonough are both examples of this. As was Alburtis.

 

[Stormin]

What?

First of all, were we limited to only taking 22 kids this year?

Even if we were, yes, I could probably find 3 guys on this year's commit list that I would have rather seen be DT's. I'm not going to name anyone, I don't think that's right, but it wouldn't be anyone that you listed above. Those might be our 3 best recruits we landed?

I think you are over reacting.

First of all, we are limited to 85 total scholarships. So if the prospects we have targeted for DT end up somewhere else so be it. For the coming year or so, DT is not a reason for concern. Getting a sub-standard DT will NOT help us. In fact it will hurt us because it burns up a scholarship for the next 4 to 5 years.

Next year, I am sure that Rhoads and company will target more DT candidates if they can't grow some from within. I remember that McDonough was a DE candidate when he signed and now he is a DT. So it happens. Kron could develop into a DT. We don't really know.

I look for us to target a few Juco DT candidates next year in the hopes of getting one or two. And hopefully get a HS DT candidate or two as well. DT recruits are probably the toughest thing to come by. There just aren't that many great ones out there.

I actually think we could have an OL or two that have played DT in HS make the switch if they don't think they have a shot at OL. That happens as well. Tuba was an OL in Juco and we turned him into a DT. So don't panic.

 

[dualthreat]

we got beat 52-0, 68-27, 34-14 and 35-7 DT isn't the only position we need help at by the way

:dull:

 

[ajk4st8]

we got beat 52-0, 68-27, 34-14 and 35-7 DT isn't the only position we need help at by the way

:dull:

No kidding. Letting the other team score that many times, giving you the ball back and you STILL cant put up any offense.

 

[mt85]

we got beat 52-0, 68-27, 34-14 and 35-7 DT isn't the only position we need help at by the way

:dull:

Watch yourself. These DT mensas have all the answers.

 

[Cyhart]

The debate can be easily summed up in 2 sentences.
Those who don't think we need help at a variety of positions are naive.
Those who don't think we need another Big-play Curvey asap are ignorant.

 

[clonedude]

The debate can be easily summed up in 2 sentences.
Those who don't think we need help at a variety of positions are naive.
Those who don't think we need another Big-play Curvey asap are ignorant.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

We need help at several positions in order to compete in the Big 12. And to those that think we're set at DT just fine, you are ignorant, and you know it. We tried hard to get a couple in this class, and it didn't work out. So be it. We will do what we can with what we have... as always.

 

[Aclone]

Mizzou was the worst running team in the Big 12 last year. That accounts for our line holding up. What did Daniel Thomas do to us again? His 181 yards and two TDs were basically had running over our interior two.

Minnesota, which was next to last in the Big 10 in rushing, put up 219 yards on the ground against the Hawkeyes. According to your rationale, the Hawkeyes had bad defensive tackles.

That would be Mike Daniel and Karl Klug. Is that analysis valid?

Was the offense bad? Yes. But did we actually recruit some more offensive playmakers? We did.

Were our DTs bad? Yes. Did we land any DT? ....................

Even if our DT's were "bad", and solely to blame, sometimes improvement comes from from within. Jake McDonough and Cleyon Laing were a pair of redshirt sophs, getting their first playing time. They did fairly well. Combine them with Ruemp, and while our defensive tackles might not be All Americans, I'm not going to call them "bad".

Eswpecially where they can hear me. :wink:

 

[brett108]

Minnesota, which was next to last in the Big 10 in rushing, put up 219 yards on the ground against the Hawkeyes. According to your rationale, the Hawkeyes had bad defensive tackles.

That would be Mike Daniel and Karl Klug. Is that analysis valid?


Even if our DT's were "bad", and solely to blame, sometimes improvement comes from from within. Jake McDonough and Cleyon Laing were a pair of redshirt sophs, getting their first playing time. They did fairly well. Combine them with Ruemp, and while our defensive tackles might not be All Americans, I'm not going to call them "bad".

Eswpecially where they can hear me. :wink:

You cherry picked one game at the very end of a disappointing season to support your argument? Convenient. I used an entire body of work by the Mizzou O to make my analysis, so I am still going with my theory. Did our DTs improve? You bet, but Ruemp will use up his eligibility next year, and then we have McD and no one proven. That scares me. And I would much rather have HS DTs that we can groom. I use last year as an example. We had one 4 star recruit playing on defense. He was the #25 JUCO player, and guess what. He ended up losing his position battle to a undersized two star player, because that player had developed and blossomed in the system. Right now we are almost certain to need to take 2 JUCO DTs next year, and that has not been a recipe for success for many teams across the country.

 

[JUKEBOX]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

We need help at several positions in order to compete in the Big 12. And to those that think we're set at DT just fine, you are ignorant, and you know it. We tried hard to get a couple in this class, and it didn't work out. So be it. We will do what we can with what we have... as always.

The debate can be easily summed up in 2 sentences.
Those who don't think we need help at a variety of positions are naive.
Those who don't think we need another Big-play Curvey asap are ignorant.

It's good to know you 2 know more than the coaches do. ISU could very well not be talented enough in the DT position, but I'm sure the coaches know what they are doing. It is their job.

 

[Aclone]

You cherry picked one game at the very end of a disappointing season to support your argument? Convenient. I used an entire body of work by the Mizzou O to make my analysis, so I am still going with my theory.

No, you didn't. You absolutely refused to consider the fact that a high scoring offense, one that just plastered a respectable Oklahoma team, only managed 14 points against this defense.

Further, you are also ignoring Cleyon Laing, who was right after Jake McDonough on the season tackle chart, 17-15. I certainly cannot guess how many juco DT's may bring in a year from now, because I don't have the slightest clue how any one of the current youngsters will develop between now and the Bowl game.

:biggrin:

 

[brett108]

SO you wanted us to just take some DTs even if they weren't Big 12 caliber?

I would argue that ISU has landed very few Big 12 caliber tackles out of HS. Ruemp sure wasn't considered one, and I am having a hard time thinking of one that would have actually been highly sought by other teams in our conference. But that doesn't change the fact that Ruemp is currently our best DT. A lot of posters on here have said we need to groom our DTs, and that is a fact. I just don't see that kid who can make that switch in this calss outside of possibly Oni Omoile. Our DT projects have been strongside DEs, or identified as DTs from the start.

I know the staff is doing this professionally, but I am just voicing some concern. We set our sites high, missed, and couldn't land a backup, because we need to get in on those kids earlier, and not when everyone else comes calling. It just seems like we stopped scouring for talent at this position. I am just looking at our results right now, nothing else, because we came up MT.

Hale(OSU)
Saulsberry(Tenn)
Newberry(FSU)
the backups
English(Houston)
Johnson(Rutgers)
Richardson(Indiana)
Green(UNLV)
Tamoupeau(NQ)