TWO new football commits!
- Thread starter ChrisMWilliams
- Start date
Yeah, I'm talking about his style of play. You are correct that Sed has done NOTHING for us thus far. But I think he's going to be HUGE for us in the next 2 years.
Ecby is not a Jarvis West or Josh Lenz type smallish jitterbug like WR. He will be more like a Todd Blythe, Marquis Hamilton, Sed Johnson, and Donnie Jennert type WR. I like having a bunch of jitterbug WRs, but you also have to have a guy or two that you can throw the jump balls to. I like him.
And if Ecby was offered all of the sudden by Alabama or Texas, yes, he would immediately be at a bare minimum 3 star or 4 star. I don't believe the star ratings at all.
Go get the guys that fit your system, and are out to prove something. A lot of the best players that ISU and Iowa have ever had didn't have many stars after their names. ARob might be our best player on our team right now... go tell me how many stars he had? I think it was 2 by most services, maybe 3 by some?
No stars means Rivals has not evaluated the kid yet. It means they have not seen enough of the kid (film, camp, and the have not talked to coaches) to put a star labekl on him.
A-Rob was a 3 star recruit which is what he is. 4 star means All-America type guy with a chance to play as a true freshman. 5 star means franchise player. A player that is going to come in and contribute right away. The majority of high major schools consists mainly of 3 star recruits.
You people need to get that automatically becomes a 3 or 4 star crap out of your heads. That does not happen. Also, if you don't believe in the star ratings, that is fine, but their is a reason the best teams get the best players. If you wonder why the same teams are the best every year, you have to look no further than the 4 - 5 star players they get. If you think ISU gets better talent than the say, you are wrong when they are not going to a bowl, or going to a low tier bowl every year. Not every 4 - 5 star is going to live up to their potential and not every 2 star is going to only be a 2 star. The rating system on Rivals is very accurate.
Here is Rivals ranking by the numbers. 6.1 is a 5 star. Followed by 4, than 3, than 2, than no star,.
The ranking system ranks prospects on a numerical scale from 6.1-4.9.
6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect
6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player
4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about
The recruits with multiple offers are the standouts it takes to win championships.
I'm amazed at how stupid some of you are being.
You really believe that all of these kids are blue chip talents that no other colleges have heard of?
Get real...
No... but not all kids have heart, desire, and a motor. Some just have talent and bad attitudes. As I said... some of the very best ISU and Iowa players EVER, were not highly rated and did not have many offers.
We are not going to sign a class full of 4 and 5 star kids. We will likely be half 3 stars and half 2 stars, with maybe one 4 star? All of these kids we've gotten commitments from are at least 2 star kids. And many of them would become 3 star kids as the fall went on and more offers came in. But we got on them before other schools did. Now, they will not get those other offers they likely would have gotten since they've already verballed to ISU. So they will remain 2 stars. That tells you NOTHING about how talented they are.
So Ecby will probably always remain a 2 star. But had he not committed to us, and he started to blow up, he could have very well become a 3 or even 4 star kid depending on how many offers rolled in. So the star rating at this point in time means nothing in my view.
25 posts in an your already calling us all stupid. Good job out of you.
But your right a team of all three star recruits and lower will never get a championship or BCS game. Signed Kansas, Cincy, Louisville, Boise St, TCU, Utah, do I need to go on.
A team like ISU cannot go and just "go and get blue chip recruits" like you say until they start winning with the three star and unders that fit their system. Most of us can understand that but I guess we are just stupid for being realistic.
Last edited:
QFT rational thoughts have no place in this thread. We should already have 10 5 star recruits all locked up by now.
That makes no sense. I was taking a look at your point that the only "high" recruits were ones with multiple offers. You countered with the above. I said there aren't many of them yet we need to go after the ones that aren't there.
We're stupid? A blue chip recruit, which is old lingo anyway would be a 5 star guy. Good luck getting them here right now. It is ridiculous to think we have a shot at more than one of them per year. there have been teams over the years that have done very well with a recruiting class in the 40s-60s. Iowa doesn't get a slew of highly touted guys. Kansas didn't. TCU doesn't. Cinci didn't.
No one said we thought these were blue chip guys. Don't put words in our mouths. Why will you not recognize the point that these so called evaluations are not done yet. A lot will happen in the next few months. Do you understand what I am saying? I will bet the majority of these guys have stars associated with them when it is said and done.
recruiting is pretty over rated IMO. Let me explain.
So, each year you're going to have your legitimate 5-star talent kids. Maybe 30-40 across the US. Of those 40, 25 are probably going to be rated 5-star, 10 4-star and 5 3-star. Rivals does a pretty good job ranking the kids. Just because a 5-star kid doesn't pan out, doesn't mean he wasn't a 5-star talent, with injuries and coaches etc.
I say its over rated- not because it isn't important, but because recruiting should not be placed ahead of the strength and conditioning aspect of your program. ie: the developmental process. Teams who are continually "out recruited" year in and year out still hang with the big boys. Iowa is a good example. Notre Dame is a great example the other way.
Let me break it down. Do you remember how tom osborne ran his program at Neb? They won 9 games like 40 years in a row. They were known across the country as having some of the biggest strongest men in college football. Most of whom were all upper classmen. They recruited the best they could find, and then brought them in and put them to work. For 2-3 years they would live in the weight room and then when they were ready, they would step in and continue that tradition. Year after year after year they would reload with guys from "out of no where"
Now, the game is changing. Teams are going towards more speed. Which is fine. Get a S&C coach that knows how to develop speed. I know most people will say that speed is tough to develop. Well, in short, they are incredibly ignorant and mistaken. However, this does not mean that coaches around college football are aware of how to properly develop speed. I happen to know that the Pitt Panther football team hired a new S&C coach, and their on-field success was ever apparent last season, and many are picking them to take even the next step into the BCS this year.
In conclusion, Its your S&C coach that really puts the athletes onto the field. In all honesty, a good S&C coach should have no problem turning every interior/big man into a 300-400-500 guy and the skill guys running 4.3-4.5x by the time they graduate. If they cannot reach those standards, it wasn't because they weren't able to recruit good enough players, it was because they recruited guys who didn't want to work hard. ... It comes full circle. Let me make myself clear: There are PLENTY of HS kids- available for Iowa State to recruit- that have the genetic potential to run in the 4.5 (LEGITIMATE) range after 4 years of serious strength speed and conditioning training. If they don't run that fast (for a skill player) the coach is doing it wrong. Either they recruited the wrong kid, (doesn't work hard) or they don't know what they are doing.
Im telling you the honest to god truth. !!
So, each year you're going to have your legitimate 5-star talent kids. Maybe 30-40 across the US. Of those 40, 25 are probably going to be rated 5-star, 10 4-star and 5 3-star. Rivals does a pretty good job ranking the kids. Just because a 5-star kid doesn't pan out, doesn't mean he wasn't a 5-star talent, with injuries and coaches etc.
I say its over rated- not because it isn't important, but because recruiting should not be placed ahead of the strength and conditioning aspect of your program. ie: the developmental process. Teams who are continually "out recruited" year in and year out still hang with the big boys. Iowa is a good example. Notre Dame is a great example the other way.
Let me break it down. Do you remember how tom osborne ran his program at Neb? They won 9 games like 40 years in a row. They were known across the country as having some of the biggest strongest men in college football. Most of whom were all upper classmen. They recruited the best they could find, and then brought them in and put them to work. For 2-3 years they would live in the weight room and then when they were ready, they would step in and continue that tradition. Year after year after year they would reload with guys from "out of no where"
Now, the game is changing. Teams are going towards more speed. Which is fine. Get a S&C coach that knows how to develop speed. I know most people will say that speed is tough to develop. Well, in short, they are incredibly ignorant and mistaken. However, this does not mean that coaches around college football are aware of how to properly develop speed. I happen to know that the Pitt Panther football team hired a new S&C coach, and their on-field success was ever apparent last season, and many are picking them to take even the next step into the BCS this year.
In conclusion, Its your S&C coach that really puts the athletes onto the field. In all honesty, a good S&C coach should have no problem turning every interior/big man into a 300-400-500 guy and the skill guys running 4.3-4.5x by the time they graduate. If they cannot reach those standards, it wasn't because they weren't able to recruit good enough players, it was because they recruited guys who didn't want to work hard. ... It comes full circle. Let me make myself clear: There are PLENTY of HS kids- available for Iowa State to recruit- that have the genetic potential to run in the 4.5 (LEGITIMATE) range after 4 years of serious strength speed and conditioning training. If they don't run that fast (for a skill player) the coach is doing it wrong. Either they recruited the wrong kid, (doesn't work hard) or they don't know what they are doing.
Im telling you the honest to god truth. !!
Last edited:
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
QFT rational thoughts have no place in this thread. We should already have 10 5 star recruits all locked up by now.
YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE TOO LOW!!!! THESE EXPECTATIONS KEEP US MIRED IN MEDIOCRITY!!!!!!!!
I am hoping that the pirate is understood.
Most of what you say is true. The thing is that it is easier to build strength than it is speed in most cases. If you ask a S&C coach, if they have to choose whether to start with a fast kid and build strength or a strong kid and build speed, in general, they would choose to build strength. I am slow. It would be much more difficult for me to run a 4.7 than it would for me to bench 300. I know those both aren't important indicators of strength or speed but I just used them to make a point.
Correct if I am wrong, but wasn't Arnaud a four or a five star recruit but then he committed to ISU and he became a three star? Also I thought the star system is based on pro potential. Meaning the more stars you have the more likely you are to go pro.
Arnaud was a three.
Forget stars, how about offers? I would feel differently if some of these kids at least had other BCS schools after them.
I think its stupid to assume that other big time programs would want them later and they would magically become 4 stars.
I don't expect ISU to get 5 stars, but at least kids that other BCS level schools are going for.
Thats not unrealistic at all.
Forget stars, how about offers? I would feel differently if some of these kids at least had other BCS schools after them.
I think its stupid to assume that other big time programs would want them later and they would magically become 4 stars.
I don't expect ISU to get 5 stars, but at least kids that other BCS level schools are going for.
Thats not unrealistic at all.
I'm sure I'm just being unrealistic, and all these kids are really big time and other huge programs will want them really badly later this year.
Not wishful thinking at all...
BTW, is Standard any closer to deciding? Would love to get a quality RB like him.
Not wishful thinking at all...
BTW, is Standard any closer to deciding? Would love to get a quality RB like him.
We are targeting what I would call backup plans. Like Sam Richardson said, it is nice to be someones first choice. I expect these kids will end up being recruited by more schools as the top tier programs lose out on various recruits. Usually we offer these guys later in the senior year, after they already have other suitors. Getting them early should help us keep them.
