I'll go a step further just to see if you will argue with this too. Give us the top 20 ranked players every year and we will be one of the best teams in the nation every year.
Depth Chart
- Thread starter WDMHAWKEYE
- Start date
I'll go a step further just to see if you will argue with this too. Give us the top 20 ranked players every year and we will be one of the best teams in the nation every year.
WinOneThisCentury
Well-Known Member
So let me see, OSU and Alabama have a recruit list lined with 5* and 4* players. Very, very few aren't at least 4*s. So what you are saying, since stars don't matter, is that Alabama and Ohio State must be terrible at recruiting...and just listening to the "star" services like Rivals. Hmmm. Nick Saban can't evaluate talent? Like always, Dicke or Icke or whatever this douche's name is, makes another moronic argument. dIcke, can you tell me who you know that has provided this insight to you. You know, since you know players, coaches, etc and we should value your opinion above all others.
Ranked by whom? On what criteria?
Anyone with an IQ above 50 is 'too much' for you. I'm not a god, and never claimed to be one, but YOU know NOTHING.......and it's obvious in every one of your posts. "Waaa, your grandiose personality is too much for me, waa..." Waa, I had a few other dolts on here convinced that I knew something about football till you came along, waaa..." Some of you are just pathetic, and we wonder why our country is in the state it is. I need to listen to the wisdom of George Carlin more......
Why do we have to take every nuanced topic and try to pound it down into a black-and-white, I'm right and you're wrong shouting match?
Yes, clearly recruiting stars matter in a general sense. The average recruiting rankings match up very nicely with overall success (see here and here, as two of many examples).
But it is also true that the popular recruiting rankings we see are flawed and biased. Only players that are seen frequently can be ranked accurately, which creates a bias against players from smaller schools and players who do not actively "play" the recruiting game. There also seems to be a bit of circular logic applied to the top programs: the only offer 5* recruits, hence if they offer someone, that someone must a 5* player.
Also, recruiting rankings exist in a vacuum, they do not take into account how well a given player will fit into a given school's scheme or culture, or a given player's potential for growth (physical, technical, mental, etc.). Those things matter a lot.
Lastly, the rankings do best in identifying the obvious: the 5* player that everyone can agree is exceptional. Things get much more muddled in the "undifferentiated middle" of the 3* ranks. No recruiting service can possibly spend enough time covering the 1000's of high school players in enough detail to rank these players with any validity. In these cases, we should definitely defer to the coaching staffs that do a deep-dive on a much smaller subset of players that meet the necessary criteria (primarily expression of mutual interest, secondarily schematic and team-culture compatibility).
So would Iowa take all 4* and 5* players if they could? Of course, as long as they were good fits from a schematic and team culture perspective. However, many of those players do not express strong interest in Iowa for several reasons. So if Iowa is left sifting through the bottom tier of the 4* ranks and it comes down to taking a 4* player that is a questionable fit vs. a 2* or 3* that fits like a glove with great growth potential, they will take the better fit. They have tried the other route enough times and know how it turns out.
Yes, clearly recruiting stars matter in a general sense. The average recruiting rankings match up very nicely with overall success (see here and here, as two of many examples).
But it is also true that the popular recruiting rankings we see are flawed and biased. Only players that are seen frequently can be ranked accurately, which creates a bias against players from smaller schools and players who do not actively "play" the recruiting game. There also seems to be a bit of circular logic applied to the top programs: the only offer 5* recruits, hence if they offer someone, that someone must a 5* player.
Also, recruiting rankings exist in a vacuum, they do not take into account how well a given player will fit into a given school's scheme or culture, or a given player's potential for growth (physical, technical, mental, etc.). Those things matter a lot.
Lastly, the rankings do best in identifying the obvious: the 5* player that everyone can agree is exceptional. Things get much more muddled in the "undifferentiated middle" of the 3* ranks. No recruiting service can possibly spend enough time covering the 1000's of high school players in enough detail to rank these players with any validity. In these cases, we should definitely defer to the coaching staffs that do a deep-dive on a much smaller subset of players that meet the necessary criteria (primarily expression of mutual interest, secondarily schematic and team-culture compatibility).
So would Iowa take all 4* and 5* players if they could? Of course, as long as they were good fits from a schematic and team culture perspective. However, many of those players do not express strong interest in Iowa for several reasons. So if Iowa is left sifting through the bottom tier of the 4* ranks and it comes down to taking a 4* player that is a questionable fit vs. a 2* or 3* that fits like a glove with great growth potential, they will take the better fit. They have tried the other route enough times and know how it turns out.
Changes from the spring depth chart. The spring chart was obviously influenced by a few injuries/surgeries, but interesting to look at side-by-side just the same:
OFFENSE
SE - Jay Scheel, Jerminic Smith
LT - Cole Croston, Brett Waechter
LG - Boone Myers, Ross Reynolds
C - Sean Welsh, Lucas LeGrand/Steve Ferentz
RG - James Daniels, Keegan Render
RT - Ike Boettger, Levi Paulsen
TE - George Kittle, Peter Pekar
WR - Matt VandeBerg, Ronald Nash
WR - Riley McCarron, Devonte Young
QB - C.J. Beathard, Tyler Wiegers/Nathan Stanley
FB - Drake Kulick/Brady Ross, Austin Kelly
RB - LeShun Daniels Jr, Akrum Wadley
K - Keith Duncan, Miguel Recinos/Mick Ellis
DEFENSE
LE - Anthony Nelson/Matt Nelson, Sam Brincks
DT - Jaleel Johnson, Cedrick Lattimore
DT - Nathan Bazata, Faith Ekakitie
RE - Parker Hesse, Brady Reiff
OLB - Ben Niemann, Kevin Ward/Kristian Welch
MLB - Josey Jewell, Jack Hockaday
WLB - Bo Bower, Amani Jones/Aaron Mends
LC - Greg Mabin, Michael Ojemudia
SS - Miles Taylor, Anthony Gair/Amani Hooker
FS - Brandon Snyder, Jake Gervase
RC - Desmond King, Manny Rugamba/Josh Jackson
SPECIAL TEAMS
KR - Desmond King, Riley McCarron
PR - Desmond King, Riley McCarron
P - Ron Coluzzi, Colten Rastetter
LS - Tyler Kluver, Jackson Subbert
H - Ron Coluzzi, Colten Rastetter
OFFENSE
SE - Jay Scheel, Jerminic Smith
LT - Cole Croston, Brett Waechter
LG - Boone Myers, Ross Reynolds
C - Sean Welsh, Lucas LeGrand/Steve Ferentz
RG - James Daniels, Keegan Render
RT - Ike Boettger, Levi Paulsen
TE - George Kittle, Peter Pekar
WR - Matt VandeBerg, Ronald Nash
WR - Riley McCarron, Devonte Young
QB - C.J. Beathard, Tyler Wiegers/Nathan Stanley
FB - Drake Kulick/Brady Ross, Austin Kelly
RB - LeShun Daniels Jr, Akrum Wadley
K - Keith Duncan, Miguel Recinos/Mick Ellis
DEFENSE
LE - Anthony Nelson/Matt Nelson, Sam Brincks
DT - Jaleel Johnson, Cedrick Lattimore
DT - Nathan Bazata, Faith Ekakitie
RE - Parker Hesse, Brady Reiff
OLB - Ben Niemann, Kevin Ward/Kristian Welch
MLB - Josey Jewell, Jack Hockaday
WLB - Bo Bower, Amani Jones/Aaron Mends
LC - Greg Mabin, Michael Ojemudia
SS - Miles Taylor, Anthony Gair/Amani Hooker
FS - Brandon Snyder, Jake Gervase
RC - Desmond King, Manny Rugamba/Josh Jackson
SPECIAL TEAMS
KR - Desmond King, Riley McCarron
PR - Desmond King, Riley McCarron
P - Ron Coluzzi, Colten Rastetter
LS - Tyler Kluver, Jackson Subbert
H - Ron Coluzzi, Colten Rastetter
WinOneThisCentury
Well-Known Member
Dicke, shouldn't you be at a Trump rally or licking his balls or something? Your personality fits the mold of a delusional right wing, nut job. Everything with you is I, me...or what you know to be fact, but it's not really fact. It's fact to you and you only you idiot. You live in a world with Ward and June Cleaver. I'm going to start calling you Lumpy from now on.
Cardinals54
Well-Known Member
Here's what jumps out at me. We've got 12 men on offense. We should be really, REALLY good if the referee's aren't too observant.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Recruiting rankings are kinds of a joke, yet they do tell a story. They tell a story, because anyone on this board could pick out the consecious 4* and 5* kids around the country. They usually all pass the eyeball test, and have all the measurables as far as height, weight, 40 times, arm strength, etc. that any Tom, dick or harry knows they are the best. Oh, yeah and BTW you are going to have all the blue bloods after them. So yeah, color me unimpressed that Rivals, ESPN, Scout, 247 can all put out a top 300 prospects lists and be spot on. If you get those guys, you are getting great prospects, not some brilliant insightful scouting from those services.
Where all the services suck ballz at if you ask me is ranking the 3* and 2* kids (which is 85% or more of what makes up D1 teams). I could give a squirt less if Rivals says a kid is a 5.7, 5.6 or 5.5 ranking, yet to them and their point systems it makes a big difference in your "team ranking". Just think about this too, how much different team rankings would be if they services didn't suck ass and rank kids wrong all the time. Like Des King should have been a 4*, he played, and played well right out of HS, that is a 4* kid every day of the week. Or a Jewell who should have been a 4* as well, he played as a Rs Fr. and was an all conference type player by his So. year, that is a 4* kid every day of the week.
Give me a 3* kid like Damien Daniels DT out of Texas with offers from Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas, Baylor, and on and on over a 4* kid like Sean Foster who had an offer from ISU, Ill, Rutgers, and Minny. The schools know what is what, way more than the recruiting services do.
Where all the services suck ballz at if you ask me is ranking the 3* and 2* kids (which is 85% or more of what makes up D1 teams). I could give a squirt less if Rivals says a kid is a 5.7, 5.6 or 5.5 ranking, yet to them and their point systems it makes a big difference in your "team ranking". Just think about this too, how much different team rankings would be if they services didn't suck ass and rank kids wrong all the time. Like Des King should have been a 4*, he played, and played well right out of HS, that is a 4* kid every day of the week. Or a Jewell who should have been a 4* as well, he played as a Rs Fr. and was an all conference type player by his So. year, that is a 4* kid every day of the week.
Give me a 3* kid like Damien Daniels DT out of Texas with offers from Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas, Baylor, and on and on over a 4* kid like Sean Foster who had an offer from ISU, Ill, Rutgers, and Minny. The schools know what is what, way more than the recruiting services do.
This is exactly right. That said, my post saying we would have a better team if we had all random 4 and 5 stars instead of the players we can get, we would be better. We would miss out on the Kings and Beathards, but overall the odds would play out.
AreWeThereYet
Well-Known Member
Give Kirk 20 hand picked 4 and 5 star players every year and he will have better teams.... Fixed that for you. I'll qualify that though, Kirk still gets the 2 & 3 star guys he wants.
judzeehawk
Well-Known Member
Sailing!
Kennyfromminne
Well-Known Member
Right here is a perfect example of what i was referring to.
If you can hand pick them it's even more so true. A random pick would be true too tho.
I agree, if we could get an assortment of "random" 4* and 5*.
If, however, the selection was non-random, and we were picking from the 4* that the blue-bloods had already picked over, then things become less certain.
Our staff has never intentionally avoided highly-rate players, of course. But although many fans/posters (not you, necessarily) think Iowa should swing for the fences more and go after all 4* and 5* recruits, the calculus that determines who to go after is complex. When offering any player, you must consider your likelihood of success vs. how much effort will go into the recruitment, how that potential effort could pay off if directed elsewhere (i.e. the opportunity cost of pursuing any athlete), the growth potential of the athlete, the schematic fit of the athlete, the cultural-fit of the athlete, the positional needs of the program, the composition of the past and future recruiting classes, and the value of certainty (i.e. a bird in the hand being better than 2 in the bush).
Like in many aspects of the program, the Iowa coaches have taken a conservative approach. They have emphasized growth potential, fit, and certainty. It has worked out well in some cases, while in some years the approach has left the program a bit undermanned. However, it seems like they have really honed the approach and have things humming pretty good right now. I, like many, am pretty excited about the future.
NCHawker
Well-Known Member
There you go being reasonable again. Damn, not sure you're going to fit in well around here.
Leftover 4 stars vs hand picked players by the staff is probably fairly close to equal. If I could chose between either one of those I honestly don't know which one I would prefer. If you asked me 2 years ago I would say give me the leftover 4 stars. Now I would probably take the hand picked players by the staff. The whole point is that for the most part, stars matter.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I think the key is getting our early offers. Our staff doesn't need Rivals to tell them who are 4* kids and who aren't. If Iowa is offering Banwart and Williams (2* guys) early and not Foster (4* kid) then I know who the actual 4* kids are (Banwart and Williams). Now this doesn't mean that the Iowa staff is always right, but Iowa isn't going to offer fall back type kids as early as they did Banwart and Williams.
If you look at the kids who Iowa offered early, it isn't a coincidence that they are already breaking in the two deeps:
Stanly
Lattimore
Golston
Taylor
Neimann
Jones
Hockenson
Toren Young
Toks
All of them committed in June or earlier, they were all top targets. When Iowa gets their top targets, no matter what Rivals has them ranked, we are in a good position.
I agree with that. But my argument was against someone saying stars don't matter. People think just because rating services are flawed, they are worthless. It's pretty short sighted.
