deanvogs
Well-Known Member
So you were wrong then, the class isn't full of fallback......you think it is full of terrible players.
Troubling Trend in Hawkeye Recruiting: Too Many Iowans
- Thread starter iowalaw
- Start date
So you were wrong then, the class isn't full of fallback......you think it is full of terrible players.
seepig
Well-Known Member
KF is overpaid and under-performing and has been for quite awhile now.
HawkeyeTech
Well-Known Member
Wow, what an insightful, original post. You have my vote for post of the year.
Maybe if Iowa football forums were a little more civil in regards to the athletes that play for the Hawkeyes and the coaching staff, recruiting would be a little easier.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
I never said it was full of fall backs. Its too early to tell if they are terrible. I consider it full of low hanging fruit. And you can hire anyone to pick low hanging fruit, if thats their goal from the beginning. BIG titles are not won recruiting low hanging fruit.
In other words, I can put together a list of 2* recruits, put them at the top of the board or my "wish list", recruit and get them to sign LOI.
They won't get you a BIG title. They wont even get you close. That's a lazy recruiting strategy or an inept one. Either way, you have the wrong guy leading your program, if your goal is a BIG title.
Last edited:
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
You are joking, right? I mean you actually believe that the staff offers guys a full year in advance of signing day or more, because they are "low hanging fruit"? Your contention is the staff is lazy, and just offers anyone they think they can sign, so once again I ask, you are joking, right? We are all frustrated with KF, this staff and the program, but this is beyond ludicrous and boarders on Cyclone level delusions of "The Big12 is out to get us".....KF DOESN'T WANT TO WIN.....DERP......
The Iowa staff has sent out 40-60 early offers for 2016 players over the last 2-4 weeks. These are the kids they want the most, and right now lots of them aren't ranked by the recruiting services. It is so subjective anyway after you are past the obvious 4* kids. Basically the kids Iowa will sign for 2015 (Paulsens, Waechter, Newborg, Cook, Boyle, Reiff, Hockaday, Daniels) were those early offer kids. The first 50-70 kids offered, the ones the staff liked the best. The staff then went into phase two and had camps and then release another big set of offers to the "next in line" group. For 2015 that included (Jinning, Ogwo, Falconer, and Vejvoda).
I am really frustrated at how the class closed out, besides Garbutt, we missed on entirely too many of the guys we wanted (St. Armour, Daniel, Requan Williams, Crawford, Bartlett, etc.). We are obviously inking many that we would have just offered walk on spots to if we signed the above. That is on the staff, but to say that these other kids that are signed early are junk is just letting KF hated blind you. One thing Iowa has always done well is evaluate talent, and develop it. What they need to get better at is getting more of their top selections and not missing on the last 25% of their recruiting class.
Billso
Well-Known Member
DERP.
This years class will be about average for KF era.
2002 - #40, avg 2.40
2003 - #30, avg 2.52
2004 - #42, avg 2.45
2005 - #8, avg 3.35
2006 - #40, avg 2.55
2007 - #37, avg 2.77
2008 - #43, avg 2.52
2009 - #76, avg 2.33
2010 - #46, avg 2.76
2011 - #26, avg 3.00
2012 - #47, avg 2.71
2013 - #51, avg 2.71
2014 - #41, avg 2.95
2015 - #42, avg 2.81 [on Jan 11, #45/2.79]
AVERAGE RANK = 40.6, AVERAGE STARS = 2.70.
iowa.scout.com/a.z?s=8&p=9&c=14&yr=2015
Do I wish Iowa recruited better? Yes. It's silly to imagine we can be a consistent Top 25 team or BIG contender by averaging #40 classes and #60 offenses.
Last edited:
lightning1
Well-Known Member
The proof is right there in front of you. Look at the net results of the past 4 years + the low quality of the signed recruiting classes = either a lazy recruiting plan or an inept one.
I noticed that you latched onto "the lazy recruiting " comment and completely disregarded the "or" part of my post. I am inclined to agree with you and say that the lazy angle is the least likely one. Inept is the clear leader at this time.
You're the one that has some kind of anger issue that clouds your reading comprehension. This isn't the first time you have engaged me in debate on cherry picked portions of my comments. You clearly have a desire to defend KF or argue with me. Which is it?
I noticed that you latched onto "the lazy recruiting " comment and completely disregarded the "or" part of my post. I am inclined to agree with you and say that the lazy angle is the least likely one. Inept is the clear leader at this time.
You're the one that has some kind of anger issue that clouds your reading comprehension. This isn't the first time you have engaged me in debate on cherry picked portions of my comments. You clearly have a desire to defend KF or argue with me. Which is it?
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I don't need to cherry pick, you might want to just look at the data more carefully. Iowa is recruiting historically like they always have. Look at Billso's post, and the avg. * rankings of the classes signed. 2010-2015 is higher than nearly every other year besides 2005.
So the staff is getting lazier, but inking higher * kids......righttttttt......
One thing the KF apologists seem to be missing is that just because KF's staff of underperformers offered a kid early, doesn't mean any other coaching staff saw fit to offer the guys and doesn't mean they are high quality recruits. They are still low hanging fruit.
It's nice that the staff offered a legacy like Cook early...but wasn't he also the 3rd qb commit we had...and probably the 10th qb we offered? It's nice that legacy Reiff was offered early, but he's still a 2 star recruit that no one else wanted early OR LATE. Falconer was an early target for our staff at WR, but there is a reason this 2 star never got other D1 offers even as recruiting classes in the Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC filled up this winter.
Early offer or late offer, this is the staff whose #1 target in the entire country at the QB for the class of 2015 ended up having such a horrendous senior year that he did not start for his high school team and isn't currently being courted by any high level team. This is the staff whose #1 target at RB this year ended up averaging like 18 yrds per GAME at prep school and then cheated on the ACT and won't be playing anywhere next year.
While this class will not set a record for futility, and there are some guys worth getting excited about (Higdon looks solid and hopefully a few of the OL will be able to plug in and play for 2 or 3 years), it is not the kind of class that will help us catch up to the rest of the pack in the Big 10. Rather, it is one that will help us sink further toward the bottom. A shakeup on the staff is the only way we will see improvement in recruiting and see an emphasis shift away from low hanging Iowa fruit.
It's nice that the staff offered a legacy like Cook early...but wasn't he also the 3rd qb commit we had...and probably the 10th qb we offered? It's nice that legacy Reiff was offered early, but he's still a 2 star recruit that no one else wanted early OR LATE. Falconer was an early target for our staff at WR, but there is a reason this 2 star never got other D1 offers even as recruiting classes in the Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, and SEC filled up this winter.
Early offer or late offer, this is the staff whose #1 target in the entire country at the QB for the class of 2015 ended up having such a horrendous senior year that he did not start for his high school team and isn't currently being courted by any high level team. This is the staff whose #1 target at RB this year ended up averaging like 18 yrds per GAME at prep school and then cheated on the ACT and won't be playing anywhere next year.
While this class will not set a record for futility, and there are some guys worth getting excited about (Higdon looks solid and hopefully a few of the OL will be able to plug in and play for 2 or 3 years), it is not the kind of class that will help us catch up to the rest of the pack in the Big 10. Rather, it is one that will help us sink further toward the bottom. A shakeup on the staff is the only way we will see improvement in recruiting and see an emphasis shift away from low hanging Iowa fruit.
Last edited:
Uhhh, better check the rankings there, billbo. This recruiting class, with the help of the small town Iowa UNI de-commits, is ranked #51 as of the day before signing day, NOT #42. That would make it historically bad for a Big 10 level institution that plays in front of over 70,000 fans with a coach who makes over $4.25 mill per year.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
Exactly. Inept. KF is a .500 coach. To do the same things every year and expect different results is either inept or insane. You pick.
The 09 season is a direct result of the recruiting classes of 05 and 06. The 02-04 runs were a result of our best recruiters (Bielema, Philbin, etc). The remaining seasons are due to poor recruiting or poor recruiting plans. You pick.
DBAHawkFan
Well-Known Member
This class is average. Simple as that, or call it developmental to quote KF.
We have a bunch of players, minus 3-4 who will take two to three years to develop and maybe turn into something good.
This is how KF sees Iowa, and this shows in how he recruits. From outside perspective, and looking at our recruiting, it seems he has relaxed going after the big stars (unless they're in Iowa) and more for players that can fit the mold of the program.
Other than four years out of 16, we have been an average football team. 75% of the time, and that percentage will grow over the next few years.
HomerChampless
Well-Known Member
Iowa has a difficult time recruiting because kfootball is conservative football. See how many of the high school QBs, WRs, RBs, etc., are snapped up by the defense. IMO, this, more than anything else, (and there are many impediments to successful recruiting with kfootball) is the greatest impediment to recruiting at Iowa.
Side note: GD won't be pleased with the 'dearth' of athletic ability from this class. Seems as if, unlike previous recruiting classes, KF isn't concerned with GD's wishes for athleticism and speed.
Side note: GD won't be pleased with the 'dearth' of athletic ability from this class. Seems as if, unlike previous recruiting classes, KF isn't concerned with GD's wishes for athleticism and speed.
Last edited:
lightning1
Well-Known Member
I guess I fail to understand the point some of you are making. If you're saying that this class is no more or less mediocre than most of KF's recruiting classes...I wont argue that. If you are using that rationale to try and quell the sense of dissatisfaction and anger that Iowa fans now feel, over the continued mediocre results on the field....I can't join you down that road. It's the loser's road and one I never choose.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I'm no KF apologist, I want him gone. Just because I want KF gone, doesn't mean I'm going to become an idiot like you. This class is pretty typical with a * avg of 2.81, just above Iowa's normal class that avg. around 2.70 or so.
Billso
Well-Known Member
Click the link. #42 on Scout. #51 on Rivals. #52 on 24/7 Sports. Here's the Rivals history, which tells the same story:
2002 - #51, avg 2.59 stars
2003 - #43, avg 2.81 stars
2004 - #67, avg 2.48 stars
2005 - #11, avg 3.22 stars
2006 - #39, avg 2.71 stars
2007 - #28, avg 2.95 stars
2008 - #53, avg 2.54 stars
2009 - #63, avg 2.47 stars
2010 - #42, avg 3.00 stars
2011 - #30, avg 3.00 stars
2012 - #43, avg 2.96 stars
2013 - #53, avg 2.81 stars
2014 - #59, avg 2.79 stars
2015 - #51, avg 2.76 stars
AVERAGE RANK = #45, AVERAGE STARS = 2.79
"Historically bad"? "One of the lowest rated (by star standards) in the history of the Ferentz era"? Again, DERP.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I am just saying this is pretty typical class for Iowa, basically the same sort of recruits led to 4 top 10 finishes in a 8 year span. I think our results have tanked because the game has changed, and the staff refuses to adapt to this. That is why I want a new head coach, he hasn't and won't put a winning scheme on the field, he wants to keep shoving a round peg (late '90's early '00's football) into a square hole (the game today).
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
I'm not convinced that's true. I'd like to see the recruiting rankings prior to 2002. Were they better? The list posted above only shows 2002 forward, but those teams were certainly made up of players from previous recruiting classes. Yeah, I realize Iowa also got lucky with Dallas Clark & Bob Sanders.
The on-field results from 2005-07 were generally pretty mediocre, and those teams were made up primarily of the 2002-04 recruits, right?
After 2004, the rankings spiked up to 11th after that great 3 year run and the year or two after that looked a little better than "average" (11, 39, 28 from 2005-07) as well if what I'm seeing above is accurate. I don't think that should be a surprise given the success of the previous few years. Low & behold, Iowa football spiked in 2009 and even 2010 (despite the meltdown - that team had more than 7-5 talent) once those players from the 2005, 06, etc. classes become upper-classmen.
Now we're back to mediocre. With more mediocre coming in, I expect continued mediocre. I'd like to believe that Iowa can repeat 2002-04 with these recruits, but I'll believe it when I see it.
Billso
Well-Known Member
The original Rivals (which spawned Scout, current Rivals, and 24/7 Sports) essentially invented the category and first had truly national coverage and team rankings in 2000. Haven't been able to find 2000-2001, Rivals botched the data when the company transitioned to new ownership in April 2001, but I dimly recall 2000 was mediocre and 2001 rather good for Iowa.
