Can anybody explain Iowa's 2018 LB recruiting to me?

[ghostOfHomer777]

Early on it seems like we had Bruner ... but then we didn't. Then we landed Doyle ... but we weren't seemingly going all that hard after LBs.

Ultimately, it seemed like we felt pretty comfortable about our chances of landing VanSumeren and Honas. Of course, Michigan poached VanSumeren ... and a sudden "Frost" came out of Nebraska and spoiled our chances with Honas.

At the end of the day, in addition to Doyle, we land 2 classic "under the radar" LBs from the midwest ... and we get a somewhat more highly touted "speed" LB out of Georgia. On top of all that ... we got something like a billion walk-on LBs.

So what was up? We knew that we were graduating 4 LBs who were at the top of the depth chart. We knew that a talented guy in Hockaday has been consistently dinged for well over a year now. So why didn't we demonstrate greater urgency with our LB recruiting earlier?

Was it simply because we didn't anticipate having so much attrition ... so we simply didn't believe that we had enough 'ships to give?

Was it a shift in LB recruiting philosophy? Do we want to keep the "gems" in our back-yard under the radar ... and then snatch more of them up at walk-ons ... or late additions? Just look at recent history ... 3 of the best LBs in the entire midwest this past season were Jewell (Iowa), Lanning (ISU), and Van Ginkel (Wisconsin) ... all of whom were Iowa natives ... all of whom were WAY under the radar. Even Minnesota snatched a pretty productive LB from Iowa, in Poock, a few years back (he was a regular starter for them before injuries and the coaching change). Ferentz mentioned that he thought that we could recruit the midwest better ... is this even a step towards us recruiting our own back-yard better?

Folks on this board know me ... you know that I'm not unhappy with the guys who have chosen to become Hawks. Quite to the contrary ... I'm ecstatic about their decisions to join by beloved team. However, it doesn't mean that I haven't found Iowa's LB recruiting this past recruiting season more than a little puzzling.

Any thoughts?

 

[HawkSTL]

More pessimisticly, our Lb recruits from the past several years didn't develop as much as the coaches hoped this fall/winter, increasing the need.

Doyle and McDonald seem like they might have a good shot at playing special teams and perhaps sneaking into the depth chart this year.

 

[Harbinger273]

Not what I want to hear but maybe so^^. Anyway, as for the LB recruiting. Iowa offered a few guys schollies and we brought in a bunch of PWO's. Phil is looking for 3 starters.

 

[iahawkeyes17]

Early on it seems like we had Bruner ... but then we didn't. Then we landed Doyle ... but we weren't seemingly going all that hard after LBs.

Ultimately, it seemed like we felt pretty comfortable about our chances of landing VanSumeren and Honas. Of course, Michigan poached VanSumeren ... and a sudden "Frost" came out of Nebraska and spoiled our chances with Honas.

At the end of the day, in addition to Doyle, we land 2 classic "under the radar" LBs from the midwest ... and we get a somewhat more highly touted "speed" LB out of Georgia. On top of all that ... we got something like a billion walk-on LBs.

So what was up? We knew that we were graduating 4 LBs who were at the top of the depth chart. We knew that a talented guy in Hockaday has been consistently dinged for well over a year now. So why didn't we demonstrate greater urgency with our LB recruiting earlier?

Was it simply because we didn't anticipate having so much attrition ... so we simply didn't believe that we had enough 'ships to give?

Was it a shift in LB recruiting philosophy? Do we want to keep the "gems" in our back-yard under the radar ... and then snatch more of them up at walk-ons ... or late additions? Just look at recent history ... 3 of the best LBs in the entire midwest this past season were Jewell (Iowa), Lanning (ISU), and Van Ginkel (Wisconsin) ... all of whom were Iowa natives ... all of whom were WAY under the radar. Even Minnesota snatched a pretty productive LB from Iowa, in Poock, a few years back (he was a regular starter for them before injuries and the coaching change). Ferentz mentioned that he thought that we could recruit the midwest better ... is this even a step towards us recruiting our own back-yard better?

Folks on this board know me ... you know that I'm not unhappy with the guys who have chosen to become Hawks. Quite to the contrary ... I'm ecstatic about their decisions to join by beloved team. However, it doesn't mean that I haven't found Iowa's LB recruiting this past recruiting season more than a little puzzling.

Any thoughts?

Trying to think of others but LB seemed like one position with decommits this year and think with early signing day it helped with not losing anymore. Bruner no loss as he ended up with going to smaller school and left long time ago but Van Summeran we thought we got that under the radar guy and technically did till the big home state school came a calling and just missed out on a juco guy we really wanted for 2nd year in a row. Good news we got a late commit who is high quality get and in the case of Doyle if he had a different last name & dad I'm sure would have had more D1 and power 5 offers but still most services had him top 3 player in the state. All in all I'm pretty happy with a real solid class.

As for LB unlike 14' season when we replaced 3 guys from previous year I think we have a lot better core of guys to play. Obviously lot of unknowns but our depth in 14' wasn't pretty bad when you come to think about it.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

Homer I think your 100% right with everything. If this class takes Doyle, BVS, and Honas early we don't think anything off it. Also, we didn't fire a 1b. I bet your 100% that it's a change in philosophy, with a reported priority switch in the WILL, go watch BVS and tell me that wouldn't have been $. In regards to getting 18 W/O LB's, or whatever it is at the time of post, is awesome in my eyes. That is the staff being able to sell oppurtunity and work. It would in no way surprise me if our special teams gets a big dose of those walk-ons and we see an improvement there. KF might be one of the few that still thinks of it as "3 phases" instead of "offense" even though most would deny it.

 

[Wasnt-drunk-didnt-troll]

Not what I want to hear but maybe so^^. Anyway, as for the LB recruiting. Iowa offered a few guys schollies and we brought in a bunch of PWO's. Phil is looking for 3 starters.

This is the simple truth, something to be said for just throwing a bunch of alpha males into a pit and seeing who rises. You should get three decent ones from that.

 

[Johnsoda123]

Early on it seems like we had Bruner ... but then we didn't. Then we landed Doyle ... but we weren't seemingly going all that hard after LBs.

Ultimately, it seemed like we felt pretty comfortable about our chances of landing VanSumeren and Honas. Of course, Michigan poached VanSumeren ... and a sudden "Frost" came out of Nebraska and spoiled our chances with Honas.

At the end of the day, in addition to Doyle, we land 2 classic "under the radar" LBs from the midwest ... and we get a somewhat more highly touted "speed" LB out of Georgia. On top of all that ... we got something like a billion walk-on LBs.

So what was up? We knew that we were graduating 4 LBs who were at the top of the depth chart. We knew that a talented guy in Hockaday has been consistently dinged for well over a year now. So why didn't we demonstrate greater urgency with our LB recruiting earlier?

Was it simply because we didn't anticipate having so much attrition ... so we simply didn't believe that we had enough 'ships to give?

Was it a shift in LB recruiting philosophy? Do we want to keep the "gems" in our back-yard under the radar ... and then snatch more of them up at walk-ons ... or late additions? Just look at recent history ... 3 of the best LBs in the entire midwest this past season were Jewell (Iowa), Lanning (ISU), and Van Ginkel (Wisconsin) ... all of whom were Iowa natives ... all of whom were WAY under the radar. Even Minnesota snatched a pretty productive LB from Iowa, in Poock, a few years back (he was a regular starter for them before injuries and the coaching change). Ferentz mentioned that he thought that we could recruit the midwest better ... is this even a step towards us recruiting our own back-yard better?

Folks on this board know me ... you know that I'm not unhappy with the guys who have chosen to become Hawks. Quite to the contrary ... I'm ecstatic about their decisions to join by beloved team. However, it doesn't mean that I haven't found Iowa's LB recruiting this past recruiting season more than a little puzzling.

Any thoughts?

To me it is comparable to the DE situation when Ott got hurt. All the sudden the Hawks were in trouble and thin at that position. I love Hess but he was starting as a freshman? The focus turned to DE. Now look. Nelson, AJ, Golston, Hess...Waggoner, McKnight, Simon. The staff is stockpiling LBs?

 

[Cougar63]

To me it is comparable to the DE situation when Ott got hurt. All the sudden the Hawks were in trouble and thin at that position. I love Hess but he was starting as a freshman? The focus turned to DE. Now look. Nelson, AJ, Golston, Hess...Waggoner, McKnight, Simon. The staff is stockpiling LBs?

Hesse.

 

[anon_8rcdnbko1jbe0]

I agree with what was said above as far as competition a hundred percent. I think there's also a ton of Versatility having that many preferred Walk-Ons at linebacker. Possibilities for fullback, tight end, D end. Even in case like Mitch King who grew into a( smallish) d tackle.

 

[TKingpin]

It does seem a little desperate to me. Especially since I thought we had some guys in place already that show real promise on Special teams.

I have to believe something is up with the health of Hockaday. Seems like they would have inserted him in the jNW game without blinking an eye in the past. Possibly thinking he may not get back from his injuries so now there is a void. No inside info, just kind of appears that way to me.

Jones looks like a beast to me. Mends, Little Niemann, Wade, et al must not be performing the way they had hoped.

 

[Rocket98]

It does seem a little desperate to me. Especially since I thought we had some guys in place already that show real promise on Special teams.

I have to believe something is up with the health of Hockaday. Seems like they would have inserted him in the jNW game without blinking an eye in the past. Possibly thinking he may not get back from his injuries so now there is a void. No inside info, just kind of appears that way to me.

Jones looks like a beast to me. Mends, Little Niemann, Wade, et al must not be performing the way they had hoped.

Careful, you will get pounced on with comments like that! Sure does appear that way doesn’t it. We shall see!

 

[HoustonHawkeye]

We ultimately need depth for the future. Hockaday will be a Sr, Welch and Jones are Jrs., so we will need bodies in case there is injuries down the road. LBs are so critical to a defense. They have to stop the run AND defend the pass. We have seen what happens when you have too many young LBers starting.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

We ultimately need depth for the future. Hockaday will be a Sr, Welch and Jones are Jrs., so we will need bodies in case there is injuries down the road. LBs are so critical to a defense. They have to stop the run AND defend the pass. We have seen what happens when you have too many young LBers starting.

Mends will be a SR too. So yeah, that still provides our LB group something like 4 guys who are either JRs or SRs heading into '18.

 

[Millardhawk]

Also by bringing in all the PWOs, it is essentially a low risk-high reward scenario if they see growth. They have them on-campus and in the system to be developing without them taking a scholarship. If they aren't progressing, they don't make the expanded roster and both side can part ways knowing they gave it a try.

 

[InsaneHawk]

Early on it seems like we had Bruner ... but then we didn't. Then we landed Doyle ... but we weren't seemingly going all that hard after LBs.

Ultimately, it seemed like we felt pretty comfortable about our chances of landing VanSumeren and Honas. Of course, Michigan poached VanSumeren ... and a sudden "Frost" came out of Nebraska and spoiled our chances with Honas.

At the end of the day, in addition to Doyle, we land 2 classic "under the radar" LBs from the midwest ... and we get a somewhat more highly touted "speed" LB out of Georgia. On top of all that ... we got something like a billion walk-on LBs.

So what was up? We knew that we were graduating 4 LBs who were at the top of the depth chart. We knew that a talented guy in Hockaday has been consistently dinged for well over a year now. So why didn't we demonstrate greater urgency with our LB recruiting earlier?

Was it simply because we didn't anticipate having so much attrition ... so we simply didn't believe that we had enough 'ships to give?

Was it a shift in LB recruiting philosophy? Do we want to keep the "gems" in our back-yard under the radar ... and then snatch more of them up at walk-ons ... or late additions? Just look at recent history ... 3 of the best LBs in the entire midwest this past season were Jewell (Iowa), Lanning (ISU), and Van Ginkel (Wisconsin) ... all of whom were Iowa natives ... all of whom were WAY under the radar. Even Minnesota snatched a pretty productive LB from Iowa, in Poock, a few years back (he was a regular starter for them before injuries and the coaching change). Ferentz mentioned that he thought that we could recruit the midwest better ... is this even a step towards us recruiting our own back-yard better?

Folks on this board know me ... you know that I'm not unhappy with the guys who have chosen to become Hawks. Quite to the contrary ... I'm ecstatic about their decisions to join by beloved team. However, it doesn't mean that I haven't found Iowa's LB recruiting this past recruiting season more than a little puzzling.

Any thoughts?

This approach feels very similar to the WR position last year. I think Iowa didn't feel entirely confident with the players they had, so they got a good amount of commitments, walk-ons and even a transfer at that position. Doing this allowed the staff to sort through a large number of players to find the ones that were ready to play and could provide depth. I hadn't seen that approach out of Iowa before and it appeared to work with the emergence of Marsette, Cooper, Easley, and Smith. I'm hoping they get a similar result at LB for next year.

 

[HawkAttackDial911]

Since they couldn't get the big fish to bite, they went with quantity. I like the strategy. Chances are, one or two of those guys will work their butt off and turn out to be really good.

 

[David1979]

I don't see what the confusion is...

 

[EpenesaEpenesa]

Depth. Iowa has good players ready to step in already on the roster

 

[Edenprairiehawk]

Maybe we need both linebackers and fullbacks. It seems as though the fullback position at Iowa is very often A former linebacker.

 

[Old_wrestling_fan]

Also by bringing in all the PWOs, it is essentially a low risk-high reward scenario if they see growth. They have them on-campus and in the system to be developing without them taking a scholarship. If they aren't progressing, they don't make the expanded roster and both side can part ways knowing they gave it a try.

Agreed. ^^ Also, IMO, just going by "body types" and the percentages of people who fit a given body shape/size profile...it would seem to me that LB and FB sized athletes would be more common than other positions on the team. That is, there are far fewer 6'6'', 280+ pounders, who would likely be linemen, than there are 6'2", 215 pounders, would likely be LB's and FB's.

So...it could be a winning strategery to bring in many "LB types", including several via the PWO route, and then let them sort themselves out and the one's that rise to the top get the playing time/scholarships.

So, save your schollies for the "freak" athletes on the lines and in the backfields...bring in a bunch of "everyman's" and let them fight it out for the "regular" jobs. I think it seems like a wise approach to me.

 

[hoffmkr]

Remember, Iowa will turn atleast two of those Walk-On Linebackers into Fullbacks.

 

[kceasthawk]

It does seem a little desperate to me. Especially since I thought we had some guys in place already that show real promise on Special teams.

I have to believe something is up with the health of Hockaday. Seems like they would have inserted him in the jNW game without blinking an eye in the past. Possibly thinking he may not get back from his injuries so now there is a void. No inside info, just kind of appears that way to me.

Jones looks like a beast to me. Mends, Little Niemann, Wade, et al must not be performing the way they had hoped.

I don't think thats the case overall. Haven't heard much about Wade, but the staff seems pretty high on Niemann, Mends, Colbert, and Welch, who I think has moved ahead of Hockaday at the Mike. Some other interesting athletes in Weiland and Taylor. As someone else posted, we could get several players out of that group of walk ons, at LB, TE, DE?

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

I don't see what the confusion is...

My personal confusion had more to do with why LB eventually became such a priority in recruiting at the end of the recruiting cycle ... but why it wasn't more of one earlier in the cycle.

Regardless, we obviously want depth. However, that isn't the issue here. We knew that there was going to be a significant need to replenish numbers ... at the very least. Thus, given that the LB body-type is such a common one (or taller safeties with growth potential) ... why not go after more high-level LB talent from the outset? Particularly given that we knew it was a need area.

Even if you want to bolster your depth, don't you also want to bolster it with higher caliber athletes?

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Maybe we need both linebackers and fullbacks. It seems as though the fullback position at Iowa is very often A former linebacker.

Absolutely, we'll certainly see some LBs develop into other positions. That is another benefit of the body-type. Taller LBs sometimes make good TEs. Tough LBs often make great FBs. In the case of guys like Klug and King (Daniels too, maybe) ... LBs often develop into good D-linemen too.

 

[DutchyFunStar]

I don't think it was an early priority because of the number of linebackers on the current roster and other areas were more pressing. There may have been some more post season player evaluation after the signing period that showed LB was now an area of focus.

 

[RogerKint]

I doubt we would have offered both Benson and Klemp if we knew we were in good with McDonald. As far as the PWO’s are concerned, perhaps this was just a year in Iowa high school football where there was a plethora of 6’0” - 6’3”, 200 - 220lb, very good athletes who want none other than to play for the Hawks. Iowa does need fullbacks and strong special team players too.

 

[walleye hunter16]

The core of any football team comes from guys 6 ' to 6 '4" , 200- 240lbs. That size covers a lot of positions on a team.
Iowa is a team where WO's grow and thrive so its not really a surprise that this many guys want a shot at Iowa.

 

[David1979]

My personal confusion had more to do with why LB eventually became such a priority in recruiting at the end of the recruiting cycle ... but why it wasn't more of one earlier in the cycle.

Regardless, we obviously want depth. However, that isn't the issue here. We knew that there was going to be a significant need to replenish numbers ... at the very least. Thus, given that the LB body-type is such a common one (or taller safeties with growth potential) ... why not go after more high-level LB talent from the outset? Particularly given that we knew it was a need area.

Even if you want to bolster your depth, don't you also want to bolster it with higher caliber athletes?

But how do you know it wasn't a priority? Seems to me it was a priority but they missed on some top early targets but Iowa tends to be more methodical in how they find guys and decide when to offer.

 

[PappaHawk]

Homer nice post. Do you maybe see changes coming...more nickel coverages? You just know Frost will not be the same old Nebby offense and I think KF and company could be loading...just a thought.

 

[pacnorthhawkeye]

Early on it seems like we had Bruner ... but then we didn't. Then we landed Doyle ... but we weren't seemingly going all that hard after LBs.

Ultimately, it seemed like we felt pretty comfortable about our chances of landing VanSumeren and Honas. Of course, Michigan poached VanSumeren ... and a sudden "Frost" came out of Nebraska and spoiled our chances with Honas.

At the end of the day, in addition to Doyle, we land 2 classic "under the radar" LBs from the midwest ... and we get a somewhat more highly touted "speed" LB out of Georgia. On top of all that ... we got something like a billion walk-on LBs.

So what was up? We knew that we were graduating 4 LBs who were at the top of the depth chart. We knew that a talented guy in Hockaday has been consistently dinged for well over a year now. So why didn't we demonstrate greater urgency with our LB recruiting earlier?

Was it simply because we didn't anticipate having so much attrition ... so we simply didn't believe that we had enough 'ships to give?

Was it a shift in LB recruiting philosophy? Do we want to keep the "gems" in our back-yard under the radar ... and then snatch more of them up at walk-ons ... or late additions? Just look at recent history ... 3 of the best LBs in the entire midwest this past season were Jewell (Iowa), Lanning (ISU), and Van Ginkel (Wisconsin) ... all of whom were Iowa natives ... all of whom were WAY under the radar. Even Minnesota snatched a pretty productive LB from Iowa, in Poock, a few years back (he was a regular starter for them before injuries and the coaching change). Ferentz mentioned that he thought that we could recruit the midwest better ... is this even a step towards us recruiting our own back-yard better?

Folks on this board know me ... you know that I'm not unhappy with the guys who have chosen to become Hawks. Quite to the contrary ... I'm ecstatic about their decisions to join by beloved team. However, it doesn't mean that I haven't found Iowa's LB recruiting this past recruiting season more than a little puzzling.

Any thoughts?

Sounds to me like you answered your own post.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Sounds to me like you answered your own post.

Yes and no ... my post suggests possibilities. However, I was mainly just delineated "the facts" as I saw them. From there, we'd have to infer causal relationships for the decisions that we observed. Therein lies the value of reading the thoughts of others brain-storming on the same topic.

For example, as other posters have explicitly written or suggested ... a significant portion of the equation also likely relies upon every instance that the coaches have had when evaluating the LBs who are on the roster. In addition to evaluating the guys who are on the roster ... there is also the issue of how much experience the young guys got playing through the season. Specifically, often a team benefits from blow-outs OR has to deal with the adversity of injuries ... consequently, those opportunities allow for a team to build depth. The Hawks really didn't enjoy many big blow-outs AND the starters remained relatively healthy at LB ... so the less experienced guys really didn't see too many quality positional reps.

Maybe we expected more of our younger guys to rise-up in terms of their development ... and push to be strong #2s at LB. Maybe that didn't happen ... consequently, the coaches may have decided that we needed better quality depth. In other words ... rather than just having "more" depth ... maybe the key was the need for better quality guys to push the projected starters?

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

But how do you know it wasn't a priority? Seems to me it was a priority but they missed on some top early targets but Iowa tends to be more methodical in how they find guys and decide when to offer.

I'd infer that it was less of a priority because of the number of offers per the number of available spots. We're staring down 3 vacated starting spots and 4 departing guys from the LB depth-chart. Usually for every spot you need to replace, you have to offer a bunch of guys ... because obviously for a program like Iowa, we don't always get guys who are at the top of our recruiting board.

As many here can attest, I'm pretty vigilant about what gets documented about our recruits ... and, as numbers go, early on in the recruiting cycle, we had very few LB offers out. Even as guys we offered, like Sanborn, chose other programs ... we were slow to throw out new offers. Given how deliberate our coaches are ... that really suggests to me that they initially didn't see LB as that big of a "need" position. If it were perceived as a "need" position, they would have had a ton of potential guys on their recruiting board ... guys who they would have offered as others got "snatched up."

 

[localhawk55]

. Iowa does need fullbacks and strong special team players too

PUNTER?????

 

[David1979]

I'd infer that it was less of a priority because of the number of offers per the number of available spots. We're staring down 3 vacated starting spots and 4 departing guys from the LB depth-chart. Usually for every spot you need to replace, you have to offer a bunch of guys ... because obviously for a program like Iowa, we don't always get guys who are at the top of our recruiting board.

As many here can attest, I'm pretty vigilant about what gets documented about our recruits ... and, as numbers go, early on in the recruiting cycle, we had very few LB offers out. Even as guys we offered, like Sanborn, chose other programs ... we were slow to throw out new offers. Given how deliberate our coaches are ... that really suggests to me that they initially didn't see LB as that big of a "need" position. If it were perceived as a "need" position, they would have had a ton of potential guys on their recruiting board ... guys who they would have offered as others got "snatched up."

Perhaps. But I just see it as they wait to find what they are looking for. And remember they did have two guys committed at one time prior to the first signing period. And in a perfect world they would have had 3 wrapped up in December if Nebraska hadn't come in and swooped up Honas.

 

[ghostOfHomer777]

Perhaps. But I just see it as they wait to find what they are looking for. And remember they did have two guys committed at one time prior to the first signing period. And in a perfect world they would have had 3 wrapped up in December if Nebraska hadn't come in and swooped up Honas.

Very true ... as I indicated before ... maybe they thought that they had their bases covered between Doyle, VanSumeren, and Honas. That is certainly a possibility.

 

[GarryO37]

Depth. Iowa has good players ready to step in already on the roster

This.

 

[hawkfeever]

Looks like a buckshot approach. Spray and pray. We may get some FBs or TEs out of the bunch too who knows.

 

[Hawkeyeinsoutherncalifornia]

Well said Ghost

Early on it seems like we had Bruner ... but then we didn't. Then we landed Doyle ... but we weren't seemingly going all that hard after LBs.

Ultimately, it seemed like we felt pretty comfortable about our chances of landing VanSumeren and Honas. Of course, Michigan poached VanSumeren ... and a sudden "Frost" came out of Nebraska and spoiled our chances with Honas.

At the end of the day, in addition to Doyle, we land 2 classic "under the radar" LBs from the midwest ... and we get a somewhat more highly touted "speed" LB out of Georgia. On top of all that ... we got something like a billion walk-on LBs.

So what was up? We knew that we were graduating 4 LBs who were at the top of the depth chart. We knew that a talented guy in Hockaday has been consistently dinged for well over a year now. So why didn't we demonstrate greater urgency with our LB recruiting earlier?

Was it simply because we didn't anticipate having so much attrition ... so we simply didn't believe that we had enough 'ships to give?

Was it a shift in LB recruiting philosophy? Do we want to keep the "gems" in our back-yard under the radar ... and then snatch more of them up at walk-ons ... or late additions? Just look at recent history ... 3 of the best LBs in the entire midwest this past season were Jewell (Iowa), Lanning (ISU), and Van Ginkel (Wisconsin) ... all of whom were Iowa natives ... all of whom were WAY under the radar. Even Minnesota snatched a pretty productive LB from Iowa, in Poock, a few years back (he was a regular starter for them before injuries and the coaching change). Ferentz mentioned that he thought that we could recruit the midwest better ... is this even a step towards us recruiting our own back-yard better?

Folks on this board know me ... you know that I'm not unhappy with the guys who have chosen to become Hawks. Quite to the contrary ... I'm ecstatic about their decisions to join by beloved team. However, it doesn't mean that I haven't found Iowa's LB recruiting this past recruiting season more than a little puzzling.

Any thoughts?

 

[beanT]

Excellent LBs keep turning down scholarship money to walk on. So we keep taking them. I think it was more of an opportunity, as opposed to a need. Get them on the bus and remember the bus is bigger this year and the commitment of PWO is louder than it has ever been. PWO getting the commitment and signing attention from this sight, their high schools and even the University seem new. Or maybe it was just lost in the coverage leading up to signing day in years past.

 

[millhawk]

It does seem a little desperate to me. Especially since I thought we had some guys in place already that show real promise on Special teams.

I have to believe something is up with the health of Hockaday. Seems like they would have inserted him in the jNW game without blinking an eye in the past. Possibly thinking he may not get back from his injuries so now there is a void. No inside info, just kind of appears that way to me.

Jones looks like a beast to me. Mends, Little Niemann, Wade, et al must not be performing the way they had hoped.

I said that when they played K Ward during the season and got ripped. And at that time we were only chasing a juco.

Do the coaches feel they are in good shape with 3 or 4 good ones in the '19 class?

Offering Bruner was a mistake...it's that simple.