Can we win a National Title without Hall or Lee in our line up in the next 5 years?

[sloehawk]

Does TNT bear any blame for the #1 recruiting class in the country with last year seniors never even winning an individual Big 10 or NCAA championship? I hear a lot how great they are at developing talent, which I agree with for the most part. But they also partly deserve some of the blame for last years flop of seniors. TNT never were able to get any of them over the hump imo.

The buck stops at the Head Coach. I presume that answers your question?

Our development is not where it once was. It for damn sure needs to get better (there are always examples of Wrestler A is better, yada, yada, yada - I'm talking collectively). Tom and Terry can't wrestle the matches for their guys, and we know they don't preach standing around. You can lead a horse to water and the horse takes it from there. We've had too many thirsty horses, which in my personal opinion is a bigger issue than the recruiting. So much so that everyone now screams about the recruiting, which is just another way of saying we haven't developed the recruits we do get well enough. IMO of course.

 

[Jaybird319]

I believe the sport of wrestling is more developed as a whole vs 10, 15, 30 years ago.
Increasingly higher levels of competition and coaching at younger and younger ages has lead to decrease in scoring

All the tops coaches have had major bombs of recruits for whatever reasons. Guess what they will have more in the future

 

[255]

Time will tell. If your that sold on tops recruits equates to absolute team finishes or that Cael is beyond great, well enjoy yourself.

This sport has never been played out on paper. Most, and I mean most prediction fail. Believe what you want and agree to disagree and all that crap. So much goes Into a team winning it all. A top recruiting class is a needed first step however getting that to come together is an altogether other issue. Not really saying your wrong but to state Iowa has no chance of winning a title for the next 5 or 7 years is head in the sand homer thinking. If that was true, dan Denise never makes the final. Larry owing a never wins, the school with the number one class always wins titles and DT wins 4 titles. This sport does not work that way. Just saying, go ahead a count Iowa out. I will enjoy serving crow for a message board dinner.

 

[86_90]

Does TNT bear any blame for the #1 recruiting class in the country with last year seniors never even winning an individual Big 10 or NCAA championship? I hear a lot how great they are at developing talent, which I agree with for the most part. But they also partly deserve some of the blame for last years flop of seniors. TNT never were able to get any of them over the hump imo.

Yes. The short answer, they recruited the wrong type of wrestlers. They tried to turn plow horses into attacking wolves.

This was the "re-load" class that was meant to be the replacements for Metcalf, Borschell, Dennis, Erikson, Keddy, Slaton ect. My thoughts on the re-load class are known. As it relates to your question I think Brands and Company made several mistakes:

1-they recruited the wrong types of wrestlers who were obviously hammers on top with great defense and yet they were limited/predictable from neutral--which in turn is not conducive to the ultra aggressive style Brands and Company teach and preach. Essentially, and in hindsight, they tried to fit a bunch of square pegs into round holes.

2- they put all (or a lot) of their eggs into one recruiting class--a recruiting class of this size became the face of the program, as the program was dependent upon the success of this class @NCAAs each year from 2011-2015 they under-achieved as did the team. Winning or losing, attitude and expectations have a way of creating their own momentum.

3- they didn't adjust quickly enough to the realities of what sort of wrestlers they had in the stable. Exhibit A, Mike Evans: tough as nails, very smart, great mat IQ, but had a fatal flaw as he lacked quickness from neutral--he should have been gaining weight and strength and size and wrestled @184 of higher if he was able to put on muscle to compensate for his lack of quickness from neutral. Evans was a top 5 recruit, which with his attitude should have translated into a steady improvement @NCAAs each year. This never happened.

Assuming Evans was never told to go bigger, then this was on Brands and Company. They need to seriously evaluate what sort of talent they get once the wrestlers enters the room and if his weaknesses are terminal or not. If not, can a weight jump or drop fix the problem? The staff needs to dictate the weight their wrestlers compete at after the RS year. Considering you had 4 or 5 guys that all had glaring weaknesses within one class and the results varied little from year 1 to 5 I would guess you go back to item #1--they recruited the wrong type of wrestlers.

Asking plow horses to learn to attack like wolves and to get the plow horses to believe they are capable of this are stretches-- even for Brands and Company. This is why so many of those 5th year plow horses appeared so often so unwilling to attack. It was as though the master had taught and drilled and commanded, but the plow horse could never believe he was indeed a wolf.

 

[86_90]

The buck stops at the Head Coach. I presume that answers your question?

Our development is not where it once was. It for damn sure needs to get better (there are always examples of Wrestler A is better, yada, yada, yada - I'm talking collectively). Tom and Terry can't wrestle the matches for their guys, and we know they don't preach standing around. You can lead a horse to water and the horse takes it from there. We've had too many thirsty horses, which in my personal opinion is a bigger issue than the recruiting. So much so that everyone now screams about the recruiting, which is just another way of saying we haven't developed the recruits we do get well enough. IMO of course.

I think you recruit guys that have the skills which suits the style of the type of wrestling the coach wants to see. If you have a talented counter wrestler in your room, but every day he is coached and prodded to push forward and attack, maybe he learns to push forward and attack. But in those crucial moments of decision where talent is equal, will he continue to attack or will he wait to counter, thus eliminating much of what has been taught to him by his college coaches? Is not the safer recruit, the wrestler whose DNA is similar to the coaches? It's hard to rewire 10-12 years of uber successful habits. It may be nearly impossible to convince the recruit that such a "rewire" is necessary.

 

[sloehawk]

I think you recruit guys that have the skills which suits the style of the type of wrestling the coach wants to see. If you have a talented counter wrestler in your room, but every day he is coached and prodded to push forward and attack, maybe he learns to push forward and attack. But in those crucial moments of decision where talent is equal, will he continue to attack or will he wait to counter, thus eliminating much of what has been taught to him by his college coaches? Is not the safer recruit, the wrestler whose DNA is similar to the coaches? It's hard to rewire 10-12 years of uber successful habits. It may be nearly impossible to convince the recruit that such a "rewire" is necessary.

Well, as previously stated the buck stops with the Head Coach. Recruiting, Development, Results. That's all on Tom, good, bad or in-between. At some point his Team has to produce, or he and his staff will be replaced (he doesn't have the King for Life Deal Kirk Ferentz has). I'm confident he knows that. No time like the present....................

 

[nu2u]

Is it just me or is it not a little weird when grown men refer to teenage boys as "studs"?

 

[Azchief32]

If you want to make it weird, I guess those are your own issues that you have to think about. The term Stud has been in wrestling for a long time.

 

[wasdt21]

I posted this last year since tom brands became head coach iowa has had the most all-americans,over 50%. I do concede at iowa we measure success by titles won I'm just saying tom is not chopped liver. yes n2u it is just u

 

[WWDMHawkeye]

If you want to make it weird, I guess those are your own issues that you have to think about. The term Stud has been in wrestling for a long time.

This. "Stud" has always referred to a tough son of a gun who flat-out dominates on the mat. The same term has been used for decades to describe great athletes in other sports, too. Not sure where this "weird" thing is coming from.

 

[nu2u]

If you want to make it weird, I guess those are your own issues that you have to think about. The term Stud has been in wrestling for a long time.

That's just it, I don't want to make it weird. It just seems odd to me. I don't give it much thought.

I had lunch with a few friends a couple weeks ago and at the table next to ours were two middle age males, probably early 40s, who happened to be Nebraska fans. They were obviously excited about the upcoming football season. During the course of their conversations, one man repeatedly used the term "stud" to describe certain players or high school kid the Huskers were recruiting and, when he used that word ("stud") he would exaggerate the pronouncement, with special emphasis. It struck me as kind of funny and a little creepy. My wife thought so as well. The comments in this thread reminded me of that, that's all.

 

[RoarLions1]

That's just it, I don't want to make it weird. It just seems odd to me. I don't give it much thought.

I had lunch with a few friends a couple weeks ago and at the table next to ours were two middle age males, probably early 40s, who happened to be Nebraska fans. They were obviously excited about the upcoming football season. During the course of their conversations, one man repeatedly used the term "stud" to describe certain players or high school kid the Huskers were recruiting and, when he used that word ("stud") he would exaggerate the pronouncement, with special emphasis. It struck me as kind of funny and a little creepy. My wife thought so as well. The comments in this thread reminded me of that, that's all.

"Funny and a little creepy"? Interesting combination.

 

[nu2u]

"Funny and a little creepy"? Interesting combination.

How so? That was mainly my wife's take. You had to be there I guess.

 

[WildTurk]

People from Nebraska are "funny and a little weird" in general. My wife thinks so aswell. Glad to see Cornshucker football gets brought up on a Iowa wrestling board.. Yeesh

 

[nu2u]

Glad to see Cornshucker football gets brought up on a Iowa wrestling board.. Yeesh

that was just contextual - to explain that these guys were talking about teenage athletes as "studs". They could have been talking about just about any other college sport at any other college in any other part of America.

 

[WildTurk]

Blah blah blah. Huck the Fuskers!

 

[Squarehat]

We need November to get here...fast

 

[Azchief32]

that was just contextual - to explain that these guys were talking about teenage athletes as "studs". They could have been talking about just about any other college sport at any other college in any other part of America.

Well I'd guess you would have to explain the context in which you think it's weird then.

I'm guessing you don't listen to sports talk shows because they use "stud" all the time to describe recruits.

 

[nu2u]

I think I'm going to drop this inquiry. Didn't mean to pick a fight with you guys over something like this. Honestly, I think the term struck me differently hearing it in that situation as opposed to reading it. Like I said, the conversation was sort of comical, could have been a SNL skit. I don't tune into sports talk radio -very little anyway- I'll accept it as a commonly accepted term.

BTW, as a casual wrestling fan, I enjoy reading the info provided in this forum and, of course, keeping my fingers crossed on Iowa landing Spencer Lee (who BTW is a certified "stud" AFAICT )

 

[Azchief32]

Well that's quite studly of you

 

[wasdt21]

when I was referred to as one of our studs in high school I took it as a compliment and if I use the term now it is meant complimentary.

 

[TarpHawk]

 

[Azchief32]

He wrestled for s bit too Tarp...took the handfighting part a bit far

 

[86_90]

that was just contextual - to explain that these guys were talking about teenage athletes as "studs". They could have been talking about just about any other college sport at any other college in any other part of America.

That's why I use terms like wolves and plow horses. In all honesty, I would be comfortable using the term "stud," but I would pair it with my other choices. Then you get terms like: stud plow horse and studly wolf. Or my new favorite saying, which I now use often, "We need a group of studly wolves to carry out the Master Plans of Brands and Company."

 

[cidhawkeye]

Yes. The short answer, they recruited the wrong type of wrestlers. They tried to turn plow horses into attacking wolves.

This was the "re-load" class that was meant to be the replacements for Metcalf, Borschell, Dennis, Erikson, Keddy, Slaton ect. My thoughts on the re-load class are known. As it relates to your question I think Brands and Company made several mistakes:

1-they recruited the wrong types of wrestlers who were obviously hammers on top with great defense and yet they were limited/predictable from neutral--which in turn is not conducive to the ultra aggressive style Brands and Company teach and preach. Essentially, and in hindsight, they tried to fit a bunch of square pegs into round holes.

2- they put all (or a lot) of their eggs into one recruiting class--a recruiting class of this size became the face of the program, as the program was dependent upon the success of this class @NCAAs each year from 2011-2015 they under-achieved as did the team. Winning or losing, attitude and expectations have a way of creating their own momentum.

3- they didn't adjust quickly enough to the realities of what sort of wrestlers they had in the stable. Exhibit A, Mike Evans: tough as nails, very smart, great mat IQ, but had a fatal flaw as he lacked quickness from neutral--he should have been gaining weight and strength and size and wrestled @184 of higher if he was able to put on muscle to compensate for his lack of quickness from neutral. Evans was a top 5 recruit, which with his attitude should have translated into a steady improvement @NCAAs each year. This never happened.

Assuming Evans was never told to go bigger, then this was on Brands and Company. They need to seriously evaluate what sort of talent they get once the wrestlers enters the room and if his weaknesses are terminal or not. If not, can a weight jump or drop fix the problem? The staff needs to dictate the weight their wrestlers compete at after the RS year. Considering you had 4 or 5 guys that all had glaring weaknesses within one class and the results varied little from year 1 to 5 I would guess you go back to item #1--they recruited the wrong type of wrestlers.

Asking plow horses to learn to attack like wolves and to get the plow horses to believe they are capable of this are stretches-- even for Brands and Company. This is why so many of those 5th year plow horses appeared so often so unwilling to attack. It was as though the master had taught and drilled and commanded, but the plow horse could never believe he was indeed a wolf.

At some point in time should they have stepped back and looked at a kid and coached to their strength? Or looked at the scholarship allocation and told the wrestler they needed that money to recruit a wolf? At times it looked like the plow horses had potential to attack like wolves and chose not to, if that was the case they needed to adjust the money. The guys were good, could they have been great with a few tweaks?

 

[86_90]

At some point in time should they have stepped back and looked at a kid and coached to their strength? Or looked at the scholarship allocation and told the wrestler they needed that money to recruit a wolf? At times it looked like the plow horses had potential to attack like wolves and chose not to, if that was the case they needed to adjust the money. The guys were good, could they have been great with a few tweaks?

I agree with most of this.

As far as the money goes I don't know if Brands and Company play hard ball. I doubt they'd decrease the money as long as grades, and practice obligations were satisfactory.

My main point was I just don't think the guys they recruited in that class had the skill sets that paired well with what Brands and Company are best at teaching. Good coaches adapt their schemes to the talent; however, wrestling is a different animal--with wolves and plow horses-- where the identity of the team and the coach are usually one in the same when success is found.

All of those guys had strengths, but under Brands and Company what stood out to me were their weaknesses as a group. Could some of them have had better careers elsewhere? Possibly.

 

[TarpHawk]

I'd obviously love to hear the perspectives of Dziewa, Kelly, Moore, Evans and Telford. I'd be a bit surprised if any of them said "I could've been a national champ if Brands had coached me right." Some of Gable's best wrestlers didn't fit the Iowa mold. What kept Dziewa from being Randy Lewis? What kept Evans from being Rico?

 

[86_90]

I'd obviously love to hear the perspectives of Dziewa, Kelly, Moore, Evans and Telford. I'd be a bit surprised if any of them said "I could've been a national champ if Brands had coached me right." Some of Gable's best wrestlers didn't fit the Iowa mold. What kept Dziewa from being Randy Lewis? What kept Evans from being Rico?

Were any those guys NC caliber wrestlers to start with? Moore may have been a one time AA at another program where expectations perhaps overwhelmed him. Dziewa's style was not a fit. Period. Kelly and Evans got the most out of what they were. Telford was right there, but in a different situation he may have developed differently.

Possibly getting better results does not mean I thought any would have been NCs at another school, though it would have been a possibility.

 

[86_90]

I'd obviously love to hear the perspectives of Dziewa, Kelly, Moore, Evans and Telford. I'd be a bit surprised if any of them said "I could've been a national champ if Brands had coached me right." Some of Gable's best wrestlers didn't fit the Iowa mold. What kept Dziewa from being Randy Lewis? What kept Evans from being Rico?

To answer your question, talent.

So I don't think you are implying Gable and Brands share the same coaching abilities? If you are arguing that Brands is able to mold wrestlers the way Gable did, then I disagree.

I think this point is well defined as results have shown: Brands and Company coach wolves well, but have struggled with optimizing plow horses. Have there been exceptions? yes. And, this doesn't mean the plow horses can't or haven't been successful with Brands and Company. However, overall, the most consistent and best improvements over the career of the individual wrestlers @Iowa under Brands have been in instances where the relentless attacking style has been embraced by those individual wrestlers on the team.