In a conversation with Coach Rhoads in Minneapolis, he said they won't be happy to simply wait 3 or 4 years to get competitive. What I got from the conversation is that the coaches will adapt both offense and defense to the players we have, and not wait to recruit the "right" players for a particular system. I loved hearing this. Too often coaches say we don't have players for our system, and use that as an excuse if they lose. His comments were music to my ears. Take what you have and make it work! Give the guys you have the best chance to win.
Rhoads..lets win with these players..
- Thread starter ketelmeister
- Start date
Here's the one problem that you're apparently missing. Some few of he players who will be out there on Saturdays aren't the best players for any system. Like when the last two coaches were hired, each time the roster was so depleted that it didn't really matter which system they went with--although I suppose that the offense the service academies are forced to use might have worked. 
Here's the one problem that you're apparently missing. Some few of he players who will be out there on Saturdays aren't the best players for any system. Like when the last two coaches were hired, each time the roster was so depleted that it didn't really matter which system they went with--although I suppose that the offense the service academies are forced to use might have worked.
And you are missing the fact that the coaches aren't making excuses based on the players we have. See, that was the point of his post.
A. Chizik didn't make excuses based on the players he had. I clearly remember that everyone loved him for that, after Mac.
B. Rhoads hasn't coached a game yet, so how can you project what he'll say midway through the season, if we started getting massacred due solely to personnel shortcomings on defense?
A good coach will devise a game plan to maximize the potential of the players he has and minimize the exposure to their weaknesses. I don't think Gene knew how to do that.
Here's the one problem that you're apparently missing. Some few of he players who will be out there on Saturdays aren't the best players for any system. Like when the last two coaches were hired, each time the roster was so depleted that it didn't really matter which system they went with--although I suppose that the offense the service academies are forced to use might have worked.
I think that's a pretty pessimistic way to look at it. Sure, not all of the players are going to be all-conference, but it sounds like Rhoads isn't going to use that as an excuse for losing.
I listened to a Rhoads interview earlier this spring, and he said (I'm paraphrasing here) that he wasn't going to be satisfied with losing, even in this first year. He wasn't going to be satisfied with simply breaking the road losing streak, or winning more than two games, or finally winning a conference game. He expects them to play to win every game. I agree with the OP that it's nice to hear.
How do you "minimize" the the physical shortcomings of your offensive line, or your entire defense? Answer me that one, please.
Ball control is the answer for the lastter--but not when you can't establish a powerful running game due to the former. So, how would you do it?
A. In hindsight, it looks like when Chizik didn't make excuses based on players, it was essentially just lip service.
B. We can't, but why not give him the benefit of the doubt until we have reason to do otherwise?
Great post as with some others. That is the point. I've heard lots of coaches say we don't have the right players to win. What does that say to the players you have..you're all a pile of dung? No, he is taking the right approach, moving ahead and I like what I hear.
Of course that's true. I don't think anybody is saying that they're expecting us to win 10 games based on these comments alone. But isn't it still nice to hear?
I'm curious as to what you mean. After all, the talent on defense was atrocious, and the offensive line wasn't much better. So, when both of those constitute reasons rather than excuses, what, exactly are you referring to?
I mean, "I can't build that brick fireplace because I don't have mortar" is a reason, not an excuse. Calling a spade a spade. Only, in the case of last year's defense, it was more like "...because most of the bricks don't meet building code."
And before any smart aleck replies that he should have bought more bricks or mortar, remember that you can only go to the recruiting store once a year, and even then you're only allowed so many new bricks at a time.
Maybe we all need to remember that these are college students who are working their buts off for our school. To thrown them under the bus stinks. Give them the best chance you can for them to win, and they might just surprise you. I played through a coaching change at Iowa State, and it is possible to still win games with a positive attitude and good coach. With your attitude, why bother to even play the games?
In so many ways, in my opinion, Rhoads has put his best foot forward.
1. He started by bringing in a staff that offers experience and a track record.
2. A modern offense that shows he's wise to his surroundings (Big XII). The key to the game now-a-days seems to be letting the athletes put in work. Now don't get me wrong (veterans in general) I believe in smash mouth, pound the ball, mow'em down football too. However I also believe we have a QB and a quality receiving corp. Let's attack the guys who don't wanna tackle (DB's) and run away from the guys who have been tackling since the sand box (LB's).
3.Allow his defensive coordinator to (for a lack of better words) "coordinate the defense" which shows his staff and players that the name of the game is team work, he leads by example.
4. In every interview he shows his heart but not his hand. Meaning he genuinely discusses his desire for the "program" and he doesn't focus on what he needs to do to establish himself as a head coach. He's not concerned with the "nay-sayers". He doesn't buy into what people wanna hear about the X's and O's either, he's concerned more about rebuilding the foundation of Iowa State and the state of Iowa football. (I like that!):yes:
5. (And my favorite part) He's a rally cat! The type of coach that makes a player believe that he'd put the pads on and lead block for you on the field if he could. Not to make himself feel good but for the simple gratification of being a Cyclone! For the priviledge of being in the presence of great players and young men. He kinda gives off that "300" feeling (great movie by the way).:yes:
Not trying to imply that the man will do a perfect job, just believe he's the perfect man for the job.
Oh and I don't drink kool-aid...just a little "Cyclone POWERade" :biggrin:
CYCLONE
NATION!!
Last edited:
So what was Chizik's excuse for losing to Kent State, Toledo, and UNI in his first season with the school's all-time leading passer, all-time leading receiver, and 3 NFL caliber players on defense? I guess those guys just weren't good enough for Chizik's amazing coaching abilities.
Great post, City.
I seem to recall plenty of Chiz PC's that he stated we needed to "get better players".
I seem to recall plenty of Chiz PC's that he stated we needed to "get better players".
Exactly. A good coach doesn't need NFL talent to get results. Chizik does. He has only got results with a roster full of 5 and the occasional 4 star player. Rhoads had a Top 5 defense at Pitt, which generally doesn't draw a hell of a lot better players than we do. We have talented players on this team, and Chizik's schemes, especially on defense, rely on having more talent than the team across the line of scrimmage. If Rhoads is a good coach, he can find a way to be more competitive with the guys we have out there.
Wait a second...you guys actually are complaining about Chizik losing his first few games, with the same players that got Mac fired? Hilarious!
No matter how good a coach is, you can't make bricks out of straw. Don't believe me, check the Johnny Orr interview thread from a couple of weeks ago over in MBB. I think Johnny knows what he's talking about a heck of a lot better than you guys do.
I didn't make the original post. I just pointed out what his point was that you missed.
