chizik could not coach shinola because he had inferoir coaching abilities. i will bet that coach paul rhoads will be much better than chizik because he has assembled a much better coaching staff with coaches like herman and burnham. i think rhoads will play smash mouth football back like when we had earl bruce.
Rhoads..lets win with these players..
- Thread starter ketelmeister
- Start date
I think we're discussing two seperate issues here. There's a difference in not blaming the "lack of skill" from the players for a loss and not waiting around for the perfect piece to the puzzle to start winning.
I agree with both sides in this discussion. Frankly I love hearing that CPR is not sitting back and waiting until he brings in "his" players. This, to me, means he's at least going to put forth the effort to win even if we're mismatched.
I also can not blame a coach for stating reasons for a loss, even if that reason is the lack of talent on the field. Face it, Wins and Losses are accumulated from a number of things but a coach can only do so much. It comes down to the players on the field. If the reason for the loss is indeed the players not executing then so be it.
I agree with both sides in this discussion. Frankly I love hearing that CPR is not sitting back and waiting until he brings in "his" players. This, to me, means he's at least going to put forth the effort to win even if we're mismatched.
I also can not blame a coach for stating reasons for a loss, even if that reason is the lack of talent on the field. Face it, Wins and Losses are accumulated from a number of things but a coach can only do so much. It comes down to the players on the field. If the reason for the loss is indeed the players not executing then so be it.
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 disagree with that. I think that we DO have some good players. Chizik may have said that he would put players in the best position to win, but his actions showed otherwise. That D last year wasn't nearly as bad as they played. This is due to forcing a Tamp 2 on players that didn't have the talent to run it (Jesse Smith covering 20 yards downfield) with a DC who wasn't a Tampa 2 guy.
CPR may not win a ton of games this season, but I think that his philosophy is good for a couple more wins at least. BTW, I think that the OL is going to be far from terrilble. The only thing I'm worried about is the pass rush and the LBs.
True to an extent. What I did not like last year was everyone knew last year we did not have the talent to play the Tampa 2. Fine, we get that - so why play it anyway? That made no sense to me. If you're there to win ball games, why are you shooting yourself in the foot from the beginning by insisting on playing a defense you clearly do not have the personnel to run and would take several years to get that personnel? Why not adjust the defense to accommodate the personnel that you do have to make every attempt at giving your team the best chance to win instead of continuously trying to shove the square peg that was the Tampa 2 defense into the round hole that was the talent that he had to work with?
While it may just be more "coach talk", to me at least this is more of the "refreshing" kind. We have a coach that is willing to adjust his game plan to accommodate the talent that he has to work with. When was the last time we had a coach willing to do that? Maybe we only win 4 games this year. I'll be frustrated as hell at the end of the season if that happens, but if he holds true to this statement that at least I'll know we left everything out on the field instead of what we've had to witness over the last 5 years.
I don't know that I specifically agree here with what's being said in Chizik's defense about making excuses. I remember him saying a couple of times that we just don't have the players right now. Where as I don't really consider that an excuse, sometimes the truth is the truth, I don't remember a lot of defensive adjustments to try and stop the bleeding. I remember a lot of talk about how Chiz and company had a defensive scheme they were implementing and once we got the players we'd be Ok. I'm not a coach, I don't know which way works best, but it sounds to me like Rhoads is taking a completely different approach. "I'm not worried about applying a system, I'm worried about winning games."
I don't think either are or were making excuses, but I see their approach to Cyclone football both being quite different from each other.
I don't think either are or were making excuses, but I see their approach to Cyclone football both being quite different from each other.
The defense did not lose those first two games in Chizik's era. The offense did.
That one should be blamed on Chizik and McFarland for not emphasising our strengths right off the bat. No reason we should not have spread the field more in those first two games like we did against Iowa.
Everytime Chizik said the players needed to learn how to win (Toledo 2007, UNLV 2008, Kansas 2008) he was saying that he did not have the horses to win.
When, in fact, most of those losses can be blamed squarely on poor, conservative coaching.
Kind of funny how he stopped using the "we do not have the horses to win" excuse after the Baylor pasting. In fact, I believe it wasn't too much later that he began changing his mantra to how he was "firmly entrenched" in Ames...
I would take a bullet for Rhoads given the opportunity. I hope he's as masterful on the field!
First year coaching mistakes? Poor planning? Poor adjustmernts? Poor substitutions? Poor decision making? You can pretty much name it and it occurred. We looked like the opponent was always three chess moves ahead of us.
Wow. You're really into revisionist history, aren't you? What's next, the United States provoked Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor?
The offensive line was the worst part of McCarney's last few teams, and arguably the reason (along with kicker) for the losses that got him fired. Oddly enough that line didn't magically improve in the fist few games of the Chzik era--especially with so many redshirts (Lamaak), recruits (Dedrick) and other relative newcomers (Stephens and Tibbs) stepping into starting roles.
Wasn't much better last year, either, especially after Mike Knapp went down, then Lamaak, but it did begin to solidify towards the end of the year. This season, Year Three of the process, I would expect the group to be reasonably solid.
But of course, you would feel that's due solely to coaching--not the fact that it's seasoned juniors and seniors, with a modicum more talent, currently starting.
Assuming you are correct about the O-line (which you're not, but I'm going to give it to you anyway), how about a short passing game that doesn't require your O-linemen to sustain their blocks long? That can be just as effective as a running attack in chewing up clock and you can toss in a run or two now and again for a change of pace and to keep them honest.
I agree, first year coaches make these kinds of mistakes (and I fully expect Rhoads to be out-coached from time-to-time - it comes with the territory) - it's just too bad it appeared that Chizik never learned from his mistakes.
We lost one home opener in the last 10 years. I'll give you one guess who gave us that gem.
:biggrin: See the post above.
I could be mistaken about this, but I'm reasonably sure that such a scheme requires exquisite timing and long practice, not to mention teamwork. So, what about those first few games would lead you to expect such a thing to be possible? I mean, fifth year seniors were already making a dramatic change from an offense they had spent four years learning already.
I guess I'd also recall that much of the time both Meyer and Wallace didn't even have time to take a short drop before someone was in their face.
Sorry, this is branching a long ways away from talking about Rhoads. It's be interesting to see what he and his coordinators can implement by the time the season rolls around--although they have much better talent to work with (on offense, anyway) than we've had for a while.
Um, the coaching staff and about 105 players? Got it right in one, didn't I? :yes:
Who lost the one before that? And the last one before that? I'll give you one guess....
Your post did nothing but justify my points.
We scored 14 points vs Kent State and 13 vs UNI and then changed our philosphy to spreading the field and beat Iowa. Tell me how that isn't coaching.
Wait wait wait...you're a Chizik shill and will do nothing but dog the players now.
I was agreeing with The City, but then he had to compare us to the "300"..... those "300" guys didn't do so good in the end.
Let's just say they lost in the Championship...but I'm sure they came back next season ranked #1 :yes::biglaugh:
Besides it did good for their recruiting:wink::skeptical
this guy beside me is nuts, must be a CYCLONE FANATIC)CYCLONE
NATION!!!
Funny - I remember the team only scoring 15 points that game. Ironically, that was good enough for a W on that particular day...
