That was sort of my point. We never should have had a 10th string kicker in there. Keep reading it, lol.
Rhoads..lets win with these players..
- Thread starter ketelmeister
- Start date
That was sort of my point. We never should have had a 10th string kicker in there. Keep reading it, lol.
Sure that's a reason -- but your analogy (in my opinion) misses the point. It should be like this:
I can't build that brick fireplace because I don't have mortar. Therefore I will INSTEAD build a brick patio, because then I don't need mortar. Or maybe I have some glue that will hold the bricks in place long enough for 1 season. Or maybe I'll forget bricks and build a mud and straw fireplace (which can be very strong -- but might not like fire very much). However, under no circumstances will I be foolish enough to dry stack a brick fireplace.
I think the original point was to build what we could with the ingredients we have, instead of waiting for the right ingredients to make what we want.
See, I think even that is the wrong analogy. To me we couldn't build the brick fireplace not because we didn't have the mortar, but because we didn't have the bricks. To me that sounds like he was trying to build a brick fireplace out of pressure-treated lumber. Sure, you can make the thing look pretty, but what happens when you light a fire in that thing?
Chizik often said that he didn't have the talent to successfully operate the Tampa 2, and, in watching last season (no offense to Jesse Smith, because to me it looked like more often than not he was busting his *** out on the field), he was right - we did not have the personnel to operate the Tampa 2. Players were consistently out of position mostly because most of the time they did not have the skill set to be playing the position that the Tampa 2 demanded them to play.
The point is you build a deck if you only have pressure treated lumber. Still same thing. Work with what you have right now. Don't throw away 2,3 seasons waiting for the ingredients to do what you want.
As to the Tampa 2 -- the whole point is if you can't be successful with the Tampa 2 -- the DON'T RUN THE TAMPA 2. Sure, running the Tampa 2 now will help 3 years from now when the 10% of your current roster that is good enough for the Tampa 2 has more experience, but you just threw away 2 or 3 years to get there.
From a philosphical viewpoint, I don't know if I want to WIN NOW as best we can or BUILD TO WIN MORE LATER with no guarantees of making it to where we want to be. The "not right athletes to do such-and-such" is only a good argument/reason IF it's supporting the overall philosophy of "knowingly losing more now with greater growing pains on the hope that it's better in the long run for the long run".
I think we're actually of the same mind on this argument - as in, who knew if he was going to be around long enough to get the players in order to properly run the Tampa 2 (as in fired, not bailing out on us like he did).
If I'm a football coach, I'm doing everything I can to win now - I may not be around long enough to see tomorrow if I don't win today. Now, there's nothing wrong with teaching the principles of what I eventually want the offense/defense to evolve to, and even every so often putting it out onto the field, but if I'm a coach I'm doing everything I can to win today - and that means gearing my schemes to the pieces that I currently have to work with.
I believe ISU in the greater scheme of things is a pretty patient school(maybe too much so). Rhoads will get more time to build it the right way than say a school like Nebraska, or Audburn.
I want him to win, but also want him to sustain it once we get there.
I want him to win, but also want him to sustain it once we get there.
I want him to put his players in the best position to win/utilize their potential.
The 2005 team had the potential to be 11-0 in the regular season, but the coaching staff made HUGE strategic errors in all of the losses, that were arguably more important to the outcome than any bad play on the field. 2005 is a bigger reason Mac lost his job than 2006, imo. We had the stars aligned to do something historic, and we ended up a little above average.
This.
We could be 4-8 at the end of the season, and I'd be frustrated as hell. But if it was clear that Rhoads was putting the team in the position to get the best opportunity to win, and the team was clearly improving from week to week and learning from their mistakes, my complaints would be limited.
Yes -- but the question is WHEN.
2 hypothetical situations:
Philosophy #1: Win NOW
Results:
Year 1: Minimalist offense/defense to fit the athletes 4-8
Year 2: Same as year 1, but a little less minimalist 5-7
Year 3: Got some nice new athletes. Install new offense 5-7
Year 4: More new athletes. Install new defense 5-7
Year 5: Got all my athletes and install final offense/defense 5-7
Philosophy #2: Win LATER
Results:
Year 1: Install final offense/defense, sorry about the athletes 2-10
Year 2: Continue learning and getting athletes 4-8
Year 3: Athletes and consisten offense defense pays dividends 6-6
Year 4: Now we're getting somewhere 7-5
Year 5: Everything's in place and magic happens 9-3
I'd pick #2 IF and ONLY IF I knew it would happen. Problem is #2 could go to pieces (coach gets fired after year 3 or recruiting died after 2-10 season).
It's risk/reward. I think #2 has the greater risk, but the greater potential for reward. #2 is also much harder to sell to the fans and could have more problems with the side issues (fan attendance, money raised, etc.)
I assume Chizzzzz was on plan 2? Or is it a consensus that his plan was "get the heck out of dodge ASAP!" :biglaugh:
I'd like a plan that was based on steady improvement - not just wins, but athletes, team character, representing ISU. I'd love to see the plan Rhoads laid out for JP (and likely used in getting the staff put together right, and now in recruiting.)
