The Lone Ranger rides for Akron

[ZachTheZip]

Thanks for not answering either of my questions. You could have clarified your original point but you instead chose to devolve your argument into personal attacks.

[MDZip]

Ianello is more interested in having his players than in winning immediately. You don't kick nearly 40 players off the team and then complain that you have no depth. You don't redshirt good talent hen you're struggling to win a single game unless you've written off the concept of winning games for the season.

I won't say that he deliberately threw games, but I will say that winning was way down on his list of priorities below spying on his players, replacing Brookhart's players with his own at all costs, and installing his unimaginative formations and playcalling.

If you think I'm the only one, why don't you talk to some of the biggest supporters of the football program who avoid this website.

Zach,

Lets look at this from a very logical perspective. RI's job depends on him winning football games. That's really what it boils down to. His current and future jobs depend pretty much on that alone. He's doing what he thinks is right to do that. The man is not going to risk that for some "inside agenda". One area you may be correct though, winning at this instant may be secondary to making sure his long term plan works. If that means he has to get rid of what he might consider undisciplined or players who won't put in the effort he requires even if they are a little more talented, then he is right to do so. He is staking his whole future on it. If he's wrong, we're disappointed as fans but he is out on the street and will likely never get another head coaching job.

Sometimes people who are too close to the program may not have that perspective or may be the ones "run off" and then they have an agenda. I remember one of the first jobs I had after Akron, I felt the management were all idiots and they didn't care about the employees, blah blah blah until I became one of those people and realized why some of those decisions were made (and had to be made). Rarely is an organization guided by a megalomaniac without some sort of checks and balances on it.

Everyone was disappointed last season (even though in the end it is just a game) but we will have RI for at least two more seasons and all I want is to see improvement each year to show that his plan is working. We have no idea either way right now if it will, but that is the way businesses work and trust me college football is a business. You will have a certain amount of time (you can even tolerate a loss for a bit) as long as the end product becomes profitable (or wins).

I can understand how people in the middle of something they do not like or are upset about can feel about it. But you really need some time on the other side to get the total perspective. So I believe your accounts about how people associated in some way with the program feel, I'll just tell you that is not generally the entire story.

[skip-zip]

If coaches all thought that winning every single individual game right out of the gate was the #1 priority, they wouldn't change systems, cut players they don't like, etc., after they take over a program. But most of them do it.

I think some of what Zach is saying might be a little over the top, but some of you would be incredibly naive to think that coaches don't have a personal agenda that might result in fewer wins in the short term.

[Dave in Green]

Ianello is more interested in having his players than in winning immediately. You don't kick nearly 40 players off the team and then complain that you have no depth. You don't redshirt good talent hen you're struggling to win a single game unless you've written off the concept of winning games for the season.

I won't say that he deliberately threw games, but I will say that winning was way down on his list of priorities below spying on his players, replacing Brookhart's players with his own at all costs, and installing his unimaginative formations and playcalling.

If you think I'm the only one, why don't you talk to some of the biggest supporters of the football program who avoid this website.

This is a creative twist on the wording in your previous one on the subject:

I keep getting the vibe that he's intentionally throwing games for the sake of "building". The problem with that is that you develop a loser's attitude because you're constantly losing, and then when it comes time to put all that "building" into practice, it doesn't work because your team culture is all wrong since you just spent the last two or three years telling all your players that winning isn't as important as practicing so they can justify not doing the things on the field that it takes to win because they're having great practices and that's what counts.

Rob the Builder.

No question that words can be spun to twist the meaning of any situation.

Someone is choking in a restaurant. Another person comes up and applies the Heimlich Maneuver. One witness credits the good samaritan for saving the choking person's life. Another witness says one guy blind-sided another guy and hit him so hard that the food flew out of his mouth.

Just as with politicians, when you choose primarily to speak to the party base with the most outrageous exaggerations about the opposing party, you lose all credibility with the independent moderates who are open to the more rational arguments from either side of the issue.

[Dave in Green]

If coaches all thought that winning every single individual game right out of the gate was the #1 priority, they wouldn't change systems, cut players they don't like, etc., after they take over a program. But most of them do it.

I think some of what Zach is saying might be a little over the top, but some of you would be incredibly naive to think that coaches don't have a personal agenda that might result in fewer wins in the short term.

Fewer wins in the short term in exchange for more wins in the long term? I'll take that tradeoff any day, especially when the starting point of the short run is pretty low to begin with.

I'd call that a reasonable strategy as opposed to a personal agenda.

[ZachTheZip]

Ianello is more interested in having his players than in winning immediately. You don't kick nearly 40 players off the team and then complain that you have no depth. You don't redshirt good talent hen you're struggling to win a single game unless you've written off the concept of winning games for the season.

I won't say that he deliberately threw games, but I will say that winning was way down on his list of priorities below spying on his players, replacing Brookhart's players with his own at all costs, and installing his unimaginative formations and playcalling.

If you think I'm the only one, why don't you talk to some of the biggest supporters of the football program who avoid this website.

Zach,

Lets look at this from a very logical perspective. RI's job depends on him winning football games. That's really what it boils down to. His current and future jobs depend pretty much on that alone. He's doing what he thinks is right to do that. The man is not going to risk that for some "inside agenda". One area you may be correct though, winning at this instant may be secondary to making sure his long term plan works. If that means he has to get rid of what he might consider undisciplined or players who won't put in the effort he requires even if they are a little more talented, then he is right to do so. He is staking his whole future on it. If he's wrong, we're disappointed as fans but he is out on the street and will likely never get another head coaching job.

Sometimes people who are too close to the program may not have that perspective or may be the ones "run off" and then they have an agenda. I remember one of the first jobs I had after Akron, I felt the management were all idiots and they didn't care about the employees, blah blah blah until I became one of those people and realized why some of those decisions were made (and had to be made). Rarely is an organization guided by a megalomaniac without some sort of checks and balances on it.

Everyone was disappointed last season (even though in the end it is just a game) but we will have RI for at least two more seasons and all I want is to see improvement each year to show that his plan is working. We have no idea either way right now if it will, but that is the way businesses work and trust me college football is a business. You will have a certain amount of time (you can even tolerate a loss for a bit) as long as the end product becomes profitable (or wins).

I can understand how people in the middle of something they do not like or are upset about can feel about it. But you really need some time on the other side to get the total perspective. So I believe your accounts about how people associated in some way with the program feel, I'll just tell you that is not generally the entire story.

You start with a false premise. Ianello's job doesn't depend on winning. It depends on knowing the AD from a previous job. And that the AD gave him assurances that he wouldn't get fired if he got off to a bad start.

As far as the coach throwing games, I can put it this way. There are four explanations for a season as terrible as the one Ianello handed us. The first is that he was trying to win all the games, but did such a bad job that he could only scrape by once in twelve tries. The second is that winning wasn't top priority, and he made decisions that he knew would make it more difficult to win games in order to fulfill some other agenda. The third is that he specifically didn't want his team winning those games. Fourth is that he was so arrogant that he thought he could come in and his system would instantly work and when it didn't he refused to adjust in any way. Which coach would you want at the helm? I don't want any of them. All four types should be fired.

Every year counts. Every season should be competitive. Sacrificing this year set us back by five years. Is that an acceptable tradeoff? You lose six years and gain nothing. Ianello cannot win. He dug his own grave by making the team so awful that he can't recruit himself out of the hole he dug. He either saw this coming, in which case he threw the games and should be fired, or he didn't, in which case he is a moron and a terrible coach and should be fired.

[K92]

Doctor, wasn't calling you out. CM8 does look small in the pic next to PN7. I was referencing the comment about not being able to see over the offensive line.

I am looking forward to seeing the Lone Ranger in game situation. Hopefully, he has the offense rallied around him, ready to run through a brick wall for him. That is what we need in a QB. We need more than just 6'4".

[K92]

I am cooking a large batch. Hope some of y'all are extra hungry.

[Dr Z]

Doctor, wasn't calling you out. CM8 does look small in the pic next to PN7.

I know that, you and I want the same thing. I was just a little surprised to see his size in that photo. Like I said, photography can fool you with perspective sometimes. We will all get a better idea when LR8 plays in Columbus and have much better things to discuss than how somebody looks in a photo.

[Zipsrifle]

If we need to go 1-11 to build a football program that does what our BB program now does, sign me up! Long term success is what I want, and if that means redshirting players, then that is what we should do. Sure, RI got the job because he knew TW, but that isn't his fault, he took advantage of a first time AD who felt he knew more than a professional search organization. Again, I didn't like the whole process that led to RI, but we've got him for a few more years and let's hope he is a lot better than I think he is going to be.

[Doug Snyder]

Thanks for not answering either of my questions. You could have clarified your original point but you instead chose to devolve your argument into personal attacks.

Zach,

Sorry if you took my post as a personal attach towards you...was not meant to be. I do like you and although I have no proof...I think you are bright. But lol some of your post make me question that. I don’t mean to imply that you are stupid...or even average. You have my apology.

I don't want to answer your questions because I don't want to have a back and forth debate with you. Please don't take that personally. I don't want a back and forth debate with anyone.

One observation... when you post things about ICoach...one could read them as very personal attacks. Wouldn't your complaint be something like the "kettle calling the pot black" sort of thing??

I believe the Zips will have a better season than most expect. It will be interesting to see how the big ICoach detractors will handle that. One thing for sure...we will find out soon enough.

Doug

[Dave in Green]

..... I don't want a back and forth debate with anyone. .....

How sad. One less person available for Jake to try to draw into a back and forth debate on whether a new basketball arena should be built on campus or downtown.

[ZachTheZip]

Thanks for not answering either of my questions. You could have clarified your original point but you instead chose to devolve your argument into personal attacks.

Zach,

Sorry if you took my post as a personal attach towards you...was not meant to be. I do like you and although I have no proof...I think you are bright. But lol some of your post make me question that. I don’t mean to imply that you are stupid...or even average. You have my apology.

I don't want to answer your questions because I don't want to have a back and forth debate with you. Please don't take that personally. I don't want a back and forth debate with anyone.

One observation... when you post things about ICoach...one could read them as very personal attacks. Wouldn't your complaint be something like the "kettle calling the pot black" sort of thing??

I believe the Zips will have a better season than most expect. It will be interesting to see how the big ICoach detractors will handle that. One thing for sure...we will find out soon enough.

Doug

Fair enough. I apologize. I go after Ianello because I can only base my opinions of people on what I have seen of them, their actions and words. I just haven't seen anything, not one thing, that makes me feel good about where he is taking our program. You and the rest of Zipsnation have every right to be optimistic if you want, I just don't see what it would be based it on.

[Dave in Green]

Zach, I'll give one reason not to stake your life on impressions. Stuff changes. You don't realize this when you're young. At least I didn't.

I've seen a lot of things in my life. I've seen hopeless become sure thing and I've seen the opposite.

I've seen a lot of overconfident speculators go down in flames.

Nobody knows for sure what's really going to happen with anything.

The more you've seen happen, the more likely you are to understand the full implications of that fundamental truth.

[skip-zip]

If coaches all thought that winning every single individual game right out of the gate was the #1 priority, they wouldn't change systems, cut players they don't like, etc., after they take over a program. But most of them do it.

I think some of what Zach is saying might be a little over the top, but some of you would be incredibly naive to think that coaches don't have a personal agenda that might result in fewer wins in the short term.

Fewer wins in the short term in exchange for more wins in the long term? I'll take that tradeoff any day, especially when the starting point of the short run is pretty low to begin with.

I'd call that a reasonable strategy as opposed to a personal agenda.

If the plan works. If not, then you'll lose both short term and long term.

I had a bad feeling about Owens right from the start, and feel the same way about ICoach, and I hope I'm wrong this time. Unfortunately, I know plenty of other knowledgable sports people who feel the same way.

[MDZip]

You start with a false premise. Ianello's job doesn't depend on winning. It depends on knowing the AD from a previous job. And that the AD gave him assurances that he wouldn't get fired if he got off to a bad start.

Every year counts. Every season should be competitive. Sacrificing this year set us back by five years. Is that an acceptable tradeoff? You lose six years and gain nothing. Ianello cannot win. He dug his own grave by making the team so awful that he can't recruit himself out of the hole he dug. He either saw this coming, in which case he threw the games and should be fired, or he didn't, in which case he is a moron and a terrible coach and should be fired.

You really think his job does not depend on winning? In the first year most coaches will get a pass even in an awful year, but beyond that there better be improvement with wins.

Yes, every year counts but some years are not going to be as good as others. Sometimes those can be sacrificial years. I saw an interview with Ianello where he said he could have played Marquelo Suel at the middle of last year but elected not to do so. Was that sacrificing last year for this? Could Suel have helped last year? Maybe, but at 0-6 wouldn't you rather have him for an extra year instead?

What proof do you have that last year set us back another five? Five years from now we'll know for sure, but I think we will find out a lot about this team and this coach this year. We won't have to wait five years if this ends up being a repeat of last year.

[ZachTheZip]

If Ianello planned to build using recruiting, then he needed a better record to attract better recruits. How do you expect to out-recruit even an average MAC team when you struggled to get a single win? So why would you sacrifice an entire year when you needed to use that year to establish a foundation based on winning? How do you expect to win after teaching your players for an entire year that winning isn't important?

I take back what I said about last year setting us back five years. It was the hiring of Ianello that truly set us back. We won't recover until we have a real coach who can clean up this mess.

[Roo2]

If Ianello planned to build using recruiting, then he needed a better record to attract better recruits. How do you expect to out-recruit even an average MAC team when you struggled to get a single win? So why would you sacrifice an entire year when you needed to use that year to establish a foundation based on winning? How do you expect to win after teaching your players for an entire year that winning isn't important?

I take back what I said about last year setting us back five years. It was the hiring of Ianello that truly set us back. We won't recover until we have a real coach who can clean up this mess.

A good record helps in recruiting, but its really not the key. If that were the case, no losing team would ever get a good recruiting class. Also, if winning was the thing that mattered most, why didn't we build off of our MAC championship and bowl game? I have always agreed with hockey coach Herb Brooks mindset of you don't just look for the best ones, you look for the right ones. We need to give Ianello more than one season before we start saying he was a bad hire. Let's see what happens now that the guys know his system and expectations.

[ZachTheZip]

We're in a fight against time. I can't sit on my hands when someone is taking something I love and utterly destroying it. The more time we give Ianello, the more time he has to irreversibly damage the football program.

Time is an excuse. Everything is an excuse. You either win or you lose, no excuses can change that. I bet if we went 0-12 you'd still argue that he needs more time because he had a new QB and a new defensive coordinator.

[Doug Snyder]

If Ianello planned to build using recruiting, then he needed a better record to attract better recruits. How do you expect to out-recruit even an average MAC team when you struggled to get a single win? So why would you sacrifice an entire year when you needed to use that year to establish a foundation based on winning? How do you expect to win after teaching your players for an entire year that winning isn't important?

I take back what I said about last year setting us back five years. It was the hiring of Ianello that truly set us back. We won't recover until we have a real coach who can clean up this mess.

A good record helps in recruiting, but its really not the key. If that were the case, no losing team would ever get a good recruiting class. Also, if winning was the thing that mattered most, why didn't we build off of our MAC championship and bowl game? I have always agreed with hockey coach Herb Brooks mindset of you don't just look for the best ones, you look for the right ones. We need to give Ianello more than one season before we start saying he was a bad hire. Let's see what happens now that the guys know his system and expectations.

+ 1

[Dave in Green]

We're in a fight against time. I can't sit on my hands when someone is taking something I love and utterly destroying it. The more time we give Ianello, the more time he has to irreversibly damage the football program.

Time is an excuse. Everything is an excuse. You either win or you lose, no excuses can change that. I bet if we went 0-12 you'd still argue that he needs more time because he had a new QB and a new defensive coordinator.

An 0-12 season immediately following a 1-11 season would pretty much unite everyone in believing that Ianello had his fair chance and couldn't deliver, and that the time had come to find a new head coach.

Most reasonable people want to give Ianello a fair chance to prove himself, though we may differ on exactly how much time is fair and exactly how much progress we need to see in his second season.

Someone would have to be an even bigger extremist than you, Zach, to support bringing back a 1-23 coach for a third season, and I don't believe that's humanly possible.

[ZachTheZip]

He's already had lots of chances.

He had a chance to take a talented roster and mold them into a winning team. Instead he removed dozens of players and then complained that the resulting lack of depth made it difficult to prepare for games.

He had a chance to start the season off right with home games against a weak BCS team and an FCS team. It was a chance to show that his system worked and to let his players have confidence in his ability to lead them. Instead he left his playbook at home against Syracuse and literally kicked the game away against Gardner Webb.

He had a chance to connect with existing fans and to add new ones with a still-new stadium and the promises of improving over his predecessor. Instead he isolated himself from everybody who wanted to support the program and from most of the athletic department as well.

He already blew his chances. Anybody with half a brain knew what was important for a new head coach to do, and he did none of them. It's time to clean up the mistake and start over with someone who knows what they're doing.

[Roo]

He's already had lots of chances.

He had a chance to take a talented roster and mold them into a winning team. Instead he removed dozens of players and then complained that the resulting lack of depth made it difficult to prepare for games.

He had a chance to start the season off right with home games against a weak BCS team and an FCS team. It was a chance to show that his system worked and to let his players have confidence in his ability to lead them. Instead he left his playbook at home against Syracuse and literally kicked the game away against Gardner Webb.

He had a chance to connect with existing fans and to add new ones with a still-new stadium and the promises of improving over his predecessor. Instead he isolated himself from everybody who wanted to support the program and from most of the athletic department as well.

He already blew his chances. Anybody with half a brain knew what was important for a new head coach to do, and he did none of them. It's time to clean up the mistake and start over with someone who knows what they're doing.

:wall:

I most certainly want the Zip to always succeed, but even more so with people like Zach that just talk out of their ass. This guy didn't stand a chance with half the fan base because he was from Notre Dame and/or the new AD hired him.

It's disgusting....no matter what Rob does, people like Zach will try to tear it apart. I hope, just as a Zips fan, that Rob can get it done. But even more I want him to do well just so people like Zach can shut the hell up.

I love how the guy is the worst coach ever when he hasn't even been given a shot to be a coach with some of these people.

[dreal1scout]

I most certainly want the Zip to always succeed, but even more so with people like Zach that just talk out of their ass. This guy didn't stand a chance with half the fan base because he was from Notre Dame and/or the new AD hired him.

It's disgusting....no matter what Rob does, people like Zach will try to tear it apart. I hope, just as a Zips fan, that Rob can get it done. But even more I want him to do well just so people like Zach can shut the hell up.

I love how the guy is the worst coach ever when he hasn't even been given a shot to be a coach with some of these people.

Well said. GO ZIPS

[Zip Watcher]

:wall:

I most certainly want the Zip to always succeed, but even more so with people like Zach that just talk out of their ass. This guy didn't stand a chance with half the fan base because he was from Notre Dame and/or the new AD hired him.

It's disgusting....no matter what Rob does, people like Zach will try to tear it apart. I hope, just as a Zips fan, that Rob can get it done. But even more I want him to do well just so people like Zach can shut the hell up.

I love how the guy is the worst coach ever when he hasn't even been given a shot to be a coach with some of these people.

+1000

I'm with this guy.

Go get 'em Rob!

Go Zips!

B) B)