Apparently "their coaches" have been better than ours

User 10337

Guest
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
0
ööööty three-star player criticizes coach, with reason, who gave him scholarship, for being a ööööty recruiter.

This is as bad as the old timers from the 80s who couldn't beat Furman coming on here and bitching about Paul not winning more ACC titles.
FTFY
 

aeromech

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,945
I guess I was thinking about Head Coaching, which does include the aspects I mentioned.

Plus, it's hard to forget the poor coaching jobs in 2009 and 2013. Richt wasn't a great coach but he absolutely had CPJ's number.
Richt ran O'leary out of the state and got Gailey fired. Out of the 3 GT coaches that faced Richt, at least CPJ got a few wins.
 

BigDanT

J. Batt Fan
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
11,643
Which part of it did you not understand?
O’leary Had three ranked teams in a row that all beat the dwags. He was saying that O’leary Left and wasn’t run out.

Further more Richt didn’t start coaching till O’Leary’s last year.
 

aeromech

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,945
O’leary Had three ranked teams in a row that all beat the dwags. He was saying that O’leary Left and wasn’t run out.

Further more Richt didn’t start coaching till O’Leary’s last year.
O'leary got fat off beating Jim Donnan, when Richt showed up he beat O'leary by 2 touchdowns his first year in Atlanta. If O'leary would have stayed Richt would have owned him for years because Richt's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th year teams were much better than his first year team. O'leary was smart to bail out when he did.
 

H-town

Helluva Engineer
Joined
Nov 20, 2001
Messages
2,325
O'leary got fat off beating Jim Donnan, when Richt showed up he beat O'leary by 2 touchdowns his first year in Atlanta. If O'leary would have stayed Richt would have owned him for years because Richt's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th year teams were much better than his first year team. O'leary was smart to bail out when he did.
Maybe. Maybe not. I wouldn't use imaginary seasons to try and prove a point.
 

EmagDefBods

Banhammer'd
Ban Hammer'd
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
10
O'leary got fat off beating Jim Donnan, when Richt showed up he beat O'leary by 2 touchdowns his first year in Atlanta. If O'leary would have stayed Richt would have owned him for years because Richt's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th year teams were much better than his first year team. O'leary was smart to bail out when he did.
The 2009 Richt mutts were so bad on D, they fired their DC after he shut us down and the 2015 mutts were so bad, they canned Richt after the season. Both those teams beat us.

O'Leary would not have lost in 2009 or 2013.
 

Ed Sawyer

I eventually banged Lucy Matthews.
Joined
Jul 26, 2014
Messages
687
Depends if he had Ralph or not. 2001 showed that Ralph was responsible for our offensive success. Without him, 2001 was a huge underachievement.
Pretty much this.

O'Leary with Friedgen at Tech: 34-14 (.708)
O'Leary w/o Friedgen at Tech: 18-19 (.486)
 

BuckNasty

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Jun 12, 2016
Messages
1,167
O'leary got fat off beating Jim Donnan, when Richt showed up he beat O'leary by 2 touchdowns his first year in Atlanta. If O'leary would have stayed Richt would have owned him for years because Richt's 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th year teams were much better than his first year team. O'leary was smart to bail out when he did.
Hard to say what would have happened but I doubt O'Leary loses to the 4th and 5th year Richt teams. I don't think O'Leary would put up with a Nix coordinator, either.

The 2001 team was very solid (better than any Chan team wrt talent) but it turned out to be a weird year with a bunch of close conference losses. ND offered an Irishman a job. That's why he left. It's just patently stupid and disingenuous as öööö to say Richt "ran him off".

You could make a solid argument that Richt ran Chan off but even then it wasn't just UGA, it was how the end of 2006 played out and his inability to develop a QB.
 

smokey_wasp

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
11,021
Richt ran O'leary out of the state and got Gailey fired. Out of the 3 GT coaches that faced Richt, at least CPJ got a few wins.
It would have been hard for anyone at GT to keep up with Richt's first few teams, but O'Leary left because he is a good Irish Catholic and I am pretty sure you go to hell if you turn down Notre Dame.
 

aeromech

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,945
O’Leary > PJ

It’s not even close
O'leary didn't beat Richt, couldn't beat FSU, never beat VT, lost to Miami

Both got their poop pushed in by LSU in the Georgia Dome. When you sit back and truly look at it honestly they are very close.
 

aeromech

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
15,945
Hard to say what would have happened but I doubt O'Leary loses to the 4th and 5th year Richt teams. I don't think O'Leary would put up with a Nix coordinator, either.

The 2001 team was very solid (better than any Chan team wrt talent) but it turned out to be a weird year with a bunch of close conference losses. ND offered an Irishman a job. That's why he left. It's just patently stupid and disingenuous as öööö to say Richt "ran him off".

You could make a solid argument that Richt ran Chan off but even then it wasn't just UGA, it was how the end of 2006 played out and his inability to develop a QB.
Richt's 4th and 5th year teams both finished ranked in the top 10. O'leary's best ever team finished the season ranked 11th in the coaches poll. O'leary couldn't out recruit UGA when Donnan was there, and Richt would have out recruited him even worse in those years leading up to those seasons.
 

18in32

Petard Hoister
Joined
May 23, 2010
Messages
27,979
O’Leary > PJ

It’s not even close
This reminds me of an interesting development in common law jurisprudence. In medieval England, the idea was that the jury *should* know the accused – the theory being that knowing the accused was the best way to determine if he committed the crime. But over the centuries, that opinion gradually reversed, so know the idea is that the jury *should not* know the accused – the theory being that knowing the accused makes it hard to separate your personal feelings from the facts of the case.
 

User 10337

Guest
Joined
Oct 9, 2012
Messages
0
This reminds me of an interesting development in common law jurisprudence. In medieval England, the idea was that the jury *should* know the accused – the theory being that knowing the accused was the best way to determine if he committed the crime. But over the centuries, that opinion gradually reversed, so know the idea is that the jury *should not* know the accused – the theory being that knowing the accused makes it hard to separate your personal feelings from the facts of the case.

That is interesting. I don’t think it applies. I can understand that many think it’s personal feelings, but it’s not. Me thinks the boys there now are having a giant revelation.
 
Top