2006 was Gailey's best year.

BarrelORum said:
The fact that Chan played Ball all season long is evidence enough that we have a Coach who doesn't make good coaching decisions.
Click to expand...

The real shame is that he wouldn't even try Taylor for one FREAKING series in the WF game, and even after RB's poor performance against the dawgs. I would really love to hear Chan Gailey answer a question of why in the hell didn't he at least try TB against Wake for one freaking series, when he said after RB was ruled ineligible that Taylor was ready to lead the team. His stubborness gets in the way of good coaching decisions and we will never get where we want to be with him if he keeps this sh*t attitude. D Rad needs to get in Chan's ear about a commitment to do what is needed to give the team the best chance of winning, even if it goes against Chan's own agenda, which BTW I cannot understand for the life of me.
 
ramblin_man said:
Great post & thanks for the information.
The numbers don't lie.

See ya on the Flats next year Fellas & looking forward to signing day & '07 Recruiting Class!
Click to expand...

Numbers don't lie but they also don't tell the whole story such the entire "Story of Chan Gailey".
 
GEETEELEE said:
The lack of depth is real, the reason for it is real. I'm not making excuses, it's fact. Furthermore, the reasons for the lack of depth have now gone away and looking forward we SHOULD be in a position next year for something special as well.
Click to expand...

The lack of depth is CHAN'S fault. Lets say this again, LACK OF DEPTH IS CHAN'S FAULT.

Flunkgate is no longer an issue. That happened with mostly upper classmen over 4 years ago. Sure it hurt Gailey efforts in the past, I don't doubt that. But he had every opportunity to recover from that with recruiting which he failed to do.

The reduction of scholarship limits is not why we suck on the depth chart, although it plays a part. Prior to that, Chan rarely filled his scholarship allotment and he took guys, who no offense, have no business getting a D-1 scholarship to GT. After flunkgate we should have been classes of close to 25 to make up for the losses. We didn't do that. We handicapped ourselves. It was stupid.

Chan's recruiting was the worst in GT football history for 2005 and 2006 prior to this great class. 2004 without Calvin would have been dreadful too. It will take a great class this year, and a full and great class next year to balance out the fact that Dave Wilson totally screwed the pooch in recruiting. And Dave Wilson was Chan's guy who Chan stuck with for a long long time.

Depth is Chan's fault. When the NCAA handed down scholarship reductions, it only effected us for one year not two, because Chan already didn't recruit the numbers he could have.
 
Flunkgate is no longer an issue. That happened with mostly upper classmen over 4 years ago.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain that 4 of the 10 players that flunked out we're freshmen and 3 out of 10 were sophmores.
 
BarrelORum said:
The reduction of scholarship limits is not why we suck on the depth chart, although it plays a part. Prior to that, Chan rarely filled his scholarship allotment and he took guys, who no offense, have no business getting a D-1 scholarship to GT. After flunkgate we should have been classes of close to 25 to make up for the losses. We didn't do that. We handicapped ourselves. It was stupid.

Chan's recruiting was the worst in GT football history for 2005 and 2006 prior to this great class. 2004 without Calvin would have been dreadful too. It will take a great class this year, and a full and great class next year to balance out the fact that Dave Wilson totally screwed the pooch in recruiting. And Dave Wilson was Chan's guy who Chan stuck with for a long long time.

Depth is Chan's fault. When the NCAA handed down scholarship reductions, it only effected us for one year not two, because Chan already didn't recruit the numbers he could have.
Click to expand...

I wasn't saying that flunkgate affected us the past couple of years, but it certainly did earlier in Gailey's time here.

I don't know the real reason why Gailey didn't fill the scholarship allotments he had, but I suspect the rigid stance that the admissions department took on admitting SAs had something to do with it. I'm pretty sure we filled all of our schollys for '06. That's not to exonerate Gailey, but just to point out that I don't believe it was 100% his fault (no arguement that it's his responsibility).

I agree Wilson was a disaster and should have been dumped long ago and it'll take a couple of more years to catch up.

But even with bottom ranked classes for 3-4 years in a row AND with a shortage of depth, we STILL have won more than we lost and made it to Jacksonville. What does that say about the coaching?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top