7th toughest schedule in country

Of course, I have been here since the Dodd days and remember quite a bit, but have also forgotten quite a bit.

My remembrance of Curry was that he was a strict disciplinarian. It is almost impossible for me to believe Ross had to institute more discipline than Curry. I would like to hear some comments about this from some of the other long timers.

The problem with Curry seemed to be a lack of the Xs and Os during the games. His teams were well conditioned and disciplined.

Father Time
 
Good post Ahso.. .

Gnome.. I hear what you are saying, but my point is this.. the ACC Championships that Ross acheived at Maryland didnt mean anything at Tech.. UNTIL HE HAD A CHANCE TO PUT HIS TEAM TOGETHER... it seems that everyone wants to have it both ways.. "Tech is a special place" so.. if someone was sucessful at Maryland, then they should also be successful at Tech.. then are we saying that Tech and Maryland are the same.. or, are the two mutually exclusive in terms of this argument (academics, choice of majors, etc).. I think in terms of this argument, they are mutually exclusive.. but, Ross was given the time to do his job.. Curry was given the time to do his job.. O'Leary was given the time to do his job... and Gailey should be given the time to do his.

Ms Tech.. if you say that Ross did not fail while winning only 5 games in two years, then how in the hell can you say that Gailey failed while winning 7 in one.. that makes absolutely no sense.. and its easy to say Ross was "rebuilding" when you are looking in the rear view mirror.. but, EVERYONE was after Ross when WF beat us to death in 1987.. EVERYONE !! And are you saying that Curry did not have the program on the right track? It certainly was not at the 1990 standards.. but neither was Ross's 1989 nor 1991 seasons to that standard either... they looked very similar to 1985 to me..

Discipline.. are you saying that Curry did not discipline his players.. I can assure you that was not the case... and the issue with Ross was not discipline.. the issue with Ross was approach and approachability... it was that simple. Ross, had trouble relating to the players.. that was the crux of the issue..

And Gnome.. while I respect your points and even respect the fact that you dont like Gailey.. there is nothing wrong with that.. at least you admit it.. but also admit that you are fabricating reasons that you have conjured up from the media etc.. I would ask you, what methods has Gailey implemented, in terms of discipline, that have proven to be the most detrimental as opposed to the methods that GOL used. I would also ask you, in terms of total respect, do you think Gailey has earned more respect from the players thus far as compared to, lets say, the 2001 season under GOL... also, what would you base those answers on... people like to make fun of Gailey for his ineptitude with the media (and there is alot to be desired).. but Ross nor GOL were exactly PR guys either.. I wouldnt look to hire either of them for a commercial anytime soon..

The fact of the matter is this... there are some who will never like Gailey... just as there were some who never liked GOL, even when he won 10 games, there were some who wanted him out of Tech.. and yes, I am talking about influential contributors.. I dont know how Gailey will do, dont know how the team will do this year.. but I do know this.. the Tech fanbase is the worst sometimes... for some, the glass will always be half-empty .. I often wondered why they really showed up in the stands on game day.

I hope Gailey is successful.. I hope this years team shocks some people.. are the odds against us.. of course they are.. but these kids and coaches are getting enough "negative" news from the media etc. without my going onto an internet message board and piling on as well... EVERY team has its question marks this year.. preseason 1990 we didnt really have a defensive line either.. but we did fine.. we have kids and coaches that have worked hard this year and are working hard right now getting ready for this season.. I for one will enjoy their success... some wont, because they just cant stand coach.

And Gnome.. I am not sure where you were during Ross's first two years.. but the grumbling now is nothing as compared to then.. the biggest difference, and I think its good.. is the expectation level is much higher now than it was in 1987... you put Ross in as coach in 2002 with the same results he had his first two years.. he would have been two and out..
 
Jacketguy: The environments with Gailey taking over and Ross taking over ARE DIFFERENT. Ross took over and we didn't expect much to happen rigth away - he didn't inherit a Top 25 program or come after the successes of a previous coach.

Curry was okay - but never brought GT to the Top 25 consistently much less at all. Ross's resume and previous success in Div. 1 football does mean something here - it establishes what any Div. 1 school would want - someone who has already done it somewhere else!

The fact that Ross came to a very different environment then Maryland academically brings EVEN more importance to what he had to deal with and how he got it done. Maryland's liberal arts is no GT - yet in spite of the academic environment here and being burdened with players not liking his 'take no prisoners' mentality - he dealt with building this program.

Chan, however yow want to look at this, inherited players WHO OBVIOUSLY LIKE HIM, by their comments and less discipline environment, he did inherit a Top 25 Program and don't give me that decline stuff - we ended up in the Top 25 in 2001 at #23 AP. Chan was looking for greener pastures and GT was it.

Ross didn't come to greener pastures and still took the job! I have a problem with a coach who says he wants a Top 25 Program - what happens if the program has a bad season here and there and you're not in the Top 25? Not wanting to take on something and put your stamp on it is lazy!

We'll see now if this program goes forward with a coach who wanted it easy to begin with.
 
All good points and opinions. I think we will really be starting to split hairs on this issue from here on. My opinion is Gailey is not the right man for the job. He has to be given a chance- which is one more year, this year. But the most important issue for me is getting a new Ad with organizational skills and marketing tact to be able to assess what we have been discussing. And I will end the discussion on Gailey, but not on the other from here on. How's that. Let's just say there is a differnce of opinion on how to handle the situation. By the way, there really are actual freshman listed on the depth chart and they havent even signed up for classes yet. I do truly hope all of my opinions are proven to be bad. Good points regarding Gailey but I think he is not our number one issue at GT.
 
MsTA, you just made another erroneous statement. You said the players obviously liked Gailey last year! Who told you that? It definitely was not obvious all the players liked him.

If you don't think a 7-5 record was a decline in 2001 from an expected national championship, I have this bridge I would like to sell you.

You are either making some of this up or getting bad information.

Father Time
 
Originally posted by The Gnome of Zurich:
All good points and opinions. I think we will really be starting to split hairs on this issue from here on. My opinion is Gailey is not the right man for the job. He has to be given a chance- which is one more year, this year. But the most important issue for me is getting a new Ad with organizational skills and marketing tact to be able to assess what we have been discussing. And I will end the discussion on Gailey, but not on the other from here on. How's that. Let's just say there is a differnce of opinion on how to handle the situation. By the way, there really are actual freshman listed on the depth chart and they havent even signed up for classes yet. I do truly hope all of my opinions are proven to be bad. Good points regarding Gailey but I think he is not our number one issue at GT.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Gnome.. I am in total agreement with you about the AD.. have felt that way since December 2001.. and you could be right about Gailey.. but I feel if they give him a chance, not only will he do the job.. we will be proud of him... just like JP Foschi...
 
Exactly the reason I want a new AD and his group (who presumably would have strong ties to the GT community) and let them have a fresh look. If that happened I would be willing to give him another year because I would have faith in the Organization and its people around him. Right now, no faith in the AD leads to not as much faith in the program for me a this time. I want more than anybody for Gailey to bring a big winner to us, but sooner than later. The 7-6 record last year is no where near the 7-5 record in 1997, I am sure you would agree. I am done on this and will see what happens during the season (not after). Sela
 
Originally posted by ahsoisee:
Of course, I have been here since the Dodd days and remember quite a bit, but have also forgotten quite a bit.

My remembrance of Curry was that he was a strict disciplinarian. It is almost impossible for me to believe Ross had to institute more discipline than Curry. I would like to hear some comments about this from some of the other long timers.

The problem with Curry seemed to be a lack of the Xs and Os during the games. His teams were well conditioned and disciplined.

Father Time
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">If I remember correctly (correct me if I am wrong), Curry promised that we would take the ACC with our disipline and integrity or something of the sort.
 
Originally posted by ylojk8:
i've hacked away a lot regarding Ross vs Gailey.

if Ross had great assistants, if he was a great disciplinarian, if he had just won a cpl of ACC titles, why did it take him 3 years to succeed at tech?

we didn't we win ONE acc game under Ross in his first two years. why?

ross took over tech from curry who had just had a 9-2 season followed by a 5-5-1 season and then tech didn't win one ACC game for two complete seasons much like how duke is these days.

no question about ross's coaching prowess
no question about his disciplinarian approach
no question about his assistants

what happened then? why did he go 2-9 and 3-8 in his first two years at Tech?

i don't get it.

the only correlation that i have found is that any new hire at tech has had very limited success in his initial years.

ross' tech teams in his first two years were horrible. but tech was patient with his hire. ross eventually succeeded.

bill lewis came in and tech was patient with his hire. lewis eventually failed.

we have to be patient with new hires at georgia tech. without that virtue, we will never know if we hired a lewis or a ross or somewhere in between.

the rest is all feelings and emotions and gut instincts. ross' approach failed in his first two years. i'm sure many many people must have had emotions and feelings and instincts about those years.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ross had lots of issues to deal with when he got here - one of them discipline and rules! I have first hand knowledge of his changes and the price some players paid! Cannot post that here but we as a family know more then I can say. Ross did NOT fail in his first two years - he was building what needed to be changed here. He red-shirted many because it was a necessary to build what he needed to succeed going forward. He took early hits with wins to get the players and establish depth in order to compete and contend.

Ghome is correct. There were many, many things Ross took and completely changed and held steadfast until everyone was on the same page. He started his process immediately and it was quite an 'eye-opener'! Unlike Chan, Ross was not loved by a lot of players he inherited, quite the opposite. He came in like gangbusters and laid out rules and policies that DID NOT make some happy at all!

In the end, he was a model for how to get a program on the right track and winning! He fortunately laid the ground work for what is needed here and what has to be done.
 
Good points, both ylojk8 and MsTech. Hands-On is much much different from Hands-Off. It doesnt insure winning but more times than not I believe it is a core philosophy to win at Tech. With the new 40/60/80 rule coming into effect, Hands-On is an even more critical approach as part of a successful philosophy, I believe. Like I wrote in my post, my main focus is starting at top, getting what I see as a ship with many holes fixed, fresh new organization in place, and let them decide whether the football program is going down the path that Ross' did. Why did it take so long for Ross to win at Tech you ask versus Maryland. Like MsTech said, he implemented a regimen, a structured system, that was more disciplined than Bill Curry ever thought of. Curry did well at Tech, dont get me wrong. But Ross had the support from inside the AA (the fans were grumbling but Rice and his inner group believed it would work because he had just won 3 straight championships) We dont have that support here for either the AD or Gailey. And we dont have history at the Div I level of success in our coach. No that's not a prerequisite, but building a philosophy around kids and men are 2 absolutely different deals. I hope I am wrong about Gailey's philosophy and I hope we have a dream season. But let's get the right organization in place to help make the tough decisions, and I dont believe we have that right now from marketing to tickets etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top