Another fun BuzzOff story for you

Look at the schedule.

Use your brain.

Repeat steps one and two until a neuron fires in there somewhere.

7-4 with the 2005 schedule would probably get CCG Coach of the year. 8-3 and I'll guarantee it.

You really would be happier on Buzzoff. Nobody around here is dumb enough to think your magic replacement HC and or OC is going to turn UGA into our lap dog overnight.

O'Leary feasted on the worst UGA coach in a long time and he had the Fridge carrying him actually. Don't you think the fact that CCG has us back to where many of us expect to beat a top 5 UGA team this year means CCG has built a very good team we should be proud of? What kind of bonehead goes around putting ultimatums on a guy who has put a team in that position?

Football is a game of bounces. The difference betwee 6-5 and 8-3 will be razor thin. Probably two plays. Do you really want to fire a guy if he is two plays from 8-3 because you have it set in your thick head that 6-5 gets him fired?

Best of the Web has a recurring theme called zero-intelligence. I think it fits a lot of these ultimatums I read on here.
 
Plus \'What is acceptable\' implies what is your

bottom estimate. If your ROCK BOTTOM estimate is above 6-5 I think you should be abused on the board.

If the post was 'What do hope for' or 'what do you want' I'm sure you would get 12-0s top to bottom.
 
Re: Look at the schedule.

Thomaston, let me try it this way. We ALL want 10-11 win seasons. Every year. MOST of us expect to win every game on game day, but realize we probably won't win them all. But we're mad after every loss and only satisfied with a resounding win. We all have different definitions of what a good year is. Mine is more than 7 wins. That's last year, next year, 5 years from now. The more over 8 the better the year is. Some years I expect more, but my definition of what's good doesn't really change.

Now you may say I'm settling for mediocrity but I think I'm being realistic about what Tech can expect. As RF said, we've only had a few stretches where we averaged better than that. Yes O'Leary did it for a short period, but his overall record wasn't that good. Gailey actually has a head start with his first 3 years. A couple of 8+ years and his average will be up where you're suggesting it should be.

So my problem with many posters who demand excellence is why they blame Gailey for anything? What they are asking for we've never achieved except for a brief period in the 50s. So you might as well lump George and Dodd in with Chan when you're castigating coaches. You ask why history matters and I'll tell you that it's to bring some perspective to the discussion.

What you're really saying is that you want a coach who will take Tech to levels we've never achieved on a sustained basis. And everyone has their flavor of the month choice that they're sure would do it. But as 3518techie is fond of pointing out Tech is different. We aren't going to get the kids in school that the football factories can. And if we accept them we'll just flunk them out. So given the way we are determined to go about it, anyone who thinks we're going to win 9 a year as a minimum is just being stupid. It isn't going to happen. That's why my cutoff is 7. Below that is mediocre to bad. Above is good to great.
 
JJacket you aren\'t being truthful

Stateline was being sarcastic. Stateline has suggested Chris Petersen as OC. Petersen was a finalist for the Frank Broyles award. Patrick Nix's only claim to faim is having Reggie spike the ball on 3rd and 21. If were losing a ton of starters, expectations would be different. We have 10 starters returning from a top 15 defense. We have 3 key skill people returning on offense.
GTCrew, you are factually challenged. Donnan went 39-19 which was much better than Ray Goff who beat us 5 straight years including the last 3 with teams were below or barely over .500.
NCJacket, you said last year anything less than 7 regular season wins would be unacceptable. Now you are happy with 7 wins. I think you are a good guy but it seems like you are more interested being liked here than having strong opinions.
Rickyreck, the 34-15 stretch was from 1998-2001. Not back in the 1930's. Do you have any goals other than mediocrity? You are a true 54 percenter.
I'll take my chances with a Dan Hawkins anytime. He lost his QB and top rusher in 2003. He went 11-1 in 2004. We need a coach who will aim high not who's satisfied with 6-5.
 
Re: JJacket you aren\'t being truthful

Tell me how you know that Dan Hawkins doesn't = Bill Lewis? Can you guarantee me that?
 
...

[ QUOTE ]
I'll take my chances with a Dan Hawkins anytime. He lost his QB and top rusher in 2003. He went 11-1 in 2004. We need a coach who will aim high not who's satisfied with 6-5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give us Boise's schedule from last year and see how we do. Boise's strength of schedule was 104 last year. They had the worst strength of schedule in the WAC.

Gailey himself said he wasn't satisfied with 6-5 on 790 earlier in the year.
 
Re: JJacket you aren\'t being truthful

Dodds first 12 years on the flats were 1945 tru 1956 not the 1930's and they were the best in GT history one of the best ever in College Football his win average was almost 8.5 games a year and he was playing 10.7 games a year. That was over a 12 year period not a 3 year run. What makes you think that Hawkins or anybody will take the HC job at GT especially given what you and some of the others expect. Anyone that comes to GT must be given time to build a program that is the only way we will ever have a consistant winner and the only way we will keep a coach over a longer period, 10 or more years. The hot young coaches are not comming to GT it's sort of like being a student at TECH, its real easy to fail.

By the way how is it an excuse can be made for GOL's last year because of 911 and one is not accepted for flunk gate? What GOL accomplished is about what I think we can expect realisticly
3 very good years and 1 or 2 good every 7 years anything more is a plus. I would love to see a 9, 10, 11 game average too, I think it's possible but expecting it is pure Fantasy unless academics are changed at GT.

Most of the coaches, that you folks want, won't even consider GT it to hard to win consistantly here. I don't think CCG was the first choice when he was hired.IMO most of those that do not like CCG are PO'd because he was hired over some that were already here and some that were not retained. If you want to blame someone for that blame GOL for leaving.
 
Re: JJacket you aren\'t being truthful

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone that comes to GT must be given time to build a program that is the only way we will ever have a consistant winner and the only way we will keep a coach over a longer period, 10 or more years.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just not true. It took Ross 4 years to win a NC. O'Leary won 10 in his fourth year. It does not take 10+ years to make this team a consistent top 25 team.

With the talent we have we should be top 25 next year.
 
Re: JJacket you aren\'t being truthful

CCU these folks think consistant is 8 to 11 every year.
A lot of things have to happen to win a NC in four years including some luck and with our schedule now, well lets keep our fingers crossed. Ross was here 6 years IMO he would have suffered the same as have all the coaches since Dodds first 12 he knew like most of us that have been around a while it's hard to recruit at GT and hard to win consistantly. IMO GOL left for the same reason. Gettting there is one thing staying there is another.

I, too hope for a lot more this year and also beleive we will be at least top 25.
 
Re: JJacket you aren\'t being truthful

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me how you know that Dan Hawkins doesn't = Bill Lewis? Can you guarantee me that?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's funny is that no one seems to mention that Bill Lewis won the Coach of the Year award the year before he came to Tech. He was THE hot coach in 1991.

The fact of the matter is the overwhelming majority of these young hot OC's or head coaches couldn't come in here and turn in an 8 win season or better. They'd probably do worse. Then we'd be asking to fire them and let the inconsistency begin.

Some of our fans are so stupid they don't realize they promote complete chaos in a football program.
 
Re: JJacket you aren\'t being truthful

Sorry techie but you're wrong. I'm saying the same thing this year that I said last year. 7 wins is the dividing line. I don't think last year was a good year. It was okay, that's not the same as good. Last year if we had won 7 in the regular season I would have been relatively happy. We didn't, and I wasn't.

BTW, what's having a strong opinion mean to you? My "strong opinion" is that less than 7 wins isn't a good year. What is hard to understand about that? Having a less than good year doesn't mean you fire the coach necessarily, it just means the team hasn't lived up to expectations. I feel the same this year. If we win 6 I will be disappointed. If we win 7 I'll be pretty neutral. If we win more I'll be more pleased the higher the number goes. If Chan wins 6 a year for his 5 years we probably need a new coach IMO. How's that?
 
Re: JJacket you aren\'t being truthful

BOR, I think you're right but im willing to accept mediorce, or at least thats what THEY say.

The hot coach is not going to come to GT and I would like to play BS schedule too.
 
Hawkins is 44-7 at Boise State.

This isn't Bill Lewis. Lewis had never won more than 5 games in a season before he went 11-1 in 1991. Hawkins has never won fewer than 8 games. In 2003, Tech lost 24-13 at BYU and didn't score an offensive TD. Boise State beat BYU 50-12 at BYU. Boise State schedule is not that tough but they play schools that have similar facilities and similar recruiting limitations. They are beating those teams handily. No coach comes with a guarantee. Urban Meyer might flop at Florida. I don't expect 8 wins every year. I understand that things ebb and flow. Graduation, early NFL defections, and injuries can affect things. However, with all the returning starters, I don't see why 7-4 is so great. When do we stop getting excuses and revisionist history and start getting results?
 
Re: Hawkins is 44-7 at Boise State.

Who said 7-4 is great? I still don't get your argument. Either you're not really reading the posts you respond to or we use different definitions of the words good, great and okay.

BTW, how come other people can't use history in their argument but you can?
 
Re: Hawkins is 44-7 at Boise State.

Well at least you have a candidate now convince him to come to GT and promise us 8 to 11 wins a year,I still don't think he will and if he won't who's next on your wish list.

Teckie, If the hottest coach in the country, Urban Meyer would not take his dream job at ND what makes you think that This guy will come to GT, Better yet WHY would he even consider coming to GT?

What revisionist history are you talking about?
 
Re: JJacket you aren\'t being truthful

ccu, one other thing I do not want to imply is that it would take 10 years to build a consistant winner but that for us to stay in the top 20 - 25 every year it will take time to do it consistantly and the longer a coach stays at any school the better for the program even more so at GT.

IMO the only way we get a coach to stay for a long period is for the coach to be given time to build his program or get someone that is connected to the school in some way and even that is no gaurantee he will stay. Every time we have a coaching change we lose at a minium 2 years and if we are not carefull we could become a coaching graveyard. GT is simply not an easy coaching situation for even the most capable of coaches. Those calling for a coaching change at this time simply do not understand what could happen to our program. Mediocrity has nothing to do with it.
 
I don\'t know if Hawkins would come to Tech.

I would like to try to find out. Paul Johnson is another possibility. He's won at Navy. NC, I don't mind people using history in their arguments. I just want them to use the history that actually happened. I've shown the "looming academic problems" of O'Leary involved 5 of 10 players that were in high school when he left. 2 others already had personal and academic issues that were known. Also, we've had 2 stretches in the last 15 years where we've seen strong results. In 1989-1991, we were 26-9-1. That's 2 stretches in the last 16 years where we've averaged over 8 wins. Yet, people post that winning 8 games is a pipe dream. With the right coach, right AD, and right president, Tech can succeed in footbal. Unfortunately, we are 0 for 3 in that department right now.
 
3518, that\'s a misrepresentation of the facts

[ QUOTE ]
I've shown the "looming academic problems" of O'Leary involved 5 of 10 players that were in high school when he left.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, 5 of the 10 players were in high school when he left. But he recruited 2 of those 5 himself. So of the 10 only 3 are Gailey guys, NOT half of them like you tried to make it seem. Of those other 5 kids all but one had been here for more than one full season of playing.

So yeah, the academic problems were indeed looming and 70% of it was directly related to the kids George O'Leary brought in. To think that we had no idea that Terron Pullen and McHargue were risks and therefore possible academic problems is inaccurate.

Let me make sure you understand something. I'm not indicting George O'Leary for this problem. He did what he had to do to win at GT and tried to keep our players eligible doing it and tried to be do things clean. I was very vocal in defending George to those who kept ridiculing him after the problems with his "resume/bio." So I have nothing but good thoughts about George. But the fact does remain that he left us in a position where academic problems were on the horizon and our coaches who came in were not allowed to be a part of dealing with the problem we should have seen coming.

As for wanting to find out if other coaches would come I'm not going to argue with you about that. I understand why some folks want another coach and while I think that Dan Hawkins would have a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more difficult time winning here than he does at BSU I do think he's a good coach. Similarly for Paul Johnson I respect him very much but I think it's a huge leap to win at GT versus winning where he's been (though I think he's done a magnificent job and certainly the rigours of academics and all the other factors at the Naval Academy make that job a completely different animal than almost any other job out there including GT).

I don't believe the atmosphere and circumstances that Chan is having to deal with are anywhere even close to similar to what Bobby Ross and George had when they came here. I'm not talking about who had better players and such. I'm just talking about the atmosphere of the NCAA and the rules and the academics being clamped down on, etc...

This is no way excuses not winning more games. I want to win more games than we have just like you do. I just don't know if right now is the right time to make a change. I believe that a change before this upcoming season would be counterproductive and might even be counterproductive after this season. But we'll have to see what this season looks like before crossing that bridge.
 
Re: I don\'t know if Hawkins would come to Tech.

Teckie, you are making my point for me on what I think we can realisticly reach in so far as being sucessful at GT with our football program.There's no more than a 3 year period in there. Those 2 periods you are talking about translate into about 6 years of sucess in 15 according to you by my math thats a little over a one third (1/3) of the time. To you and some others thats accepting mediority.

Paul Johnson although a fine coach at GSU and he is now beginning to to be sucessfull at Navy is still a ways away from a real D1 football coach. Him comming to GT is still a reach as I've said before it is very easy to fail at GT it is a difficult coaching situation even for the most capable of coaches, most of the coaches even those looking for a stepping stone position which GT would be for younger coaches are affraid of us. We were a steping stone for Curry, Ross and GOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top