chernoff and Gailey exchanged strong words on 790

Give me a break. is that how you would want your coach to respond to questions? Being argumentative? Please...
Click to expand...
There's no other way to answer it. This CLEARLY doesn't work:

Chernoff: (paraphrased) "You don't develop quarterbacks."
Gailey: "I won't argue with you."

...even though I'm sure you'da loved it, 33jacket.

Once that question hits the table he must argue it or we risk giving negative recruiting fodder to Richt and pals. And the only way he can base it is to say that the stats aren't as meaningful as winning games is, and that the media doesn't get a chance to see everything he sees. Those are the only legs he can stand on, on an answer he must give whether it's true or not. And he went right for those 2 answers.

He had no choice. There was no other way to answer that question, no matter what the 'truth' may be. The only other thing he could have added in retrospect was "You are correct that Reggie did not improve as much as I had personally hoped, but he did improve, and it's unfair to ignore his accomplishments in your attempt to prove that he didn't." But the conversation was hot, and I know I wouldn't have been able to pull that out of my ass while trying to squeeze words in edgewise vs Chernoff the Sports Limbaugh.
 
JonnyGT said:
I thought that was ridiculous as well. He can try to sell that if he wants, but not many GT fans are buying. Why does he claim then that beating UGA is one of the 3 or so specific goals every season? Can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
I haven't listened to the interview yet and don't really care what he said (regarding the UGA question). His stated team goals every year are to win the ACC and beat UGA. As long as both remain equal in importance, his priorities are in order.
 
ContactBuzz said:
I haven't listened to the interview yet and don't really care what he said (regarding the UGA question). His stated team goals every year are to win the ACC and beat UGA. As long as both remain equal in importance, his priorities are in order.
Click to expand...

You need to listen to the interview but not because of the UGA question though it was hard to listen to. He coems across very poorly on radio or TV and then to hear his borderline anger was discouraging. He sounded like a man under intense pressure to me and not one who is only focused on tomorrow night.
 
What I think he should say:

I want to win every game on our schedule, but if I could only win one game it would be the UGA game because winning that game has such an enormous positive impact on our program.
 
thwg said:
You need to listen to the interview but not because of the UGA question though it was hard to listen to. He coems across very poorly on radio or TV and then to hear his borderline anger was discouraging. He sounded like a man under intense pressure to me and not one who is only focused on tomorrow night.
Click to expand...
I know. I'll listen to it tonight at home but sadly, I'm no longer surprised at how poorly he comes across in interviews. Perhaps he is under more pressure but I don't think I've ever heard him sound comfortable when dealing with the media.
 
JTS said:
What he should have said is:

I want to win every game on our schedule, but if I could only win one game it would be the UGA game because winning that game has such an enormous positive impact on our program.
Click to expand...

You should be in the PR department.

Please send your resume to:
150 Bobby Dodd Way NW
Atlanta, GA 30332

That would have been a more than acceptable answer.
 
beej67 said:
Chernoff: (paraphrased) "You don't develop quarterbacks."
Gailey: "I won't argue with you."

...even though I'm sure you'da loved it, 33jacket.


He had no choice. There was no other way to answer that question, no matter what the 'truth' may be. The only other thing he could have added in retrospect was "You are correct that Reggie did not improve as much as I had personally hoped, but he did improve, and it's unfair to ignore his accomplishments in your attempt to prove that he didn't." But the conversation was hot, and I know I wouldn't have been able to pull that out of my ass while trying to squeeze words in edgewise vs Chernoff the Sports Limbaugh.
Click to expand...

Both your proposed answers are better than what he gave. There is nothing wrong in him admitting reggie didn't improve like he had hoped, and that he would like to do better down the road. Whats wrong with that? It was only hot b/c Gailey challenged chernoff and his opinion. If gailey addressed the original Q like you and I have stated...it kills the question and they move on.

Gailey's reluctance to admit error, or admit he needs to improve is what gets him in trouble. He starts fighting back saying its opinion yadda yadda yadda despite reggie going 7-5 his first 3 years, and his final year having statistically the same #'s he did his first three. Did he improve...NO...did the Team his last year...YES. Reggie wasn't the reason we made the ACCCG game, CJ, TC, and the D was.

What is wrong saying he didn't improve like we had hoped and move on? Instead the answer was that is your opinion and you are wrong. Even matt pointed out the reason we had to come back from Miami and NC STate was reggies poor play...WHICH IT WAS.
 
Both your proposed answers are better than what he gave.
Click to expand...

What, these: (?)

And the only way he can base it is to say that the stats aren't as meaningful as winning games is, and that the media doesn't get a chance to see everything he sees.
Click to expand...

...because that was his answer.

What is wrong saying he didn't improve like we had hoped and move on?
Click to expand...

Saying he didn't improve is bad. Saying "we hoped he'd have improved more" is better. But Chernoff drilled the "no improvement" thing, and Chan had to react with a "some improvement" response or he (and by extension, all of us) was nailed.
 
Maybe Chan will get fired up from the pressure and prove all the naysayers wrong by winning out.

I hope so. I would take no pleasure from the "tolja so" if we perform true to form.

In fact, I have a fantasy where UGA scores first and celebrates with the entire team. Our team is entirely unemotional until the end of the game when they celebrate a 49-7 victory.

There is still hope for the team to learn to play 60 minutes instead of only 30. It may be a slim hope but it is hope.
 
Beej

not to be rude...but u are the only one here...it appears...that doesn't have issue with Chan's responses. your issue is with Chernoff and his questions.

That is what is odd...even the biggest chan supporters...even on the hive...say he didn't handle it well and are calling it a train wreck.

Come on...anyone can see that interview stunk up the joint. If you think Chernoffs Q's were antagonistic...fine...but he seemed pretty even keeled and fair in asking them. What was antagonistic was Gailey challenging him back saying thats your opinion and " i regret ever talking with you on this topic" WOW.
 
You can't "dread" doing stuff like this much like you can't "dread" making phone calls that you know may suck on a regular basis at work. You pick up the phone, think 'heh, this could be interesting, then you dial the #". its not that hard to talk about football. gailey made a phone call look like quantum physics.

Onto the interview:

If Gailey doesn't take what these guys say seriously, then why doesn't he, in essence, TAKE THESE INTERVIEWS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT?

He needs to relax. I mean, that was awful...just awful.
 
Don't want to pile on and haven't listend to the interview...but I think the problem isn't this particular media interaction as much as this is an example of stubborness that has come through in the media as well as in games throughout CG's tenure.

There seem to be multiple cases when Gailey gave responses that led interviewers and listeners scratching their heads wondering if he actually believes what he says.

Then there was my favorite comment early in his tenure here when he said WTTE that he didn't believe in halftime adjustments - stick to the gameplan whether it is working or not. That attitude drives me nuts.

One sure-fire way to shut up an interviewer on the attack is to admit you may have made mistakes and commit to improvement. You can say "I did it for the following reasons but in hindsight I would have made different decisions."
 
Does it really matter? It's all about winning games. I could care less if our coach is or isn't media savy.
 
Last edited:
I thought the questions being asked by the 790 guys addressed real issues and were raised in pretty thoughtful way until Chan's "now I bring up the truth and you want to change the subject comment". I think that comment called into question the 790 guy's credibilty and forced them to take the conversation to place that they clearly did not want to go because they wanted to maintain a friendly relationship with Gailey. When the 790 guys said "well we'll just agree to disagree" and tried to move on to another subject, Chan should have just let it go.
 
Like the President, Gailey is a poor communicator via mass media outlets. Like the President, in one on one situations he comes off much, much better. Like the President, he has done a far better job than he's generally given credit for.

Like the President, Gailey's detractors often suffer from "Gailey Derangement Syndrome".
 
what I can't figure out is why..........

....none of the interviews I ever hear with Mark Richt recently have brought up last year's vandy and UK losses?

Oh...yeah.....BECAUSE THEY WERE LAST YEAR!!!!

THAT's what made the re-hashing of the entire RB issue totally senseless. CG's working on prep for a HUGE Thursday night national broadcast game that could keep us in the race for a return to the ACCCG and Matt Jerkoff wants to harp on and on about Reggie?

Chan's a better man than me.....I'd have told him to suck it. :D
 
not to be rude...but u are the only one here...it appears...that doesn't have issue with Chan's responses. your issue is with Chernoff and his questions.
Click to expand...

Gailey certainly could have handled the interview better. And I definitely think he screwed up on the UGA question, he really needs to learn to chose his words carefully with the Tech fanbase so bent out of shape like it is.

But Chan's first mistake was not requesting Chris Dimino instead, or trying to catch Oliver on a day when Chernoff isn't around. Chernoff makes his living by making interviewees look dumb, and he does it to everyone he interviews, and he does it to everyone who calls in. Listen to the show once in a while. Chan actually did much better than most do.
 
Wow, I just listened to the interview. While I think he could have answered some of the questions a bit better, I REALLY don't see what all the fuss is about...Mike
 
Re: what I can't figure out is why..........

Buzzfan said:
....none of the interviews I ever hear with Mark Richt recently have brought up last year's vandy and UK losses?

Oh...yeah.....BECAUSE THEY WERE LAST YEAR!!!!

THAT's what made the re-hashing of the entire RB issue totally senseless. CG's working on prep for a HUGE Thursday night national broadcast game that could keep us in the race for a return to the ACCCG and Matt Jerkoff wants to harp on and on about Reggie?

Chan's a better man than me.....I'd have told him to suck it. :D
Click to expand...

WOH wait. They didn't bring up reggie CHAN DID. Matt said the QB position over the last 6 years hasn't really improved, then he listed all the QBs, Suggs, bilbo, reggie, Taylor...and asked Chan to address that. CHAN said wait....reggie improved...Thats when matt said huh? Statistically he didn't.

Chan brought up reggie as an example, not matt. i will listen to it again...but I am pretty sure this is the case.

Maybe Matt baited him knowing what a slow man chan is...

EDIT TO SAY:
YES I am correct. Matt didn't bring up reggie. He asked chan if he disagreed or agreed with the statement that the position hasn't seen much improvement year over year for the last 6 years. CHAN was the one who brought up RB as an example of improvement. Listen again. HE MADE HIS OWN BED on that one...he didn't have to answer the question like he did and even when he began to answer it with the words "I disagree" he sounded offended and agitated by the statement...which BTW is true...the QB position hasn't seen improvement

Edit #2:
Ok...matt did bait him...there is only 1 QB chan had that came back to play a 2nd year..and the way matt followed it up its obvious he baited chan to talk about reggie and the fact he had reggies stats at hand prove it and fired them off may be an indicator at that. Although I don't agree with bringing up RB, i think matt's point was correct that 1) there hasn't been improvement 2) why wasn't reggie benched at certain times; I am glad he asked it and got really into it b/c it was overdue. I also STILL don't agree with how chan handled the question. What is probably the saddest...is chernoff of all people manipulated chan right into his pocket.

anyway...dead subject for me now.
 
Just listened to it. Nothing bad there IMO. Just a football debate. I have always wished Gailey was more media savvy, but you are going to defned yor program and your players. No, I don't agree with Gailey that Ball improved very much, but recruiting is starting to improve and I think Chan and the staff is on the cusp of some good things. Boy, 9-3 would be such a good thing for this regular season. Here's hoping that starts tomorrow with a big win over a ranked team on national tv.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top