Depth is going to be the issue

Certainly scholarship limits affect depth somehwat. But, I do believe under Coach Gailey we tend to leave first stringers on the field too much and do not play reserves.
Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree there. We have top shelf talent - talent that can win us games, but our talent does not go 2 deep. After this recruiting class, we will have one area where it does - DL. Right now, we have none. We need to keep our defense off the field and rested by playing offense well, sustaining drives, and eating clock. That's the one aspect of CCG philosophy I do like - the idea that shortening the game through clock management can allow teams with less depth (us) to hang in there with stronger ones.

If we get recruiting classes as good as this one, though, two more years in a row, we will have achieved the great NoBraine-er - become a 9 win every year team.
 
NCJ, thought I'd remind you. Here is flunk gate.

Only one was an offensive linemen McHargue. Hollings, Malone, Koon, Bridges, Sampson, Pullen, Hargrove, and Sterling Green and Kingi McNair. Green and Koon weren't playing. Bridges, McHargue, Sampson, McNair and Pullen were Gailey recruits. You'll hear a lot about O'Leary bring in academic question marks but the truth is a lot of the flunkouts were Gailey's.

So what about the depth on the OL?
 
Pretty much all of Gailey's First Class shouldn't really count as "Gailey Recruits." He didn't get on the job until extremely late in the process and at that point was taking whatever was available. I'm not saying we didn't get some good players, but he hardly had a chance to get aquainted with the process before it was signing day and even less of a chance to really recruit the players he wanted to. He was stuck with the kids that hadn't already signed and had interest in Tech based on things not really related to him.
 
OK, I'll buy that but then that begs the question why during his next 4 classes did he not bring in more OLmen? Did he think our QB did not need protection, did our running backs not need holes? Just what was he thinking. Even the pros draft OLmen.
 
First off I don't think our OL are bad. There were times when the OL got attacked by fans but I felt that Choice did not completely follow the proper running route. In other words, it's a team game and I expect the team to get it together coming up.

Having said that, Chan said he would not recruit kids that can't help Tech win a championship. I suspect he held off on linemen one year when he didn't see what he wanted and thought the next year would provide it. Regardless, we did get caught short. But so does every other Top 20 team in America.

I think we took a lot of developmental linemen that are okay but just never quite filled out the britches. Add in a few losses like Brezina, McHargue, etc. and we're just behind a little.
 
McHargue, is that a joke? He never played a down or at the most few. So how do you know? If you are hanging your hat on that guy pls tell me what you base your debate on. Also tell me about all those diamonds in the rough where CG was going to make them into all everything.
 
Fogey, I was just answering your question as to what happened to OL for a couple of Chan's early years. The few that Chan did recruit didn't work out was all I was reminding you.
 
You really didn't answer my question. You stated an opinion nothing more. Me I like empirical data, I also like a supposition if it's based on facts yet to be proven. The proof is we now see that CG did not do such a good job with the OL, the QB, and use of wide outs, FB, etc! But god bless those SA's for letting it all hang out when they were not up to the task.

By the way with a football player I know that empirical data is worthless but play is, and we see that his diamonds in the rough are not as good as many would have liked.
 
Last edited:
we see that his diamonds in the rough are not as good as many would have liked.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but I would say they are far better than some expected them to be. You included.
 
How do you know what I expected? I expected to see only the best, I did not expect to see quit, I did not expect to see 51-7 x2, I did not expect to see Fresno etc. However, if we had not depended so much on the diamonds in the rough we may not have had the blow outs.
 
So how do you provide empirical data on players who were hurt or flunked out of school? You asked where the OL were and you got an answer. Now you want to know how anyone knows they would have been good. Well, no one knows that for sure. Just as no one knows for sure what Claytor will do in college. There is no empirical data for some questions.
 
foghole,
One of the issues you continually harp on about Gailey is that "the guy can't recruit" which certainly implies you didn't expect his players to be any good.
 
To you NCJ, I said you can not have empirical data on a player. READ!

TO you GTL, I did not say a word about recruiting. I spoke only on the subject which was stated many times on this board about CG finding the diamonds in the rough. I also only stated that the diamonds in the rough may have not have been coached up like so many said!
 
I also only stated that the diamonds in the rough may have not have been coached up like so many said!
Click to expand...

You said that?? I've tried reading your mind, but it's waaay too foggy to understand anything in it!
 
Maybe we should think we're playing stanford instead of Samford--we might play even harder.This team has character and the loss will make them play harder than ever.
 
oldfoggy said:
Just how long will it take to get some depth? Seems like I've heard that for 4 and starting a 5th year now. Seems to me there have been ample classes to get some depth. If my memory has not failed me this is CCG 6th class so when the depth?
Click to expand...

Wrong--not the 6th class-- do your math ,,I think he has 4 of his classes in uniform.The 1st was George' s
since Chan didnt get here til Jan 15--this one wont see the field til 2007.
 
GEETEELEE said:
You said that?? I've tried reading your mind, but it's waaay too foggy to understand anything in it!
Click to expand...

GTL that was simple English, now I could have written it in Spanish or Romanian but didn't. If you need I guess I can write it in 5th grade English, not many big words and I can do it in the style of See Jane Run, See Dick Run etc.

Leather, why didn't you warn them then? I am just making the point that what is the problem with DEPTH? Could it be our pro/illustrious coach?
 
wilmoo said:
Wrong--not the 6th class-- do your math ,,I think he has 4 of his classes in uniform.The 1st was George' s
since Chan didnt get here til Jan 15--this one wont see the field til 2007.
Click to expand...

That is true, but I was counting the class that has yet to be signed sorry about the confusion. This is CG's 6th class although unsigned but verbal-ed.
 
GTL/NCJ if CG had not made some reaches like Pupello, Morrison, and Fleuridor who have either left the team or are now on the scout team we might have had some depth on the OL. All teams make reaches but this I think shows the lack of good reaches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top