Dont Let a Win over Lowly Vandy Mask the Obvious...

[The Gnome of Zurich]

Please. A win feels good. A win is better than a loss of course. But the Big picture is that regardless of depth etc., it is obvious that Gailey DOESNT know how to be flexible with his offense and its strengths. By the way, who is in the box this year helping Gailey read the defenses and their tendencies?

In 1993, we won 3 out of our last 4. The last one was a 43-10 loss to UGA at home. But regardless, the writing was on the wall. That coaching staff was inadequate in game preperation and discipline and execution. This is beginning to be undeniably eerily similiar.

A win is a win is a cop-out when everyone is sitting there going 'that was pathetic' and knows how really pathetic it was. The only light that needs to come on is Gailey's. Spread the offense out bring in 3 or 4 Wideouts and you can open up your running game and passing game- just like GT has been successful before. We'll see.
THE WRITING SEEMS TO BE STARTING ON THE WALL. I am not surprised, but those of you who picked GT to win handily need to lower all expectations so you can have better holidays in November and December I believe.

 

[GT_Dean]

 

[Father WASP]

I agree Gnome, the handwriting has been on the wall for some time.

 

[The Gnome of Zurich]

Originally posted by Father WASP:
I agree Gnome, the handwriting has been on the wall for some time.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Yes. And the handwriting looks like this 95% of the time:

Gailey's Offense

x----x x x X x x x--------x
-----------x

-----------x
This will really excite the recruits to come play at GT. Please at least try the 2000 version of offense that works at GT. At least try.

 

[Hedgeplague]

why don't you take all this barking over to the dog pages where it will be appreciated.

 

[gnats67]

Chan still deserves the full 3 years unless the wheels fall completely off (see Arizona. what a pathetic mess) and that's not what's happening.

Chan has the respect of the team, is recruiting well and has the support of the majority of the fan base.

 

[beeware]

Originally posted by gnats67:
Chan still deserves the full 3 years unless the wheels fall completely off (see Arizona. what a pathetic mess) and that's not what's happening.

Chan has the respect of the team, is recruiting well and has the support of the majority of the fan base.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Chan does not deserve anything but a kick in the arse and a ticket out of town for what he has done(and is still doing) to our storied football program.

Giving him additional time to bring us down further before we can start building back is like pouring gas on a fire.

The writing was on the Resume....

 

[The Gnome of Zurich]

Originally posted by gnats67:
Chan still deserves the full 3 years unless the wheels fall completely off (see Arizona. what a pathetic mess) and that's not what's happening.

Chan has the respect of the team, is recruiting well and has the support of the majority of the fan base.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Until we have an AD we trust, you are right, Chan will be here for the start of a 3rd year. In 1993 we went 5-6. We should learn from history. We have had good recruits, that Gailey inherited-dont downplay those recruits. As I have said, right now we still have the talent on the first string to win 6 games. i have consistently said that. I thought we would win 3 because of his philosophy. The spread is what I have been arguing since day 1. If he has an epiphany, which I dont think he has, and figures out how to run the spread, then he will have done the right thing at GT. We'll see. Just because I dont believe in his philosophy doesnt mean i am bashing. It is a difference of opinion.

 

[ncjacket]

We'll see Gnome. I'm not convinced the spread will work well for us as a base offense. I have no issue with those who think we should mix things up more, I can agree with that completely. But we don't have the speed, either in the backfield or at WR to make a true spread attack effective as a base offense.

It does seem to play to Reggie's strengths, but as I said, I'm not so sure about the rest of the offense. Remember last year when we opened things up more we had Clinkscales in the backfield. We don't have anybody like that now unless Grant's injury is at a point where we want to use him an burn the year. Maybe Woods can do it, but PJ and Ace are more traditional backs IMO.

 

[The Gnome of Zurich]

Originally posted by ncjacket:
We'll see Gnome. I'm not convinced the spread will work well for us as a base offense. I have no issue with those who think we should mix things up more, I can agree with that completely. But we don't have the speed, either in the backfield or at WR to make a true spread attack effective as a base offense.

It does seem to play to Reggie's strengths, but as I said, I'm not so sure about the rest of the offense. Remember last year when we opened things up more we had Clinkscales in the backfield. We don't have anybody like that now unless Grant's injury is at a point where we want to use him an burn the year. Maybe Woods can do it, but PJ and Ace are more traditional backs IMO.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Very good points. But, I do believe that Reggie and PJ could run better more consistently with even just 3 wide. Last year's offense would be perfect for Reggie. Yes, you can simplify the reads, but you also play to his strenghts. We did that with Shawn Jones but it was a base philosophy. I said I dont think he had an epiphnay because I do agree the man cannot change his philosophy overnite- Noone can. But that has been my biggest reason to doubt that he could consistently win at GT with his RUN from the 1 BACK/2 BACK offense as a base. I wish it would change. He could hire an O-coordinator at the end of the year who has a more diverse offense and save face by just saying what he said when he was hired-that being a HC and calling Offense is very hard-very few can be consistently successful doing it that way. We'll see. But the philosophy has been my most important reason for doubting that we have the right man.

 

[TIARB]

Nome,

Forgive me, I am abit confused - are you suggesting that we do not run 3 WR offenses in Chan Gailey's GT offense this year?

The reason I ask is that we run in 3 WR sets probably 20-25% of our snaps.(vary's, sometimes 2 backs in an offset I w/o TE's, mostly single TE single back, 3 wRS). We run motion out of it, we flop TE, we run H back, etc.

 

[The Gnome of Zurich]

Originally posted by TIAR,B:
Nome,

Forgive me, I am abit confused - are you suggesting that we do not run 3 WR offenses in Chan Gailey's GT offense this year?

The reason I ask is that we run in 3 WR sets probably 20-25% of our snaps.(vary's, sometimes 2 backs in an offset I w/o TE's, mostly single TE single back, 3 wRS). We run motion out of it, we flop TE, we run H back, etc.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Wrong. WRONG. WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGG. The Tight End is not a wideout! The tight end would be even more of a weapon with 3 wides 40-50% OF THE TIME.
But I am going to give up and just see what happens. And the running game would be better as well. But obviously I didnt learn anything from the last 4 years of offense at GT so i will be quiet on this matter from now on.

 

[TIARB]

Gnome - I am sorry if I was creating confusion by placing the letters TE in my post - you see, a formation can contain THREE WIDEOUTS and *still* have a TE or even 2 in the formation.

We have run many formations that include THREE WIDEOUTS this year. By wideout's, I am referring to SE, Flanker, etc. I am referring to players wearing numbers such as #21, #5, #12, #81, #7. A quick perusal of the program will inform that none of these young men play TE.

Again, we have run formations with THREE WIDEOUTS all season long. In the final drive against Vandy, we were in THREE WIDEOUT formations most of the time. In fact, here is a quick video of the big run by Reggie on that final regulation drive. Please note that we are in a THREE WIDEOUT formation.

Reggie Ball run vs Vandy

Others include the TD pass against Auburn to Mark Logan (again, THREE WIDEOUTS).

I will ask again, are you suggesting that we do not run 3 WR formations in Chan Gailey's offenses at GT this year?

 

[BEESerk]

Early on in the season (didn't see the Vandy game) whenever we removed the FB, we were in a 3 wideout formation.

At BYU it was one of the two formations we ran. either 3 wide and no FB, or 2 wide with a FB. We "mixed it up" a little sometimes by removing the FB and putting a TE behind the line with a little motion action.

 

[techsamillion]

Some people curse the darkness,
Others light a candle.
I say, we have plugged in the searchlights and flipped the switch.... we will battle: we will win some/lose some, but all Tech folks will truly be aboard, not "riding the rails".Otherwise, go along with the flow, chill out, or find another team, at least for this year. We don't want you, nor do we need your (ALL you yard-birds, not just the ones who are dragging down our program on this post, but all others) negativity. The battles are tough enough against our open and honest foes, without having to fight underground detractors such as you. Just hide for awhile; the rest of us will get along a lot better; and I am sure the team will as well; plus they will be most appreciative for your absence from Tech borads.
You are sick; you are hereby "QUARANTeeNED"(sp.). Hopefully, we will not see you again until next year. Go pull for the bull(ey)s.

 

[techsamillion]

"those of you who picked GT to win handily need to lower all expectations".....
Gnome, go home!!!!!!!!! You are out of touch. Maybe some Football 101 person will help you sort things out!!!!

 

[UncleBee]

Originally posted by beeware:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by gnats67:
Chan still deserves the full 3 years unless the wheels fall completely off (see Arizona. what a pathetic mess) and that's not what's happening.

Chan has the respect of the team, is recruiting well and has the support of the majority of the fan base.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Chan does not deserve anything but a kick in the arse and a ticket out of town for what he has done(and is still doing) to our storied football program.

Giving him additional time to bring us down further before we can start building back is like pouring gas on a fire.

The writing was on the Resume....

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Resume? Resume? You must be referring to the O'Leary debacle.

 

[ken04thompson]

Originally posted by techsamillion:
"those of you who picked GT to win handily need to lower all expectations".....
Gnome, go home!!!!!!!!! You are out of touch. Maybe some Football 101 person will help you sort things out!!!!

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Give me a break. What does your comment have to do with Football. Being a fan doesn't mean sticking your head up your behind and going Rah Rah RAh no matter what the state of the team

 

[techsamillion]

No, but it does mean, 100% support no matter what. You obviously are of the younger generation that know little to nothing of loyalty.
By the way your head/nose is stuck up somewhere. Obviously not into anything that has to do with the success of TEch.

 

[oldfoggy]

I guess I'll be asked to go to the vent not only no but hades no. I will support Tech and the SA's until this old body breaths no more. But I will not be a party to seeing Tech destroyed ala BL. I will speak about what I see and if people call me A new BW or a new MsTA so be it. I have seen enough! And to me enough is enough. I did not accept the middle of the road in my life, I always tried to take the hi road and thats what I want for Tech and the SA's. So those of you who are still FOCers take off the blinders and see the real CCG and the road that he is leading Tech down.