Espn

Now that's some serious spin from Gailey

"There was pressure to throw Calvin Johnson the ball almost every snap even though he might be double-covered," Gailey said. "Now, there is the opportunity to spread the ball around to the open receiver. We don't have a dominating guy anymore at that position."
Click to expand...

Uh-huh.

So, it is actually a GOOD thing not to have Calvin Johnson around anymore. Now that he is gone we have the opportunity to spread it around.

Sorry, Chan. We obviously didn't succumb to the pressure to "throw Calvin Johnson the ball almost every snap" in many games I watched. How about the idea that a receiver that draws double and triple coverage opens the opportunity to "spread the ball around" to the OTHER OPEN receivers who should be available.

I am not (or was not previously) a Chan-hater, but that comment from our coach was incredibly ignorant.

The only pressure to throw the ball to CJ rather than other receivers was that he was that he was more likely to make a play, even when double covered, than our other receivers due to the inaccurate passes.

The lack of a premiere receiver is not a good thing. I would dearly love to see Calvin over a season with an accurate QB who could make the opposition pay for paying too much attention to him.
 
Re: Now that's some serious spin from Gailey

Who's comment is ignorant here? Don't you think that Chan's comments were prompted by the reporter? What's he supposed to say, we have no chance without Calvin? Yes it's spin, that's what you do to the press.
 
So, it is actually a GOOD thing not to have Calvin Johnson around anymore. Now that he is gone we have the opportunity to spread it around.
Click to expand...

??? How did you read that into the quote?

Seems to me that Gailey is saying they plan to make the most of the situation at hand with the tools they got to work with.
 
I hate to agree with LFD on this one, but Chan's statement did give the impression he is relieved that CJ isn't the focal point of the offense. I'm sure that's not what he meant, but it does come off that way.

I do think our offense will be better DESPITE losing CJ. It won't be better BECAUSE we lose him, but the outlook is more promising this year than last.
 
No, the statement that they chose to put in the article made it sound that way. We have no idea what Chan's whole statement was.
 
Re: Now that's some serious spin from Gailey

lonestarjacket said:
Sorry, Chan. We obviously didn't succumb to the pressure to "throw Calvin Johnson the ball almost every snap" in many games I watched. How about the idea that a receiver that draws double and triple coverage opens the opportunity to "spread the ball around" to the OTHER OPEN receivers who should be available.
Click to expand...

like ncjacket said, the reporter clearly asked loaded questions to write the story he wanted to write "GT, life after CJ..."

about spreading the ball around, not so sure that was Chan's doing/not doing or whatever. The two people more directly responsible for that are both gone.

the OC we have coming in CJB should be better at in game adjustments based on his resume. This is something Nix seemed to struggle with. Having a QB that seems to be better at reading coverages and a OC better at in game adjustment, will help us spread the ball around.

To me, Chan seemed to hint at Nix's weaknesses last year, with throwing Nix under that bus.
 
ncjacket said:
No, the statement that they chose to put in the article made it sound that way. We have no idea what Chan's whole statement was.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I am not writing this all off to the mean old reporter trying to make Chan look bad. The general tone of the story was positive for both GT and Gailey. And, as an experienced Division 1 HC, Gailey should be experienced with handling the media and not providing something he didn't mean, even out of context.

There is no context I can imagine that makes that statement acceptable.

Here's a better response:

"Calvin Johnson was an incredible talent and an asset to our program. There is no way to replace a talent like Calvin, but we will adjust by spreading the ball to our other talented receivers." He could even add, "Overall, I expect our offense to improve this year." He could easily provide positive spin without ANY implication that Calvin was even an indirect liability.

There is no explanation or context to excuse the "pressure to throw him the ball" comment. There is always pressure to get the ball to your most talented player, because that's the way to win.
 
GTWannaBee said:
I hate to agree with LFD on this one, but Chan's statement did give the impression he is relieved that CJ isn't the focal point of the offense. I'm sure that's not what he meant, but it does come off that way.

I do think our offense will be better DESPITE losing CJ. It won't be better BECAUSE we lose him, but the outlook is more promising this year than last.
Click to expand...

I agree.

The point is that as good as it might be it would definitely be better with CJ.
 
Whatever, you worry about the detail too much you miss the bigger view. The point is we should have a very good offense this year even without CJ.

Plus how do you keep the media from taking something out of context? Ever spoken with the media? The only way to keep that from happening is not to talk to them.
 
Give the ball to Choice. Dink and dunk. Taylor Bennett is da man. Play DEEFENSE!

I'm having waffles for dinner.
 
It amazes me how some people/fans can read something in the paper, make so much out of it reading between the lines, while putting their own twists to what was said.
 
This is another deflection from Chan. He is obviously still very sensitive about criticism of playing Reggie come hell or high water. I just hope he doesn't claim that RB would have been a better qb without #21.

I think Taylor had plenty success in the GB spreading the ball around even with that albatross Johnson going for 200. ;)
 
lonestarjacket said:
There is no context I can imagine that makes that statement acceptable.
Click to expand...

How about, "There was pressure to throw Calvin Johnson the ball almost every snap (by dumb mass fans like lonestarjacket, and reporters like Terrence Moore,) even though he might be double covered(, our receivers were too inexperienced to break their routes correctly, and our quarterback threw most passes into the 7th row when even slightly pressured, while we had a running back going for nearly 1,500 yards). Now, there is an opportunity to spread the ball around to the open receiver (and running back like we did last year when seven players not named Calvin scored our other 27 TDs even though those same dumb masses didn't bother to notice that we did that while going to the ACCCG and a New Years Day bowl that they boycotted). We don't have a dominating guy anymore at that position(, but maybe those dimwits will finally figure out it's a team game and we're pretty durn good despite losing our best player).
 
Let LSJ and whoever pee and moan about what a reporter puts in an article. The QB, the OL, the new OC , Chan, the incoming freshmen and the team practices have me pumped. I am not going to let the LSJ post change that one bit.
 
Some coaches are good with the media and others are not. Something makes me think Professional Communication wasn't an emphasis in the Florida PE program.
 
there have been numerous examples of when SUPER players leave teams do BETTER

Peyton Manning was the last one. Won the national championship AFTERWORDS.

I don't necessarily think it is b/c you can spread it around it probably has to do with players STEPPING up.

If you think Reggie/Nix didn't have pressure to get the ball the CJ you people are insane.

I DO THINK our offense could be better next year and think that is what CG was saying.
 
law_bee said:
there have been numerous examples of when SUPER players leave teams do BETTER

Peyton Manning was the last one. Won the national championship AFTERWORDS.

I don't necessarily think it is b/c you can spread it around it probably has to do with players STEPPING up.

If you think Reggie/Nix didn't have pressure to get the ball the CJ you people are insane.

I DO THINK our offense could be better next year and think that is what CG was saying.
Click to expand...

Do you think Fulmer would have turned down the chance to have Peyton Manning one more year? Do you really think Tennessee would not have been even better the championship year with Peyton?

Out offense could be better next year in spite of losing CJ and I will be disappointed if it isn't. But if that is what Chan meant then THAT is what he should have said.
 
I heard one commentator say Jeff Garcia did well in Philly partly because Andy Reid didn't feel pressured to use Donovan McNabb on every play. Or something to that effect. It didn't make much sense to me either.

However, it does show some of the reasoning behind Chan's comment, whether he meant it or not. I can't think of anything better Chan would have said and I wonder if "yeah, our receivers will suck without Calvin this year" would have been more palatable to some here.
 
In a round about way...maybe CJ not having to save a certain QB from total disaster. Maybe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top