Gailey and Bond are polar opposites.

wesleyd21

wesleyd21

Dodd-Like
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Messages
16,552
I believe that John Bond and Chan Gailey are polar opposites.

In an article John Bond wrote back in 03', Bond stated, "you NEVER tell your quarterback 'hey, don't throw an interception here'." This coincides with great teachers in other sports such as the legendary golf instructor, Harvey Penick. i.e. "take dead aim" and NEVER say "hey, don't hit it in the water". You know why they don't tell they're pupils "NEVER"? Its because it plants seeds of negative thought in their heads. Its absolutely true and that is no way to teach someone how to perfrom.

Now let's focus on Gailey's philosophy. How many times have you heard him say, "the quarterback absolutely cannot turn the ball over in that situation" OR "you have to avoid the turnover" etc... it goes on and on. Its NEGATIVE phsycology that is hurting our team and quarterback play for the last 5 years. Some of you may disagree but i don't really have any reason why NOT to believe this.

Gailey teaches our QB's what NOT TO DO. That will NEVER produce.
 
You're reading way too much into this. The issue is you don't tell a quarterback just before a play "Don't throw an interception." You can tell them that all you want in practice, but you can't say DON'T just before a play - and that goes for any position (i.e - FG Kicker).
 
Bond is an innovative guy, I was hoping for more on offense this year. There was a reason why Pat "left" and John came in, it was to bring some new innovative things to this offense and to get away from what we did the last couple of years. Gailey would of kept Nix, wasnt his choice though. Bond is here now and things are staying the same, Gailey is not letting Bond produce and have free reigns simple as that, everyone see's it. Bond would like to put up 40 points a game, Gailey doesnt want to because that produces more turnovers, even though we have an awesome D who will keep us in the game regardless. Doesnt make too much sense on Chan's part. We need to score. If not someone or maybe a couple someone's will be gone.
 
Gailey specifically told Suggs to throw the ball away at the end of the first half vs Fresno State if they dropped back into Cover-2 defense. He specifically said "don't throw an interception, especially if they do X." Then they dropped back in Cover-2, and Suggs threw the ball directly to the safety, for a pick-6.

I'm sure that anecdote is relevant to this thread somehow.
 
beej67 said:
Gailey specifically told Suggs to throw the ball away at the end of the first half vs Fresno State if they dropped back into Cover-2 defense. .
Click to expand...
Yes, this is true....
beej67 said:
He specifically said "don't throw an interception, especially if they do X." Then they dropped back in Cover-2, and Suggs threw the ball directly to the safety, for a pick-6.
Are you positive he said that, specifically? Is that was Suggs told you?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I don't think I'm looking way too much into this at all. gailey's whole philosophy is "limiting mistakes". Again, that will never produce an All-American caliber offense.
 
What's wrong with polar opposities? It makes for good balance. O'Leary and Friedgen were a great combo with their "good cop" and "bad cop" coaching styles. Together, they made possibly the best team in coaching.
 
Are you positive he said that, specifically? Is that was Suggs told you?
Click to expand...

I am paraphrasing, but it doesn't take far of a leap to get from "throw it out of bounds if they're in cover-2" and "don't throw an interception." The implication is clear.

...unless that's not what you meant?
 
Did it occur to anyone else that our most effective offensive production might be gained through repeated Durant Brooks punts combined with an attempt to induce a fumble? Seriously, I do hope the passing game returns soon. Every pass attempt gives me anxiety. Every completion is an exquisite delight...
 
This is part of Gailey's "Ball Control" offensive philosophy. Limiting mistakes is very important in that aspect and while obviusly teaching kids to limit their mistakes takes good preparation and proper motivation of the players focus. Instead of doing that, we have a coach who says "Don't make a mistake." This is probably very much the reality of our ball coach. College kids aren't focused enough to be running ball control offenses. When kids are only coming into a program for 4 maybe 5 years, and on average start for two years, you can't expect them to be cohesive enough and disciplined enough to run a pro-style ball control offense.

This is why we cannot seem to overcome an early deficit, and as long as Gailey is going to compete against college high powered offenses, we are never going to improve much on 7-5 seasons with this philosophy.
 
We should start saying "Whatever you do, don't throw a TD." Reverse psychology is a pretty powerful tool.
 
BarrelORum said:
This is part of Gailey's "Ball Control" offensive philosophy. Limiting mistakes is very important in that aspect and while obviusly teaching kids to limit their mistakes takes good preparation and proper motivation of the players focus. Instead of doing that, we have a coach who says "Don't make a mistake." This is probably very much the reality of our ball coach. College kids aren't focused enough to be running ball control offenses. When kids are only coming into a program for 4 maybe 5 years, and on average start for two years, you can't expect them to be cohesive enough and disciplined enough to run a pro-style ball control offense.

This is why we cannot seem to overcome an early deficit, and as long as Gailey is going to compete against college high powered offenses, we are never going to improve much on 7-5 seasons with this philosophy.
Click to expand...


It's not that I disagree with ya, BOR, but this is fairly far out esoteric supposition. Seems to me.
 
beej67 said:
Gailey specifically told Suggs to throw the ball away at the end of the first half vs Fresno State if they dropped back into Cover-2 defense.
Click to expand...
That actually sounds like a fairly positive statement. I just have visions of Suggs running back on the field saying to himself, "What the hell is Cover-2?":ugh:

Isn't it possible that Chan is limiting the offense for good reason? Near as I can tell, he told Bond to emphasize the run, not lose his creativity. We were running Cox out of a single wing earlier this year for crying out loud. Perhaps Chan recognized in practice these last few years that our QB had limited mobility, was going to short arm his passes and that the ones that showed up on target were likely to be dropped by this group of receivers.
 
but are these complaints the reason we lost the uva game.

we had numerous batted balls and one went back the other way for 7pts.

We also got away from running Dwyer.

Both of these moves were contrary to Gailey's "ball control" mentality.

Is Bond so incredible that he should be given free reign?

Why not more bootlegs to get away from the pressure in the UVA game?

Keeping the clock moving is a strong advantage for us once we get a lead. If TB/WR's were more on the same page this would be a better argument but until you start to see more positives from the passing game I think the running game provides the best opportunity for us to win the game.
 
law_bee said:
but are these complaints the reason we lost the uva game.

we had numerous batted balls and one went back the other way for 7pts.

We also got away from running Dwyer.

Both of these moves were contrary to Gailey's "ball control" mentality.

Is Bond so incredible that he should be given free reign?

Why not more bootlegs to get away from the pressure in the UVA game?

Keeping the clock moving is a strong advantage for us once we get a lead. If TB/WR's were more on the same page this would be a better argument but until you start to see more positives from the passing game I think the running game provides the best opportunity for us to win the game.
Click to expand...

Exellent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top