Gailey will return

71YellowJacket

71YellowJacket

Damn Good Rat
Joined
Jul 10, 2002
Messages
1,262
No surprise here (my forecast not inside scoop), in spite of some of our best wishes...

Ahsoisee & others:

Many of you feel Gailey should be given a second year coupled with changes being made on the current coaching staff.

How do you feel about our program next year if the entire coaching staff is retained?
 
If no changes are made I'll be worried. But what I really want to see are the results next year. Do we have someone under center who can play QB? How do our O and D lines stack up? Can we get our act together on ST? Can we find some DBs who can cover AND catch the ball when they have a shot at it?
 
He should do fine next year if he can find a QB or a QB Coach in the next four months.

IMHO just average QB play would have made this team 10-3 this year (MD & UGA would beat us anyway, we should beat FSU & FSU, and I'll say we split Clem/Wake)

I'll support GT FB for as long as the good Lord allows no matter who plays or coaches.
 
I'm more worried about QB than coaches, but I would be neither surprised nor disappointed to see a shake-up on the O side.
 
If there are no staff changes and/or player personnel changes, I see a further slide down a steeper slope.

frown.gif
 
A change at QB and an off season to work on the problems with cohesion on the team (read clicking. coaches, too) and conditioning and we should see improvement but I also wouldn't mind some staff changes.
 
Your question was, how would I feel about the program if this entire staff is retained.

I would simply be depressed. You can't make chicken salad from chicken manure. Some of our offensive coaches seem to not have a clue. Maybe they know more than I'm giving them credit for but
just lack the communication skills to communicate
their knowledge to the kids. Either way, we have a problem. We need new blood. Most of all, we need coaches that have a pulse. From watching our coaches on the sidelines you would think they were watching a boring movie. They have no emotion at all.
 
Belly, I am new here, but in my short time I have noticed that you place very little importance on the value of quality coaching. You always take the position that "players make plays not coaches."

Its not as apparent in this post as others, but you inferred it here. Could you please take a moment to define the thinking behind your position?
 
Originally posted by luckyjacket:
Belly, I am new here, but in my short time I have noticed that you place very little importance on the value of quality coaching. You always take the position that "players make plays not coaches."

Its not as apparent in this post as others, but you inferred it here. Could you please take a moment to define the thinking behind your position?
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Well, it's hardly profound. The reason there are games is because people want to play them. The players are who the games are for. Teams are good when players execute coach's plans, of course, but it is the players who must bring the desire, the determination, the decision-making skills, and the physicality to sports. Football isn't chess, where a brain moves pieces separate from himself. The INT that Suggs threw at the end of the 1st half in San Jose, immediately after he was instructed to throw it away if certain conditions weren't met in the defense, is an example. So is the run that Tony made from scrimmage (was it our first play) at Clemson, when he bounced off a no-hole inside and went outside like a streak of lightning. The called play didn't work; the player made a play anyway. That's where the game is, IMO.
In fact, I think a good coach can make a big difference in players and in a team. Maybe DeBo's problems stemmed from not letting himself be coached, maybe that's what "doesn't know the playbook" means. So when he got in the Fresno game, we saw all this raw talent in an undisciplined form, and maybe when we saw CG in his face, maybe he was screaming, "NOW do you see why you have to do so-and so? NOW will you listen?"

But I don't think that just any player can be "coached up" to be better than he wants to be, is willing to be, or has the talent to be. The players are THE limiting factor in how good a team can be, not the coaches.

I have no idea if this makes any sense, but I'm certainly flattered to be asked. And I'd love to hear your and other's thoughts on coaches/players.
 
Belly, as much as I respect you and your opinions, I some what disagree, yes you are correct that the players must execute. Even if we had the late Bear or Lombardi if they don't coach and raise the level of players even a notch or 2 then why have a coach just let the players go out have fun and forget the coaching aspect of the game. I respect CG and the other coaches but if they don't teach then that falls directly on their shoulders not the player. After I saw no adjustments at half time in many game I must wonder if in the locker room they were just sitting around sipping tea.
 
Since the question was asked! In my opinion, the most important ingredient in team sports is the coach.

In all my years of observing sports, the good coaches win no matter where they coach. The bad coaches lose at schools with good athletes.

The good coaches normally start off at a school with a lesser developed program and win big. They are generally stolen from that school and go to a more developed program where they still win big. They generally wind up at one of the bigger programs where they still win big and normally retire at that school.

Poor coaches can not win even though they often start at the schools with the biggest programs. Many times they are assistants and are promoted within the ranks, but their overall skills are faulty and they wind up as staff members at some school, sports analysts, or some related sports job.

The examples are extremely numerous, but I will name a few recent ones. The assistant at Nebraska has let that program slide, the assistant at North Carolina let Mack's fine program slide, the previous Notre Dame coach is now a sports analyst, etc.

Those are only a minute sample, but represented major programs with great athletes when they took over.

Ara Parsegian won big at Ohio. He was hired by Northwestern who could not beat any Big Ten team. He built Northwestern into a powerhouse before he went to Notre Dame. His record at Notre Dame is part of their great history.

Bear Bryant built Kentucky into a power house before going to Texas A&M. He then built the Texas A&M program into a powerhouse, before going to Alabama. His record at Alabama is a legend.

Bobby Bowden built West Virginia into a power house while he was there and then went to FSU (a girls college) and we know what he has done there.

There are many more examples in college football, but those should suffice.

Now, it is also a fact that good football players want to go to the schools that win big, go to bowl games, and are watched by the pro scouts regularly. The rich get richer, but it is the coach that is the catalyst.

I believe a team is limited much more by poor coaching than poor athletes.

I don't see how anyone could doubt that we have better athletes than Wake Forest, but they played better football with less talent. We have better talent than little FSU out West, but they beat us.

Up until last year, we had outrecruited every ACC school in the past five years other than FSU. Why have they beaten us like step-children after Friegden left?

We have had some of the smaller division schools beat us in years where we had poor coaching. We beat some much bigger and better programs than Tech in the Dodd era when we had much poorer athletes than most of our opponents.

An excellent coach can take average players and beat opponents with poor coaching and excellent athletes.

It does make a difference when two excellent coaches are playing each other regarding the quality of the athletes. The schools with good coaches will draw even better recruits, thus the good coaches will increase their wins as the better recruits enter their program.

However, it all starts with the quality of the coach.

Is there anyone on the board that can honestly say (without naming any particular coach) the Tech team was a well coached team this year?

wink.gif
 
I really don't want to argue about this, because playing and watching the game is (was) what's fun to me. If the coach is good, fine. If he's average, you still get to hit somebody in the mouth if you're a player (or Woody Hayes, I guess).

BUT, if it were all on the coach, what is the point of divisions? Why couldn't Bobby Johnson coach Furman up to beat Clemson? Why do Army and Navy always suck? Because of coaches? How did Bobby Bowden lose to Mark Richt?

Which reminds me, whoever said that the coaches' demeanor wins games, look at these two accountants on the sidelines of the Fiesta Bowl.
 
Bellyseries & Ahsoisee:

Well done gentlemen! An excellent recap of both positions.

If I had to take a stand on this, I would be forced to say you are both right.
 
Changing a few assistants is not going to get this program turned around. After all, Gailey picked them to begin with. He is in charge. What, we give him a year to experiment to see if they work out? This should have been a top priority last January, not this one.

Usually assistant changes occur after long-time coach - Sherrill, Solich, etc. need some new blood and also need to do something to save their own ass for one more year. While I fully agree most of the guys need to go - strength coach, offensive line coach, etc. Gailey leading the 03 staff does not instill confidence this ship is turning around.
 
I am going to apply for the HC job. With support from people like belly I don’t have to worry about teaching the players how to play the game. I don’t have to hire competent assistants to help me. If the players are lackadaisical and don’t really care if they play or not – Hey its their problem not mine. I don’t have any responsibility for their actions or lack of motivation. Shoot belly will stand up in public and verify this. I can rewrite the record book against Ugag and not worry about what my faithful think. I can spend all my time driving to the bank to cash my million dollar salary. Why I can luck into a 4th tier bowl game and get an extra 25k. And if things get too bad belly will stand up and tell everybody it is the players’ fault – not mine. What a great life!
 
Originally posted by GMC 68:
I am going to apply for the HC job. With support from people like belly....
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Great, GMC! Can I be your QB coach?

By the way, congratulations on those reading comp skills.
 
Originally posted by AlaGold:
Belly,
WHO CALLED THE PLAY?Trying to pass against a prevent pass defense with a QB that can't pass deep well( when it is a surprise )from his own 25 with the lead!The coach put him if that play.Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">CG called the play, about a 20yd pass, as I recall, and the report we have gotten is that CG didn't just call it, he talked to AJ and said, "If blah blah, then throw it away." Now I'm not sure what you think coaching can do, but if a kid can't follow that direction, or improvise and eat the ball, then I think you've made my point: Players make the plays

You're going to have trouble finding a place where I have said that coaching is useless, or unhelpful, or unnecessary, because I don't think that, and I don't believe it. Neither do I think Bear Bryant could make Army a winner.

I think football is a game played by teams aided by coaches. I also think that players are the ones having the fun! It's a GAME!
 
I agree that the players have to play the game and execute and since the coach isn't allowed on the field, the players are the most critical factor come game time.

Several examples of good coaches above were used to argue the counter point. However, I believe that coaches like Parcells are successful because they choose the situations where they know they can be successful. You won't see one of these "successful" coaches take a low risk rebuilding project. In addition to being a good strategist and motivator and judge of talent and recruiter of talent, a good coach knows which challenges to "accept" and which ones to stay away from....

As I continuously tell my children, being successful means as much about avoiding trouble and staying out of harms way as it does about "being good". Choose your battles carefully...
 
Interesting thread. I think one factor that is being overlooked is that good coaches also recognize good players. They get rid of those who can't/won't make the plays and get the ones who can. I was concerned last year that we didn't make any big plays. We had guys with talent but we weren't making the kind of plays we did the year before. This year has been more of the same IMO. Sometimes, no matter what play is called, a player steps up.

For example, from the OSU/Miami game last night. Miami's TD in OT was a good read, good play call BUT the reason they scored is the receiver made a great play. OSU was dead but the receiver and QB made a great play to pick pu the 4th and 14.

So, to steal from both sides of the argument, you need both. Talent isn't enough for a player, they have to have the attitude or whatever it is that makes one kid make a play the other can't. Coaching is clearly important, as several have said good coaches usually win no matter where they are.

For me I'm not sold one way or the other on Chan. I think we had defiencies that point to coaching this year, but I also think we have a lack of playmakers for some reason. Maybe guys are afraid to make a play for fear they will make a mistake (which can be a coaching issue). But when I look at the bowl game I keep seeing Hester get beat on the long ball, Suggs make the exact mistake the coaches told him to be wary of, whoever got beat on the long pass in the 4th qtr, the incomplete 4th and 1. You can say that well coached teams don't make those mistakes. You can also say that great athletes don't either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top