George O'Leary & Chan Gailey: An Honest Analysis

J

JackItNMidTown

Guest
Edited Quote:
[Was] Chan Gailey as good a head coach at Georgia Tech as George O'Leary was?

There are those, I am sure, who would argue otherwise, based on numbers offered outside of context. Coach O'Leary, after all, was 52-33, whereas Coach Gailey was 44-32 (although it is open to debate how big a difference there really was between their respective records).

Leaving aside the fact that Coach O'Leary enjoyed a very different level of success with Ralph Friedgen running his offense than he did without The Fridge at his side, the reality must be confronted that Coach Gailey did not face his predecessor's schedule. (Coach Gailey also didn't allow academically ineligible starting quarterbacks to play in bowl games, but that's a separate conversation.)

George O'Leary's Yellow Jackets competed in an A.C.C. that did not count Boston College, Miami (Florida), and Virginia Tech among the league's member institutions. Moreover, George O'Leary's tenure in the City Too Busy to Hate largely coincided with the years during which Clemson was coached by Tommy West, Maryland was coached by Ron Vanderlinden, N.C. State was coached by Mike O'Cain, Virginia was coached by George Welsh in the waning days of his career, and Wake Forest was coached by Jim Caldwell.

By contrast, Chan Gailey had to deal with Tommy Bowden's Tigers, Ralph Friedgen's Terrapins, Chuck Amato's Wolfpack, Al Groh's Cavaliers, and Jim Grobe's Demon Deacons. That Coach Gailey faced a demonstrably tougher schedule week in and week out is underscored by the fact that Coach O'Leary faced Ray Goff's and Jim Donnan's underachieving Georgia squads, whereas his successor had to contend with Mark Richt's Bulldogs.

Georgia Tech fans who see in the transition from one coaching regime to the next a sea change marking a stark break with the old era are sadly mistaken. As long as there is stability on the sideline on the other side of the bridge from the Tate Center, it is of only minor importance who strides the sideline on the other side of I-75 from the Varsity.

Still, even a minor change can make some difference, so let us see what significance is likely to accompany Coach Johnson's arrival in Atlanta. His success at Georgia Southern and at Navy was based on an offensive system that has been consigned to the scrap heap of history at the B.C.S. conference level. The method that made him a success at a Division I-AA powerhouse and at a service academy will have little to no bearing on his ability to achieve at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

What, then, does Paul Johnson bring to the table? The answer, it seems, is "brutal honesty" . . . a term which, after the honeymoon ends, will be found to be synonymous with "a complete lack of people skills." Heck, if that's what the Golden Tornado was going for, why didn't Dan Radakovich just remove the "interim" qualifier from in front of Jon Tenuta's temporary title?

Tony Barnhart put it this way: "Paul Johnson is a low-key country boy from Western North Carolina who tells you exactly what he thinks---even if it stings a little bit." Peter Bean characterized him as "a real man's ranter" who "shoot from the cuff" after the fashion of Denis Leary.

Gee, I seem to remember another coach at a Division I-A program in the Peach State who fit that description. He now is a CF analyst on ESPN.
 
There is no need to debate or discuss this topic. Both are former GT coaches, I hope in the future all of us will refer only to the positive elements from their tenures.....

Moving on to Paul Johnson, now that's a great idea. I'm interested in learning much more about his offensive creation while at GS. After all, there are very, very few college coaches today who are credited with inventing a new defensive or offensive style.
 
Save your breath 71. He's a troll. Expect a few more since the coaching search brought so much attention to the boards.
 
That post is a candid and honest analysis. If you can argue against it, do so.

Don't be so sensitive!:crybaby:
 
There was a big difference in the situation.

1. Oleary took over a broken program from Bill Lewis. He had to rebuild, recruit and bring discipline to the program. He brought in the right assistants to get the job done. He has proven at UCF he can win 10 games without Fridge.
2. Chan took over a program that been in the top 25 5 years in a row and had beaten UGA 3 out of the last 4 years. CG accomplished neither in 6 years. IMHO he never understood the college game... the academics and the passion behind it. I know some don't think so but flunkgate belongs all to CG because he abdicated that responsibility to the AA.
3. It is very debatable that the ACC is stronger or weaker during the time periods. Teams have moved up and down the scale since then.
4. Probation issue was directly related to the AA not doing their job and in reality was very minor.

CG was a pro coach who coached like many pro coaches, not to lose your job. He won just enough to stay around and hope that the stars would align and have the magical season. His mentality was do enough to get in the playoffs which fits his pro head coaching record very very well. He never really got the UGA rivalry and understood the importance to the Tech community. IMHO this is something Radacovich is struggling with as well.

Immediately PJ is a difference because he talked of coming here to win the MNC. Very different viewpoint. He is here to win and win big not to keep a job.
 
JackItNMidTown said:
Edited Quote:
[Was] Chan Gailey as good a head coach at Georgia Tech as George O'Leary was?

There are those, I am sure, who would argue otherwise, based on numbers offered outside of context. Coach O'Leary, after all, was 52-33, whereas Coach Gailey was 44-32 (although it is open to debate how big a difference there really was between their respective records).

Leaving aside the fact that Coach O'Leary enjoyed a very different level of success with Ralph Friedgen running his offense than he did without The Fridge at his side, the reality must be confronted that Coach Gailey did not face his predecessor's schedule. (Coach Gailey also didn't allow academically ineligible starting quarterbacks to play in bowl games, but that's a separate conversation.)

George O'Leary's Yellow Jackets competed in an A.C.C. that did not count Boston College, Miami (Florida), and Virginia Tech among the league's member institutions. Moreover, George O'Leary's tenure in the City Too Busy to Hate largely coincided with the years during which Clemson was coached by Tommy West, Maryland was coached by Ron Vanderlinden, N.C. State was coached by Mike O'Cain, Virginia was coached by George Welsh in the waning days of his career, and Wake Forest was coached by Jim Caldwell.

By contrast, Chan Gailey had to deal with Tommy Bowden's Tigers, Ralph Friedgen's Terrapins, Chuck Amato's Wolfpack, Al Groh's Cavaliers, and Jim Grobe's Demon Deacons. That Coach Gailey faced a demonstrably tougher schedule week in and week out is underscored by the fact that Coach O'Leary faced Ray Goff's and Jim Donnan's underachieving Georgia squads, whereas his successor had to contend with Mark Richt's Bulldogs.

Georgia Tech fans who see in the transition from one coaching regime to the next a sea change marking a stark break with the old era are sadly mistaken. As long as there is stability on the sideline on the other side of the bridge from the Tate Center, it is of only minor importance who strides the sideline on the other side of I-75 from the Varsity.

Still, even a minor change can make some difference, so let us see what significance is likely to accompany Coach Johnson's arrival in Atlanta. His success at Georgia Southern and at Navy was based on an offensive system that has been consigned to the scrap heap of history at the B.C.S. conference level. The method that made him a success at a Division I-AA powerhouse and at a service academy will have little to no bearing on his ability to achieve at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

What, then, does Paul Johnson bring to the table? The answer, it seems, is "brutal honesty" . . . a term which, after the honeymoon ends, will be found to be synonymous with "a complete lack of people skills." Heck, if that's what the Golden Tornado was going for, why didn't Dan Radakovich just remove the "interim" qualifier from in front of Jon Tenuta's temporary title?

Tony Barnhart put it this way: "Paul Johnson is a low-key country boy from Western North Carolina who tells you exactly what he thinks---even if it stings a little bit." Peter Bean characterized him as "a real man's ranter" who "shoot from the cuff" after the fashion of Denis Leary.

Gee, I seem to remember another coach at a Division I-A program in the Peach State who fit that description. He now is a CF analyst on ESPN.
Click to expand...

This is old history, effective 7dec 2007 we enter the era of Paul Johnson
 
gtmg said:
There was a big difference in the situation.

1. Oleary took over a broken program from Bill Lewis. He had to rebuild, recruit and bring discipline to the program. He brought in the right assistants to get the job done. He has proven at UCF he can win 10 games without Fridge.

2. Chan took over a program that been in the top 25 5 years in a row and had beaten UGA 3 out of the last 4 years. CG accomplished neither in 6 years. IMHO he never understood the college game... the academics and the passion behind it. I know some don't think so but flunkgate belongs all to CG because he abdicated that responsibility to the AA.
3. It is very debatable that the ACC is stronger or weaker during the time periods. Teams have moved up and down the scale since then.
4. Probation issue was directly related to the AA not doing their job and in reality was very minor.

CG was a pro coach who coached like many pro coaches, not to lose your job. He won just enough to stay around and hope that the stars would align and have the magical season. His mentality was do enough to get in the playoffs which fits his pro head coaching record very very well. He never really got the UGA rivalry and understood the importance to the Tech community. IMHO this is something Radacovich is struggling with as well.

Immediately PJ is a difference because he talked of coming here to win the MNC. Very different viewpoint. He is here to win and win big not to keep a job.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. I'd like to add a few things:

1. The ACC was much harder when O'Leary was coach. We consistently had multiple teams outside of VaTech, Miami, and BC in the top 25. Now, it's mostly those 3 teams and Clemson in the top 25. With that said, I think that O'Leary faced better competition when he was coach.

2. Rebuilding and finishing the season in the top 10 are very difficult to do. This is something that O'Leary did. This is something that CCG was unable to do. He didn't even finish in the top 25.

3. You can argue coordinators all you want. O'Leary had Fridge. CCG had Tenuta. It's a wasted argument and no one wins that one.

4. If you want to go strictly on numbers (which is really the only impartial way to judge) O'Leary was hands down better.

5. People talk about character in a football coach. If that produces wins (and it doesn't) then CCG would win that argument. But at the end of the season character doesn't keep you your job.

6. O'Leary shared the ACC title. CCG never did.

7. If you're talking about discipline O'Leary would win hands down. Remember Dustin Vaitekunis (sp?). Remember flunkgate? That wouldn't have happened if OL was here. I'm sure that I'll get a ton of responses to that, but one thing that OL did was make sure his students went to class. I never got that feeling from CCG. No one had dreds when OL was here.

8. OL's teams always played hard even when they were losing. CCG's teams quit on him (see UGA this year midway through the 4th quarter).

9.
 
Am I missing something here? I thought GOL quit for bigger and better things and then drowned in a sea of shame. Almost taking us down with him. Didn't CG (A great person) receive his retirement package recently?

Is it not time to move to the present and hopefully to the future?
 
To JacketInMidtown who's too much of a puss to use a font that reflects his true allegiance:

Funny how a comparison of George and Chan turns into an attack on PJ. If your scared mutt, just say so. It's OK. We don't give a rats hind quarters what you think. If it makes you feel better to tell yourself PJ's offense won't work, go ahead. People who actually know football disagree with you. He averaged over 36 points and 413 yds of offense against BCS teams last year. And this with players who only rated once on the good side of 100 in the recruiting rankings over the previous 5 years.

You have about 11-1/2 months of denial left to talk yourself to a happy place, but deep down you know there is a storm brewing, it's coming, and there's nothing you can do to stop it.
 
Last edited:
Wow, that may be the longest meaningless post ever on Stingtalk. What is it you're trying to say? That Chan was really better than O'Leary even though he had a worse record in every way it can be mearsured and that you don't like Paul Johnson? Oh, and don't let facts bother you at all, just keep on keeping on brother. But don't mind the rest of us if we get on with things, this time with a real college football coach.
 
JackItNMidTown said:
That post is a candid and honest analysis. If you can argue against it, do so.

Don't be so sensitive!:crybaby:
Click to expand...
Why do you get to label it candid and honest? When I look over it what I see is bias and a complete misunderstanding of the realities of each situation. Nice try though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top