Guys, we better get this boat headed.......

[The Jacket]

I didn't ask you why you think he won't suceed. You say that he can't suceed. I want the evidence for this. Here, you can just copy and paste:

"I have no proof. It is all opinion and I understand that. My opinions that Gailey will not suceed are not fact."

 

[mustard]

Prejudice is to prejudge someone on what is inside the judge, like emotions and gut feelings and bruised egos, etc. etc. Evaluation is to judge someone on their facts of performance.

I do not wear rose colored glasses. I am cheering on my team. I am not prejudging their coming year either positively or negatively based on what went on before this year. I am not evaluating CG as a failure for last year because he had as good a season as his predecessor closed out with, and he did it without an experienced QB, practically no RB's, an OC who was not on the same page, and a rampant injury bug.

This much I "KNOW": We have our coach, we have our team, we have our schedule, and we have our loyaties. My coach is CG, my team is GT, and our schedule has not yet begun. My duties are to support my coach, my team and root and cheer like crazy during the games on the schedule. Evaluations will come later. Prejudging is for the soothsayers and naysayers, who operate in the realm of feelings and other subjectivities.

 

[ylojk8]

Originally posted by The Jacket:
I didn't ask you why you think he won't suceed. You say that he can't suceed. I want the evidence for this. Here, you can just copy and paste:

"I have no proof. It is all opinion and I understand that. My opinions that Gailey will not suceed are not fact."

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">The Jacket, you are wise beyond your years .. or is it ears? i'm confused ..

 

[ahsoisee]

MsTa, I use logic and facts, you have never used logic nor facts. You use your dislike for Gailey to bash him.

I have used facts to prove Gailey's first 13 games with a record of 7-6 is equal to O'Leary's last 13 games of 7-6.

Gailey did not fall below O'Leary's level of 7-6. So it is fact, O'Leary was responsible for the drop from a previous year (Friegden) of 9-3 to his (O'Leary) last year of 7-6.

If we are going to use facts, they prove the drop came from the year 2000 down to the year of 2001, O'Leary's last year. So, you are falsifying the situation if you say Gailey caused the drop in the program.

Gailey maintained the status quo and has a chance to raise the bar. O'Leary steered the program backward from Friegden's influence.

Logic has nothing to do with emotions or seeing something either good or bad. Logic is basically using facts to come to a conclusion.

However, if you get into the discussion of optimist and pessimist, you are the pessimist, and I am the optimist. I say give the coach a chance and we might see good things. You say, fire the coach, it is no use. That is pessimism and you are the pessimist.

My posting of facts comparing O'Leary and Gailey's records is neither optimism or pessimism. It is nothing other than going back to the records and comparing the facts. I will admit to posting facts.

You mention the downturn in the last three games of the 2002 season. Tech won its third game from the end of the season and had a down turn of only the last two games.

However, they did lose three out of the last four games in 2002, exactly the same as O'Leary did in 2001. O'Leary lost three out of the last four games of the season. So, no spin is needed. O'Leary and Gailey lost the last three out of four games of the season in O'Leary's last and Gailey's first season.

The real facts are the down turn started in O'Leary's last season of 2001.

Your remarks, "Chan did nothing to enhance his status in his first season here. We came out not smelling like a rose - looked pitiful and the program in disaray".

My remarks, "O'Leary did nothing to enhance his status in his last season here. We came out not smelling like a rose - looked pitiful and the program in disaray".

Seems to be identical to me.

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ahso.. facts are wonderful, but let's not forget to interpret them... First of all, O'Leary HIRED Friedgen... all you gailey apologists lose me when you try to minimize that fact... HIRING GOOD PEOPLE is how great leaders become great leaders, ahso... I think you know that... In fact, I know you know that 'cause you appear to me to be an individual who was an executive & would understand how important the hiring process is...

Great leaders hire & delegate, average leaders try to do it themselves (gailey becoming our new OC)...

You make 1 good point, ahso... O'Leary sucked his last year... gailey sucked last year... Time for gailey to join Coach George O'Leary in Minnesota as the OC and everytime Minnesota loses we can argue which side of the ball was the culprit.... I agree with you they both sucked...

Btw, it has nothing to do with me being a pessimist or you being an optimist... You said so yourself the other day, that you are on the gailey said 'cause there's too few on his side on this board.. You also said the other day that you like to compete & hate to lose... So basically you like to debate, took gailey's side 'cause there's a lot of "action" being on that side here and taking your shot.. Has nothing to do with optimist/pessimist ...

 

[The Jacket]

I agree BeeBad. O'Leary should have been fired that first season for not making a brilliant hire immediately. He did good in the long run but should not have been given a chance in the first place.

EDIT: Way too much sarcasm for me in one day.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by The Jacket:
I didn't ask you why you think he won't suceed. You say that he can't suceed. I want the evidence for this. Here, you can just copy and paste:

"I have no proof. It is all opinion and I understand that. My opinions that Gailey will not suceed are not fact."

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">No, I said O'Leary DID AND CHAN WON'T!!!
Chan 'WON'T' succeed. And for those that want facts about what they saw last year, who's to say my facts in seeing what I saw is not correct and your's are??????????????????????

The only facts we have are the opinions we have in the product we saw. If everyone saw the same thing we'd all be agreeing - BUT, we didn't and facts and emotions are divided!

I like my successes in hiring and my gut about a person outside of the resume and references, but in this instance 'I ALSO SAW', so that early gut feeling came to fruition in one season. People in my arena assemble over time those feelings for knowing your craft.

My craft said, don't hire - that was the beginning of my gut. Call it what you may, someone here might say woman's intuition, for me its years of investigating, hiring and recruiting talented employees. It's find common ground and individuals the rise above the rest. Chan was just one of the rest - there was no rising.

 

[ylojk8]

Originally posted by BeeBad:
Ahso.. facts are wonderful, but let's not forget to interpret them... First of all, O'Leary HIRED Friedgen... all you gailey apologists lose me when you try to minimize that fact... HIRING GOOD PEOPLE is how great leaders become great leaders, ahso... I think you know that... In fact, I know you know that 'cause you appear to me to be an individual who was an executive & would understand how important the hiring process is...

Great leaders hire & delegate, average leaders try to do it themselves (gailey becoming our new OC)...

You make 1 good point, ahso... O'Leary sucked his last year... gailey sucked last year... Time for gailey to join Coach George O'Leary in Minnesota as the OC and everytime Minnesota loses we can argue which side of the ball was the culprit.... I agree with you they both sucked...

Btw, it has nothing to do with me being a pessimist or you being an optimist... You said so yourself the other day, that you are on the gailey said 'cause there's too few on his side on this board.. You also said the other day that you like to compete & hate to lose... So basically you like to debate, took gailey's side 'cause there's a lot of "action" being on that side here and taking your shot.. Has nothing to do with optimist/pessimist ...

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">LOL!

hey wannabee .. o'leary sucked when his team should have been in the BCS but guess what, he wouldn't have even been close to being fired. he quit! had he not quit, he'd have been back here and i would have been rooting for him.

i like o'leary .. not hating on him. o'leary hired the fridge .. o'leary also hired roof. as soon as fridge left, the offense couldn't come up with enough run support for the defense.

shayne reynolds .. great win loss record .. awesome with run support but quite an average pitcher.

unlike o'leary, gailey wants to be here. gailey fiercely wants to prove people like you wrong. gailey FIERCELY wants to "earn" the "trust" of "fans" like MsTA.

i love the way someone who abhors facts uses the word analysis in her name. analysis of emotions and gut feelings .. LOL

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Originally posted by MsTechAnalysis:

It's find common ground and individuals the rise above the rest. Chan was just one of the rest - there was no rising.[/QB]

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Sounds rather carnal MsTA.. How did you know that Chan couldn't rise ??? Huh.. maybe that explains it..

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ylojk8:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by BeeBad:
Ahso.. facts are wonderful, but let's not forget to interpret them... First of all, O'Leary HIRED Friedgen... all you gailey apologists lose me when you try to minimize that fact... HIRING GOOD PEOPLE is how great leaders become great leaders, ahso... I think you know that... In fact, I know you know that 'cause you appear to me to be an individual who was an executive & would understand how important the hiring process is...

Great leaders hire & delegate, average leaders try to do it themselves (gailey becoming our new OC)...

You make 1 good point, ahso... O'Leary sucked his last year... gailey sucked last year... Time for gailey to join Coach George O'Leary in Minnesota as the OC and everytime Minnesota loses we can argue which side of the ball was the culprit.... I agree with you they both sucked...

Btw, it has nothing to do with me being a pessimist or you being an optimist... You said so yourself the other day, that you are on the gailey said 'cause there's too few on his side on this board.. You also said the other day that you like to compete & hate to lose... So basically you like to debate, took gailey's side 'cause there's a lot of "action" being on that side here and taking your shot.. Has nothing to do with optimist/pessimist ...

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">LOL!

hey wannabee .. o'leary sucked when his team should have been in the BCS but guess what, he wouldn't have even been close to being fired. he quit! had he not quit, he'd have been back here and i would have been rooting for him.

i like o'leary .. not hating on him. o'leary hired the fridge .. o'leary also hired roof. as soon as fridge left, the offense couldn't come up with enough run support for the defense.

shayne reynolds .. great win loss record .. awesome with run support but quite an average pitcher.

unlike o'leary, gailey wants to be here. gailey fiercely wants to prove people like you wrong. gailey FIERCELY wants to "earn" the "trust" of "fans" like MsTA.

i love the way someone who abhors facts uses the word analysis in her name. analysis of emotions and gut feelings .. LOL</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I NEVER said in any post here I abhored the facts - the fact is that's a twist on what I said. I said we see facts differently. Some choose to look at Chan and his season with facts that say he's the man and it was good. Others look at Chan and see facts that his season stunk and he's not the man. I chose to look at him before he coached and said - no and after he coached and still said NO!

 

[The Jacket]

Originally posted by MsTechAnalysis:
No, I said O'Leary DID AND CHAN WON'T!!!
Chan 'WON'T' succeed.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ugh. Why do you keep restating what I've already asked you to back up. You can not say that we will fail this year and claim your fact that it is true as what happened last year.

I'm going to ask it again:

What fact, what foresight have you gotten and can show to me that there is no doubt and that it is absolutely CERTAIN that Chan will fail. What hardcore proof, what solid evidence do you have? It is not last season. Last season proves a grand total of nada. It is not opinion because opinion is not fact. It is not emotion because emotion is not fact either. Do you have a SportsCenter tape from this coming November that you can send me that has our record and how we did? One more time:

What proof.. solid, hardcore, proof do you have that we are doomed to fail under Chan with no hope whatsoever of sucess.

 

[ahsoisee]

MsTA, I have stated this one other time, but it bears repeating.

No one on this board cares what kind of job you have and the decisions you have to make there. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussions on the board.

Ms TA'a EXCERPTS:I like my successes in hiring and my gut about a person outside of the resume and references, but in this instance 'I ALSO SAW', so that early gut feeling came to fruition in one season. People in my arena assemble over time those feelings for knowing your craft.

My craft said, don't hire - that was the beginning of my gut. Call it what you may, someone here might say woman's intuition, for me its years of investigating, hiring and recruiting talented employees. It's find common ground and individuals the rise above the rest. Chan was just one of the rest - there was no rising.

So, MsTA, without further admonition, I state again, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Ahso.. MsTA's experience is quite relevant.. Being a topnotch head coach entails high quality assistants to be successful... It is apparent by your inability to understand the astuteness of O'Leary hiring Friedgen as OC and trying to slough it off... Based on her position MsTA has highly developed skills that you can't pull off a fact page on the internet, (you) learn in a high school classrom (the jacket), or pick up in a homeless shelter (belly & jlo)... She can see how people react to situations be they good or bad, & how other people react to them... Being a head coach is all about being a people person.. People are MsTA's business...

 

[ahsoisee]

BeeBad, I am an optimist on many things, but basically I am a realist.

At this point in time I have no real opinion of Gailey's chances at Tech. I will give you my estimate of his chances of success at Tech after the season, when I analyze the bottom line.

I can say with accuracy, he has succeeded at every place, and in every coaching position he has attempted. The degree of his successes is tempered by various situations, but he has definitely been successful at each job.

If he fails at Tech, it will be his first failure at any stop-over on his journey. So, I am only looking at facts and not ready to give an opinion on his chances of success at Tech.

Think about this. If he happens to have a very good year at GT with the changes he has made, it will make the year 2002 look like a big success with the obstacles he had to overcome. A 7-6 record in your first year cannot be considered a failure anyhow.

 

[ylojk8]

hey belly .. how did you like the broth at the shelter last night? LOL

MsTA's gut reaction and her experience as an HR is as relevant to a coaching hire being made at Tech as .. as .. what flavor the broth is to homeless people at a shelter

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
MsTA, I have stated this one other time, but it bears repeating.

No one on this board cares what kind of job you have and the decisions you have to make there. It has absolutely nothing to do with the discussions on the board.

Ms TA'a EXCERPTS:I like my successes in hiring and my gut about a person outside of the resume and references, but in this instance 'I ALSO SAW', so that early gut feeling came to fruition in one season. People in my arena assemble over time those feelings for knowing your craft.

My craft said, don't hire - that was the beginning of my gut. Call it what you may, someone here might say woman's intuition, for me its years of investigating, hiring and recruiting talented employees. It's find common ground and individuals the rise above the rest. Chan was just one of the rest - there was no rising.

So, MsTA, without further admonition, I state again, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn".

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I was asked - why "chan won't" I gave the answer as to 'won't' in many

And frankly your 'fact postings' are what I consider 'long text' that rambles on, and on, and on.! At least my background and what I do gives me more of a reason to know why I wouldn't hire him and in the end all the reasons why think I'm right!

I looked at the man, saw his resume and concluded based on what I knew this school needed in it's Top coaching position - let's move to the next candidate please! They've been documented here before and I will not go into it again.

I have been successful in my work - and do not say that for you or anyone to react but to say - employee recruiting, grading, investigating and eventually hiring is my business. I approached looking at the candidates because I have that background.

With more then 23 years of hiring and with about 95% success rate in finding the right people - I felt pretty good about what I was saying and believing. Oh, maybe Chan could be in the 5% category but those errors in my realm of hiring happened early in my career - probably within the first 5.

You and everyone else gives the reasons why and opinions on the matter - mine have a professional take - it's my job!

 

[GTwig63]

While I understand some for wanting to defend CG against what is perceived as a lynch mob mentality on the part of others, comparing CG's 7-6 record as equal to GOL's 7-6 record, including the Peach Bowl, is somewhat misleading. CG's 6 losses were by a combined total of 93 points, GOL's by a total of 46 points.

GOL's 2001 team came within a gnat's eyelash of finishing 9-2. Bad coaching cost us the Clemson, Maryland and UVA games that we should have won. The only game last year that Chan lost that I felt we outplayed the other team and possibly should have won was the FSU game.

I am not a defender of GOL, but there is no way that our program is in as good a shape as it was when he left. Whether that is because of CG's ineptitude, a streak of bad luck, or the loss of more key players than many realized, or a combination of all the above (my own belief) is hard to determine, but we will surely have a much better read by the end of this season.

 

[The Jacket]

I'll be back in a few minutes. I'm gonna go find out if there's some sort of religion that forbids the direct answering of questions. Maybe a couple of you are involved in it. Other than that possibility I really don't see why my question is being ignored.

 

[ahsoisee]

BeeBad, as I have stated before, I would imagine there are CEOs on this board, there are probably many on this board who own their own companies, I am sure there are many managers and previous managers on this board.

You don't see them flaunting this on the board every time they enter a post. If she never uses that reference again on the board, she will be the better for it.

If you want to prove a point, do it with facts from the subject you are debating.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
BeeBad, as I have stated before, I would imagine there are CEOs on this board, there are probably many on this board who own their own companies, I am sure there are many managers and previous managers on this board.

You don't see them flaunting this on the board every time they enter a post. If she never uses that reference again on the board, she will be the better for it.

If you want to prove a point, do it with facts from the subject you are debating.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ahso: My "flaunting" is the wrong word - I was asked why he wouldn't succeed I chose to use my breakdown of this coaches hire as part of my background to give my reasons. You are questioning me and I am answering why. My career does have to do with why I saw things I didn't like - it makes more sense then your long misives!