Heard on 750AM this morning....

This whole thing about sitting on 7 point leads is what has bothers me about Gailey. Yeah, it worked last week, but has burned us in the past and it only worked last week because Clemson's WRs and kicker were aweful.
 
MaconGTfan said:
This whole thing about sitting on 7 point leads is what has bothers me about Gailey. Yeah, it worked last week, but has burned us in the past and it only worked last week because Clemson's WRs and kicker were aweful.
Click to expand...


Wasn't it a 10 point lead?
 
SMoney said:
Is this true dem? Bond going to be able to run his own offensive show now???
Click to expand...

I think everyone around here expects more points this week. I expect after all the attention Chan lets Bond do his thing this week.
 
33jacket said:
yeah that was a bunch of crap. Bond will still call them...Gailey's meddling factor has gone up though. I don't really care for that.
Click to expand...
Bond put 10 points on the board in 3.5 quarters. Maybe Chan didn't care for that.
 
00Burdell said:
Bond put 10 points on the board in 3.5 quarters. Maybe Chan didn't care for that.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is b/c Chan was telling him to only run the ball all freaking game, telling him not to pass on certain downs dictating the team meetings all through the week on offensive gameplans...but yeah...blame bond, a guy who has been here for a handful of games; yet our O still sucks and the one man who has been here the whole time..Chan...its still his offense he forced onto bond and the same offense he forced on to Nix. Wonder why Nix said he needed to get out of Chan's shadow? These guys may be calling the plays. They ain't calling their own plays. They are calling plays from Chan's simple offensive minded playbook from the 50s, where the WR only run ins outs and flies.

Chan needs to let go, and let John truly run his own show, the same way he doesn't touch Tenuta's show.
 
MaconGTfan said:
This whole thing about sitting on 7 point leads is what has bothers me about Gailey. Yeah, it worked last week, but has burned us in the past and it only worked last week because Clemson's WRs and kicker were aweful.
Click to expand...

IIRC, Chan's teams are 21 of 24 when leading going into the 4th quarter. When, exactly, has it burned us in the past, and how does this compare to other teams with better (sic) coaching?
 
TampaJacket said:
IIRC, Chan's teams are 21 of 24 when leading going into the 4th quarter. When, exactly, has it burned us in the past, and how does this compare to other teams with better (sic) coaching?
Click to expand...

No your stat only talks about the 4th quarter. There are 3 others where conservative calling gets u in a hole BEFORE The 4th quarter, thereby never getting a lead or never catching up. For instance the brilliant conserv. FG setup end of half UVA. Down 21-7...we are sitting on the ball for a FG. Not one shot at the endzone in the prior downs. Heck we ran it. THAT is the problem It puts too much stress on your D. Hence blown leads at UGA, vs Wake, where the playcalling was atrocious throughout the whole game....not just the 4th Q; we never really got a TRUE lead...and the D wore down.

I suggest you look at the 'behind' in the second half wins vs losses or behind in the 4th wins vs losses. There you will see a much more grim number. We can't comeback 1) we are so conservative 2)we dug ourselves a hole.
 
Perhaps that is b/c Chan was telling him to only run the ball all freaking game, telling him not to pass on certain downs dictating the team meetings all through the week on offensive gameplans...
Click to expand...

As I understand it, that's not what happened. Chan admitted in post-game to asking Bond to 'dial it back and play it safe,' but didn't dictate play calls to Bond. Nor did he (nor has he all year) dictate strategy in team meetings going up to the game. He merely suggested caution in playcalling to his coordinator.
 
beej67 said:
As I understand it, that's not what happened. Chan admitted in post-game to asking Bond to 'dial it back and play it safe,' but didn't dictate play calls to Bond. Nor did he (nor has he all year) dictate strategy in team meetings going up to the game. He merely suggested caution in playcalling to his coordinator.
Click to expand...

Thats where you are wrong. He has been in the team meetings developing strategy. He has been informed to back off.

Not saying anymore than that.
 
TampaJacket said:
IIRC, Chan's teams are 21 of 24 when leading going into the 4th quarter. When, exactly, has it burned us in the past, and how does this compare to other teams with better (sic) coaching?
Click to expand...
And to add to that I need somebody to tell me what is wrong with orchestrating an offense that holds the ball for thirteen minutes in the fourth quarter by handing the ball to the heart and soul of our offense who, by the way, hasn't fumbled in 331 straight carries.

Judging by the resistance to a running game I'm feeling here and on the Hive, you'd think we had John Elway at quarterback, three Calvin Johnsons at WR and a fumble-prone, Division III walkon running back.

Thirteen minutes. Does anyone have any idea what kind of damage Clemson could have done to us if they had just five of those 13 minutes after our Defense laid their guts on the field for 3 quarters and maybe lost half a step from fatigue?

We'll never know. And that's exactly why we won.
 
Burdell, I agree 95%.

But to be fair, 13 mins is skewed because we were holding them to 3-and-out. How many plays did each team run?
 
33jacket said:
Thats where you are wrong. He has been in the team meetings developing strategy. He has been informed to back off.

Not saying anymore than that.
Click to expand...
Chicken**** rumormonger. Say more or STFU when attacking someone.
 
00Burdell said:
And to add to that I need somebody to tell me what is wrong with orchestrating an offense that holds the ball for thirteen minutes in the fourth quarter by handing the ball to the heart and soul of our offense who, by the way, hasn't fumbled in 331 straight carries.

Judging by the resistance to a running game I'm feeling here and on the Hive, you'd think we had John Elway at quarterback, three Calvin Johnsons at WR and a fumble-prone, Division III walkon running back.

Thirteen minutes. Does anyone have any idea what kind of damage Clemson could have done to us if they had just five of those 13 minutes after our Defense laid their guts on the field for 3 quarters and maybe lost half a step from fatigue?

We'll never know. And that's exactly why we won.
Click to expand...

How about this: Our Offense has stunk for years, we dont score points, its so damn predictable that Tommy Bowden should be washing Gailey's car, and to ever blame it on the qb's we've had over the last few years is just not right. The buck starts and stops with the head coach who gets paid a million+. We are continuing to flatline, and that is in a below-expectations ACC over the last few years (thank God.) How many qb's has Gailey kept, much less developed? Not 1. How many OC's has Gailey the offensive-genius had? Well, 4 including himself. He was the worst of all of em, and as Terrence Moore said and I agree, he's the worst at being a sorta-OC as well. Nesbitt is our first legitimate QB since Gailey has been here and thats a fact. But its no surprise is it? His offenses arent any good, doesnt develop QB's, and never takes responsibility. Amazing, that he is defended when we all know that most of our wins are because of Tenuta, and then when our D has a bad game or bad matchup, and the offense of course isnt anywhere to be found, our D still gets the brunt. Too bad Gailey is stubborn. All I ever wanted was for him to truly give up the OC and then he would be fairly judged in my eyes. He has NEVER done that and wont apparently. This blame game he plays is getting old. He mentioned Bond being in the box may be a reason for our "bad" offense. What a pathetic comment, essentially shifting responsibility to everything but himself. Again, under Gailey we have never lost less than 5 games. What does Drad do if we lose 5 again this year? Nothing, because the built in excuse of bowl games is there for Gailey, just like not having a qb (again, his fault,) just like having new OC's, excuse after excuse after excuse. Its an old tired story from a boring football coach, who's never going to change behind the scenes. If he did, he probably would be surprised at the results one day- but he cant step out of his comfort zone. Terrence Moore was exactly right and I dont agree with him a ton, but this time he was right on the money. Just because he doesnt call the exact play, yet tells Bond to stick with the run, doesnt mean he isnt calling the plays! Its not a thick playbook! Run Choice Run! Ill make sure I have my redbull ready for tomorrow's excitement. Someone just may kicka field goal to win the game...10-7 Yahoo! Yippee! Boring.....
 
PreventOffense said:
How about this: Our Offense has stunk for years, we dont score points, its so damn predictable that Tommy Bowden should be washing Gailey's car, and to ever blame it on the qb's we've had over the last few years is just not right. The buck starts and stops with the head coach who gets paid a million+. We are continuing to flatline, and that is in a below-expectations ACC over the last few years (thank God.) How many qb's has Gailey kept, much less developed? Not 1. How many OC's has Gailey the offensive-genius had? Well, 4 including himself. He was the worst of all of em, and as Terrence Moore said and I agree, he's the worst at being a sorta-OC as well. Nesbitt is our first legitimate QB since Gailey has been here and thats a fact. But its no surprise is it? His offenses arent any good, doesnt develop QB's, and never takes responsibility. Amazing, that he is defended when we all know that most of our wins are because of Tenuta, and then when our D has a bad game or bad matchup, and the offense of course isnt anywhere to be found, our D still gets the brunt. Too bad Gailey is stubborn. All I ever wanted was for him to truly give up the OC and then he would be fairly judged in my eyes. He has NEVER done that and wont apparently. This blame game he plays is getting old. He mentioned Bond being in the box may be a reason for our "bad" offense. What a pathetic comment, essentially shifting responsibility to everything but himself. Again, under Gailey we have never lost less than 5 games. What does Drad do if we lose 5 again this year? Nothing, because the built in excuse of bowl games is there for Gailey, just like not having a qb (again, his fault,) just like having new OC's, excuse after excuse after excuse. Its an old tired story from a boring football coach, who's never going to change behind the scenes. If he did, he probably would be surprised at the results one day- but he cant step out of his comfort zone. Terrence Moore was exactly right and I dont agree with him a ton, but this time he was right on the money. Just because he doesnt call the exact play, yet tells Bond to stick with the run, doesnt mean he isnt calling the plays! Its not a thick playbook! Run Choice Run! Ill make sure I have my redbull ready for tomorrow's excitement. Someone just may kicka field goal to win the game...10-7 Yahoo! Yippee! Boring.....
Click to expand...

Paragraphs, my good man, paragraphs. One looooong boring block of text is about the same as Choice running the ball 48 times. With the difference being that Choice running 48 times will 9 times outta 10 win the game.

What's Tommy's record against Gailey?

You shore are careful to mention that we've lost 5 games every year he's been here - how many have we won?

If 13-3 over the #13 team in the country, who happens to be Clempson, by the way, ain't good enough for ya, well, you prolly oughta find another team.

What if the man were to 'step out of his comfort zone' and lose a coupla games? You'd bust a blood vessel!

Methinks you been drinking too many redbulls.....
 
You may very well have some interesting points to make Prevent, but there's no way I can wade through that post to find out.
 
That's Gailey's disconnect. He's colorblind to the realities. He needs receivers that WILL catch the ball for a first down instead of making a very close play look decent before we bring on the punt team.

All of a sudden it's about "the ole cooter" calling plays again.

I call bs. Bonds playcalling has been almost Gailey as to be generic.

Chan is desperate for clues as to how to win football games at this point.

God help the Yellow Jackets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top