The Jacket
The Coat
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2002
- Messages
- 32,007
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I know what you are getting at. Of course it isn't bad... it is doing his job. I gave him credit for that. I said don't lavish undue praises because he did something remarkable to win the game. What Reggie did on the field is remarkable.
In all sincerity, since I answered your questions, can you answer one for me?
Do you personally think Gailey had this team prepared and motivated for the Vandy game?
I am just curious as to what you think. I honestly would respect your answer whether I agree with you or not.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Honestly without trying to hedge an answer, I think there are two possible causes:
1) The team was poorly motivated and prepared for the Vandy game. If so, this may have had something to do with the thrashing at the hands of Clemson. I'm not sure about this because I wasn't in the locker room. It is the coaches job to motivate the team, and if the reason is that they were not motivated, this part of the big picture falls squarely on the shoulders of Chan.
2) We were motivated, as was Vanderbilt. I doubt this was so, but it is a possibility. I don't keep up with the Vanderbilt program or it's news releases and such, so I don't know what the attitude of the coaches, players or fan base was going into the game.
As I said, if I had to chose between those two as to which it was more than likely - I would say #1.
Hope that answers your question.. Don't think I missed anything.
