Nate, you are the only likely true source for a question a lot of would like to know. Who was calling the shots on personnel and play calling on offense? Thank you in advance. Please no one else post until Nate answers if he will. I will refresh this topic later if he has not answered.
Nate
- Thread starter techrod
- Start date
law_bee
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 6,392
http://pub93.ezboard.com/fthehivefrm1.showMessage?topicID=6024.topic
this thread should answer your question provided you know what number nate wore
this thread should answer your question provided you know what number nate wore
Techrod,
I know folks on the radio crew.....they are right next to the coaches box .....BOB calls the majority of the plays.....The major problem with offense are obvious....loss of Hollings and poor play at the QB position......severely limits how creative one can get with the play calling
I know folks on the radio crew.....they are right next to the coaches box .....BOB calls the majority of the plays.....The major problem with offense are obvious....loss of Hollings and poor play at the QB position......severely limits how creative one can get with the play calling
I would still like to hear from Nate. I believe if Cg did not call the plays then cg put a noose around BOB. In other words CG was responsible for the conservatism not BOB. One reason I believe for that play calling is in the use of aj with his lack of ability. That in itself makes me wonder who decided on the starter. If cg had 100% of that decision then he should go, because he can't judge talent!
You cannot simplify the situation by determining who is calling the plays. There is a lot more involved in just calling the plays.
There is preparation, development of the quarterback, the mental aspect of the athletes, whether all the athletes are unified to perform for the head coach, etc.
If 100% of the players are loyal to O'Brien and zero are loyal to Gailey, then BOB is the problem and should have to go. The players should be 100% behind Gailey and BOB should be secondary. If not, the players are at fault and BOB is at fault.
In other words, I don't really give a flip what anyone is hearing from the players, if they have not committed 100% to Gailey and a unified football team, the players are at fault.
If one coach has to go, it should definitely be O'Brien. If Gailey has to go, then O'Brien should also have to go. It cannot be any other way if the team is to have success in the future.
If Gailey were to resign, and O'Brien stayed at Tech, I would be the most shocked person around. I would then know the administration has no idea how to run a program. I just can't believe a sane committee could make that kind of decision. I don't believe it could happen.
There is preparation, development of the quarterback, the mental aspect of the athletes, whether all the athletes are unified to perform for the head coach, etc.
If 100% of the players are loyal to O'Brien and zero are loyal to Gailey, then BOB is the problem and should have to go. The players should be 100% behind Gailey and BOB should be secondary. If not, the players are at fault and BOB is at fault.
In other words, I don't really give a flip what anyone is hearing from the players, if they have not committed 100% to Gailey and a unified football team, the players are at fault.
If one coach has to go, it should definitely be O'Brien. If Gailey has to go, then O'Brien should also have to go. It cannot be any other way if the team is to have success in the future.
If Gailey were to resign, and O'Brien stayed at Tech, I would be the most shocked person around. I would then know the administration has no idea how to run a program. I just can't believe a sane committee could make that kind of decision. I don't believe it could happen.
Simply answer one simple question...
How many shots did we take with the deep ball this year compared to last year, and how consistent was the deep ball as a part of our game plan?
The recievers are pretty much the same, so the receivers are not the difference. The OC is the same and is not the difference. The recievers coach is different. The QB is different.
How many shots did we take with the deep ball this year compared to last year, and how consistent was the deep ball as a part of our game plan?
The recievers are pretty much the same, so the receivers are not the difference. The OC is the same and is not the difference. The recievers coach is different. The QB is different.
gnats67
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2001
- Messages
- 13,647
Primarily, it's the QB. AJ has the potential but he hasn't demonstrated an ability to get the job done. His field leadership is 4 star but his quickness, vision and option capabilites are poor.
Chan, himself, could probably do as good a job on the field as AJ. AJ would be better useful on the sidelines ala Brian Camp, who is a brilliant athlete, but will never play.
Chan, himself, could probably do as good a job on the field as AJ. AJ would be better useful on the sidelines ala Brian Camp, who is a brilliant athlete, but will never play.
I have a question for Nate as well, no offense intended. I just am curious about how close Nate is with the team. Is he on the sidelines during games? Does he spend time with the current players? Does HE know why they were so flat against UGag? Was it shock or what?
Again, no offense but just because someone is a former players doesn't mean they really know what is going on. Maybe Nate does, maybe Coleman Rudolph does too, or maybe they aren't really on the inside of what's happening with the program.
Again, no offense but just because someone is a former players doesn't mean they really know what is going on. Maybe Nate does, maybe Coleman Rudolph does too, or maybe they aren't really on the inside of what's happening with the program.
bellyseries
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 4,229
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I'd like to know these things too.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that a former player focusses on players as the key to a team's success, however.
Nate, you don't know me, but i respect you for a player that never gave up and became a VERY GOOD one. Now being a player of recent vintage can you give an honest opinion onced and for all of what BOB means to the program? I am in BOB'S corner all the way as of right nmow! Please let us know how you feel for we believe in you.
Nate, thanks for the reply. Everybody on here keeps looking for the silver bullet to this mess, I just was wondering what your thoughts were.
On your HIVE post, I was happy to see someone who has played putting some of the spotlight on the players for a change. I know the coaches are responsible, but the guys have to make the play for the play-calling to look good. Here's hoping whatever is holding us back gets straightened out.
On your HIVE post, I was happy to see someone who has played putting some of the spotlight on the players for a change. I know the coaches are responsible, but the guys have to make the play for the play-calling to look good. Here's hoping whatever is holding us back gets straightened out.
Techrod, where you use the phrase, "we believe in you", could you please change that to "I believe in you".
Nate was a good football player and represented Tech well. I respect him for that. I do not know him personally, so I take everything he says with a grain of salt, as I do every other opinion on this board.
Information received from players cannot be relied upon if they are disgruntled. They would definitely have a bias.
Nate was a good football player and represented Tech well. I respect him for that. I do not know him personally, so I take everything he says with a grain of salt, as I do every other opinion on this board.
Information received from players cannot be relied upon if they are disgruntled. They would definitely have a bias.