Some observations prior to the football season. How can we determine the coaches success or failure by actions taken?
First it has been mentioned by a few die-hards that it was O'Leary who hired Friegden, so the success of the football team while Friegden was at Tech was directly attributable to O'Leary.
Using this strategy by the die-hards, if our offense is a success this year, it would have to be attributed to Gailey for retaining O'Brien plus any other offensive decisions made by Gailey. So the success or failure of the offense is directly attributable to Gailey.
There are several other decisions made by Gailey that will have an impact on the offense (positive or negative). He is following a trend set by Spurrier and has stated he will probably use two quarterbacks this year.
Another decision directly made by Gailey is the transfer of Hollings from defense to offense. Still another decision he made was placing Nix in charge of the offensive backs. If the running game is better this year due to these moves, the credit would have to be given to Gailey.
Now, the same applies to failure. If these changes are permanent for the season and produce negative results, Gailey will have to be blamed for their failure. However, it is obvious, the success or failure will fall on Gailey.
I have read some posts on the controversy about replacing Kelly with Tommie Robinson. This is another change made by Gailey that will be attributable to him as a success or failure.
Some posters claim the receivers could never place any distance between themselves and the defensive backs last year on the long passes. I have not noted any critics of that observation, but have read many posts denouncing the change because Kelly recruited Louisiana strongly.
It remains to be seen if Robinson can recruit well for Tech, but it won't be long before the verdict is in regarding his ability of coaching the receivers. Gailey will be graded again on the success or failure of the receivers because of his choice to replace Kelly. This will ultimately become another plus or minus for Gailey.
It must also be attributed to Gailey for the success or failure of the offensive line. If the line performs better this year, especially in the red zone, it will be because of the change made by replacing the offensive line coach. If they are worse, chalk it up to a bad decision by Gailey.
If the defense is better this year, it will be due to the change made in the Defensive Coordinator's position. If it is worse, it will fall back on Gailey for making the change.
Not only will a better defense be attributable to the selection of Tenuta, but Gailey also changed Spencer from the offense to the defense. Spencer's defenses at West Georgia College were phenominal. So mark up another guideline to grade Gailey by the success or failure of the defense.
Our pass defense regarding passing yardage given up was rated the worst in all of college football in 2000. The pass defense was not much better last year as it was also deep in the rear of the rankings.
It is no secret that we have been the worst team around on third-and-long for a long time. It is also no secret, our defensive backs have not been aggressive and have not intercepted many passes in the past. With the new appointment of Modkins as the defensive backfield coach, Gailey will again be judged by the success or failure in this department.
If we improve on pass defense and get more turnovers from interceptions, it can be attributed to the change made by Gailey.
If you want to check out the statistics from last year, check the small amount of tackles made by the DTs. At the end of this year compare the two and see if there is a vast improvement. If the DTs play a bigger role in the defense this year, the improvement will have to be attributed to Gailey for the change in the DC and moving Spenser to that side of the ball.
Overall, there are a lot of items that can be directly attributable to Gailey for the success or failure of the team in 2002. If the record is equal to or better than last year's record, we can say Gailey has had moderate to phenominal success depending upon the final won-lost record and the performances of the items noted.
First it has been mentioned by a few die-hards that it was O'Leary who hired Friegden, so the success of the football team while Friegden was at Tech was directly attributable to O'Leary.
Using this strategy by the die-hards, if our offense is a success this year, it would have to be attributed to Gailey for retaining O'Brien plus any other offensive decisions made by Gailey. So the success or failure of the offense is directly attributable to Gailey.
There are several other decisions made by Gailey that will have an impact on the offense (positive or negative). He is following a trend set by Spurrier and has stated he will probably use two quarterbacks this year.
Another decision directly made by Gailey is the transfer of Hollings from defense to offense. Still another decision he made was placing Nix in charge of the offensive backs. If the running game is better this year due to these moves, the credit would have to be given to Gailey.
Now, the same applies to failure. If these changes are permanent for the season and produce negative results, Gailey will have to be blamed for their failure. However, it is obvious, the success or failure will fall on Gailey.
I have read some posts on the controversy about replacing Kelly with Tommie Robinson. This is another change made by Gailey that will be attributable to him as a success or failure.
Some posters claim the receivers could never place any distance between themselves and the defensive backs last year on the long passes. I have not noted any critics of that observation, but have read many posts denouncing the change because Kelly recruited Louisiana strongly.
It remains to be seen if Robinson can recruit well for Tech, but it won't be long before the verdict is in regarding his ability of coaching the receivers. Gailey will be graded again on the success or failure of the receivers because of his choice to replace Kelly. This will ultimately become another plus or minus for Gailey.
It must also be attributed to Gailey for the success or failure of the offensive line. If the line performs better this year, especially in the red zone, it will be because of the change made by replacing the offensive line coach. If they are worse, chalk it up to a bad decision by Gailey.
If the defense is better this year, it will be due to the change made in the Defensive Coordinator's position. If it is worse, it will fall back on Gailey for making the change.
Not only will a better defense be attributable to the selection of Tenuta, but Gailey also changed Spencer from the offense to the defense. Spencer's defenses at West Georgia College were phenominal. So mark up another guideline to grade Gailey by the success or failure of the defense.
Our pass defense regarding passing yardage given up was rated the worst in all of college football in 2000. The pass defense was not much better last year as it was also deep in the rear of the rankings.
It is no secret that we have been the worst team around on third-and-long for a long time. It is also no secret, our defensive backs have not been aggressive and have not intercepted many passes in the past. With the new appointment of Modkins as the defensive backfield coach, Gailey will again be judged by the success or failure in this department.
If we improve on pass defense and get more turnovers from interceptions, it can be attributed to the change made by Gailey.
If you want to check out the statistics from last year, check the small amount of tackles made by the DTs. At the end of this year compare the two and see if there is a vast improvement. If the DTs play a bigger role in the defense this year, the improvement will have to be attributed to Gailey for the change in the DC and moving Spenser to that side of the ball.
Overall, there are a lot of items that can be directly attributable to Gailey for the success or failure of the team in 2002. If the record is equal to or better than last year's record, we can say Gailey has had moderate to phenominal success depending upon the final won-lost record and the performances of the items noted.
