G
Geetee
Guest
with Gailey at the helm, with FSU reloading, with UVA improving, with NC State improving, and finally with the ACC expansion talk including Miami, we will not win the ACC title in our lifetime.
GeeTee, if that is supposed to be a bit of wisdom, it misses the mark by a mile.
Your statement is more of a bad reflection on you than on Gailey. You have stated something as a fact that you have no statistics to use to back it up. It appears you are growing some wild things in your vicinity.
Your statement means the following. Every AD in America should fire a new coach after his first year if he does not perform up to your standards.
That means a coach should have no time to make adjustments in his staff, his players, or the system he is using in conjunction with the players he has been assigned. The coach must win more than seven games a year.
It does not even matter if Gailey may have been saddled with an albatross about his neck in the form of an offensive coordinator who may have been in over his head.
Furthermore, the new coach will have only one year and will not be afforded the opportunity to get rid of poor offensive or defensive coordinators if need be. It does not matter if there might have been a morale problem to straighten out.
He will have no chance to learn how well each of the players perform that he has inherited. He will have no chance to rearrange a staff he has never worked with before.
He will have no chance to observe his players in a system to see if that system fits the talents of the players he has inherited. And 0n-and-on!
We just hire him, tell him he has to win more than seven games or he will not be back because he cannot win and is a poor coach.
Your reasoning in this matter leaves a lot to be desired. So back to the second paragraph regarding your statement.
Now, your statement may prove to be true, after all everybody has a 50/50 chance when there is only two sides. Or, even as the old saying goes, "even a blind hog finds an acorn every once in a while".
Most of the people on the board seem reasonable and are willing to give Gailey at least one more year before they draw a conclusion.
Man, am I feeling testy in the last couple of days!
Your statement is more of a bad reflection on you than on Gailey. You have stated something as a fact that you have no statistics to use to back it up. It appears you are growing some wild things in your vicinity.
Your statement means the following. Every AD in America should fire a new coach after his first year if he does not perform up to your standards.
That means a coach should have no time to make adjustments in his staff, his players, or the system he is using in conjunction with the players he has been assigned. The coach must win more than seven games a year.
It does not even matter if Gailey may have been saddled with an albatross about his neck in the form of an offensive coordinator who may have been in over his head.
Furthermore, the new coach will have only one year and will not be afforded the opportunity to get rid of poor offensive or defensive coordinators if need be. It does not matter if there might have been a morale problem to straighten out.
He will have no chance to learn how well each of the players perform that he has inherited. He will have no chance to rearrange a staff he has never worked with before.
He will have no chance to observe his players in a system to see if that system fits the talents of the players he has inherited. And 0n-and-on!
We just hire him, tell him he has to win more than seven games or he will not be back because he cannot win and is a poor coach.
Your reasoning in this matter leaves a lot to be desired. So back to the second paragraph regarding your statement.
Now, your statement may prove to be true, after all everybody has a 50/50 chance when there is only two sides. Or, even as the old saying goes, "even a blind hog finds an acorn every once in a while".
Most of the people on the board seem reasonable and are willing to give Gailey at least one more year before they draw a conclusion.
Man, am I feeling testy in the last couple of days!
jacketguy
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Messages
- 1,464
Excellent post Father Wasp... I couldnt have said it better myself...
The only exception I would include is that I think Gailey will get a minimum of 4 years, unless we see an 0-12 this year..I think most around the administration feel that he is putting the train back on the track and that it was more off the track than it seemed when GOL bolted for ND.
And.. I know that I am in the minority here for thinking this way, but I do think Gailey is going to do us a great job... I just have faith in the guy... (I know, Gold Glasses)
The only exception I would include is that I think Gailey will get a minimum of 4 years, unless we see an 0-12 this year..I think most around the administration feel that he is putting the train back on the track and that it was more off the track than it seemed when GOL bolted for ND.
And.. I know that I am in the minority here for thinking this way, but I do think Gailey is going to do us a great job... I just have faith in the guy... (I know, Gold Glasses)
MsTechAnalysis
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2002
- Messages
- 1,816
It's funny, I have kind of held back from saying this ... but when all the conversations have come up about expansion, I too thought of our coach and do not believe he's the guy for the job under the current circumstance and even more so under expansion.
Of course, I haven't changed my feelings they have been here since day one. I really do believe this will be a shortlived career for him at GT.
Now, anyone can disagree but this is my opinion and it hasn't changed since he was hired.
Of course, I haven't changed my feelings they have been here since day one. I really do believe this will be a shortlived career for him at GT.
Now, anyone can disagree but this is my opinion and it hasn't changed since he was hired.
MsTechAnalysis, you have been consistent in your feeling about Gailey as far back as I can remember and I do respect that. My problem with the original post on this thread is this: It makes no difference who the coach is, we need to step things up if we're going to compete with Miami. We haven't been on a par with them as far as I can remember since we beat them in '76. As far as UVA, NCSU etc., if we have fans who are afraid to compete with those teams I'm embarrassed. In particular, why would you fear to face them with a coach who BEAT THEM BOTH last year?
To me it's just another excuse for someone to attack our coach. There is nothing about expansion that changes our football situation. If we want to win the ACC we need to get better. But that's been true for about 20 years. I mean we've only won it once outright (1990) and our tie was because State knocked off FSU not because we did. To me we're about where we've been all along. Able to compete with anybody if we play well, and able to lose to almost anybody if we don't. Adding more teams won't change anything.
To me it's just another excuse for someone to attack our coach. There is nothing about expansion that changes our football situation. If we want to win the ACC we need to get better. But that's been true for about 20 years. I mean we've only won it once outright (1990) and our tie was because State knocked off FSU not because we did. To me we're about where we've been all along. Able to compete with anybody if we play well, and able to lose to almost anybody if we don't. Adding more teams won't change anything.
MsTechAnalysis, you stated this as your opinion and that is fine. Everyone has there opinion and has the right to state it.
My point was a person making a statment of fact when there is nothing to back it up.
I would ask you this question though, do you think Gailey should have been fired after one year, when he was saddled with an offensive coordinator that might not have been of his choosing?
Do you think it is possible some of the players were less than enthusiastic last year in their performances? Do you think there is a possibility, if there was a morale problem, it could have stemmed from split loyalties of the players between Gailey and BOB?
If you think any of the above is a possibility, then I see no way he should not have another year to straighten out some problems.
Players from the team and ex-players close to the team are the least reliable persons from whom you could hear a non-biased opinion of where the problem lies, if there were split loyatlties between a new coach and an incumbent.
Some people take a reasonable approach and realize a coach has to have more than a year to correct problems.
My point was a person making a statment of fact when there is nothing to back it up.
I would ask you this question though, do you think Gailey should have been fired after one year, when he was saddled with an offensive coordinator that might not have been of his choosing?
Do you think it is possible some of the players were less than enthusiastic last year in their performances? Do you think there is a possibility, if there was a morale problem, it could have stemmed from split loyalties of the players between Gailey and BOB?
If you think any of the above is a possibility, then I see no way he should not have another year to straighten out some problems.
Players from the team and ex-players close to the team are the least reliable persons from whom you could hear a non-biased opinion of where the problem lies, if there were split loyatlties between a new coach and an incumbent.
Some people take a reasonable approach and realize a coach has to have more than a year to correct problems.
G
Geetee
Guest
I'm not saying he should be fired...just shouldn't have been hired. McWhorter would have been a great hire over Gailey. Why do I say this? Because I was in Athens last year watching the most pitiful dispay of football and coaching that I can remember in a 50+ point route. I watched painfully as we lost to Fresno State that fielded a team with eight starters suspended a week before kickoff in the most pitiful Bowl in existence (now its no longer a Bowl).
Yes, we do need to raise the bar, but so many others in our current conference have already begun doing so. We have not even purchased a bar to raise, yet. And now schools like Miami may be coming into the ACC? We are going to get spanked big time given our current (lack of) progression.
Yes, we do need to raise the bar, but so many others in our current conference have already begun doing so. We have not even purchased a bar to raise, yet. And now schools like Miami may be coming into the ACC? We are going to get spanked big time given our current (lack of) progression.
GeeTee, you are digging yourself a bigger hole. Now, I know where you are coming from. You are one of those who is mad because Mac did not get the job.
Again, you are reflecting badly against the person you are trying to belittle (Gailey). You are the one that is lacking in common sense on this issue.
There is not one AD in all of football anywhere who would have made Mac their head coach for winning one ball game. There is not one CEO anywhere who would have taken him over Gailey after reading the bios and qualifications of the two.
I imagine Mac will probably never advance any higher than being an offensive line coach again. I don't believe he is that high in the chain at Texas at this point. Mac most likely will never be a head coach.
In short, Mac could never have gotten the job for any reason, even if Gailey had not been chosen. Mac had absolutely no credentials to be head coach. It was an impossibility for him to get it.
Can you imagine the criticism Braine and Tech would have gotten to take Mac as head coach? Are you gullible enough to believe Mac ever had a chance? Do you think the committee and Braine would have chosen Mac over O'Brien or Roof?
Man, you are way out on this one.
Again, you are reflecting badly against the person you are trying to belittle (Gailey). You are the one that is lacking in common sense on this issue.
There is not one AD in all of football anywhere who would have made Mac their head coach for winning one ball game. There is not one CEO anywhere who would have taken him over Gailey after reading the bios and qualifications of the two.
I imagine Mac will probably never advance any higher than being an offensive line coach again. I don't believe he is that high in the chain at Texas at this point. Mac most likely will never be a head coach.
In short, Mac could never have gotten the job for any reason, even if Gailey had not been chosen. Mac had absolutely no credentials to be head coach. It was an impossibility for him to get it.
Can you imagine the criticism Braine and Tech would have gotten to take Mac as head coach? Are you gullible enough to believe Mac ever had a chance? Do you think the committee and Braine would have chosen Mac over O'Brien or Roof?
Man, you are way out on this one.
bellyseries
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 4,229
See there, ahso? You and I agree a lot!
GTTerrific
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2001
- Messages
- 4,024
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">What's scary ........ I agree with both of you a lot.
71YellowJacket
Damn Good Rat
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2002
- Messages
- 1,262
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Hi everybody!
Ncjacket, I agree with you!! This place is just one big Luv Boat..
What do you think it will take to make us competetive in the new mix, other than Miami and FSU in the other division?
Father WASP
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 745
I share your initial sentiment, but I would like to think in terms of what is the consistent norm. If we repeat last year's performance, Gailey will not be around. I can remember when we thought we would never be competitive again, and yet O'leary/Friedgen righted the ship.
I agree that UVa and State have elevated their programs and are going to be strong, and FSU, let's face it, will be the team anybody has to go through to win anything.
But, stronger competition makes everyone better. The SEC has thrived on huge matchups which occur every week. The ACC usually has 2 or 3 key games and the rest are simply waiting on someone to upset FSU. Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Nebraska, they just get bigger with the huge TV matchups.
I was always excited with Notre Dame on the schedule, cause no matter what you've got one of those "on any given Saturday" things as an opportunity. Heck, we even grabbed a 3-3 tie at Grant Field and stunned the nation. Having Miami on your slate provides the same year in year out game.
This year, I like playing Auburn a whole lot more than Central FL or Citadel.
I'm all for it, but agree with you partially, the athletic department needs to tighten up the jock strap for some competition - expansion or no expansion and realize the State's and VA's are moving past a pretty rapid pace. And please, no posts quoting last years scores, I am aware and comment on the state of the programs the last several years - not individual games.
I agree that UVa and State have elevated their programs and are going to be strong, and FSU, let's face it, will be the team anybody has to go through to win anything.
But, stronger competition makes everyone better. The SEC has thrived on huge matchups which occur every week. The ACC usually has 2 or 3 key games and the rest are simply waiting on someone to upset FSU. Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Nebraska, they just get bigger with the huge TV matchups.
I was always excited with Notre Dame on the schedule, cause no matter what you've got one of those "on any given Saturday" things as an opportunity. Heck, we even grabbed a 3-3 tie at Grant Field and stunned the nation. Having Miami on your slate provides the same year in year out game.
This year, I like playing Auburn a whole lot more than Central FL or Citadel.
I'm all for it, but agree with you partially, the athletic department needs to tighten up the jock strap for some competition - expansion or no expansion and realize the State's and VA's are moving past a pretty rapid pace. And please, no posts quoting last years scores, I am aware and comment on the state of the programs the last several years - not individual games.
G
Geetee
Guest
McWhorter or anyone else is what I should have typed...just anyone but Gailey. Coaching looked pitiful last year, if you forgot. Were you in Athens or did you watch our Bowl game?
This ACC expansion is good for our conference, but bad for GT from a competitive basis. Scared of competition? Quite frankly with the direction of our team, yes. That is the reality here. Gailey certainly doesn't help our chances either based on what we saw last year. To state otherwise means you have your head deep in yellow sand.
This ACC expansion is good for our conference, but bad for GT from a competitive basis. Scared of competition? Quite frankly with the direction of our team, yes. That is the reality here. Gailey certainly doesn't help our chances either based on what we saw last year. To state otherwise means you have your head deep in yellow sand.
bellyseries
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2001
- Messages
- 4,229
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Hi everybody!
Ncjacket, I agree with you!! This place is just one big Luv Boat..
What do you think it will take to make us competetive in the new mix, other than Miami and FSU in the other division?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Well, it won't be smoke and mirrors, will it? It will be loads of good athletes, wanting in, getting in, and staying in school. The coach, whoever he is, has a large fraction of the responsibility for those things, but it is only a fraction. The AD has another fraction, and the people who decide upon and support the mission of the school have another.
I have to agree (as usual) with ncjacket, that our fraction as fans does not include negativity, although lots of us apparently must express gloom with ex-lax regularity. Reality checks are fine; determination that GT does everything wrong is not.