Really a little P'vd that DRad and CPJ

Rest assured BOR I have no insecurities speaking in public and I can debate a topic without attacking the opposition. That says a lot about YOU. But we've banged heads before so I know you can't resist a chance to take a cheap shot.

So are you saying that PJ is not on the payroll yet? Does his contract start 1/1/08? If so, I will agree with your point. I was under the impression he was hired in early December. Also, I wasn't singling out PJ, my post mentioned DRad as well. I guess he's not in control either.
Well, I'm not BOR but it was a dumb post. A decision was made when Gailey was fired to give Tenuta the interim job. At that point we didn't have a new coach, didn't know who he would be and didn't know when he would be on board. Once we made the hire, it would have been stupid to rescind what was in place. We lost because our defense got hammered. It may very well have gotten hammered if PJ had been calling the shots since Tenuta would have been the DC. So what's your point?
 
Rest assured BOR I have no insecurities speaking in public and I can debate a topic without attacking the opposition. That says a lot about YOU. But we've banged heads before so I know you can't resist a chance to take a cheap shot.

So are you saying that PJ is not on the payroll yet? Does his contract start 1/1/08? If so, I will agree with your point. I was under the impression he was hired in early December. Also, I wasn't singling out PJ, my post mentioned DRad as well. I guess he's not in control either.

Paul is not officially the head coach until 1/2/08. If you listened to him during the interview he mentioned that a couple times. He had no real control over the program yet, the same as all the other new head coaches had no control over their programs.

Also, your guess is correct, D-Rad has no control over the football program in the way that you are suggesting. For an AD to be able to come in and undermine the head coach in a way that you suggest would be disasterous. During this job search I think some of us may have forgotten that Radakovich is the athletic director, not the head of the football program. Lots of people complain about Arthur Blank just being on the sideline; you are basically saying that you would want him to come into practice and tell the head coach he is not doing a good job and tell the players they are not playing hard. That just can't be done.

Yeah, we sucked during our bowl game. But guess what? So has every other school in our position thus far(coachless teams are 0-6 in the bowls). It's ludicrous to in any way hold Paul Johnson or Dan Radakovich responsible.
 
Well, I'm not BOR but it was a dumb post. A decision was made when Gailey was fired to give Tenuta the interim job. At that point we didn't have a new coach, didn't know who he would be and didn't know when he would be on board. Once we made the hire, it would have been stupid to rescind what was in place. We lost because our defense got hammered. It may very well have gotten hammered if PJ had been calling the shots since Tenuta would have been the DC. So what's your point?

The point remains that the team was not prepared.

Someone in charge should have been monitoring practices, players moods, etc and should have known what was about to happen. And they should have intervened.

A good manager doesn't just delegate authority to a subordinate and then walk away.
 
Rest assured BOR I have no insecurities speaking in public and I can debate a topic without attacking the opposition. That says a lot about YOU.


It says a lot about you when you start 5 threads right after our loss attacking anything and everything. Shut up and grow up.
 
The point remains that the team was not prepared.

Someone in charge should have been monitoring practices, players moods, etc and should have known what was about to happen. And they should have intervened.

A good manager doesn't just delegate authority to a subordinate and then walk away.

The team wasn't prepared well. Paul Johnson was not in charge of the team. You care to keep sticking that foot in your mouth and burying your head up your ass, or do you want to admit that you don't know what the **** you're talking about?
 
The point remains that the team was not prepared.

Someone in charge should have been monitoring practices, players moods, etc and should have known what was about to happen. And they should have intervened.

A good manager doesn't just delegate authority to a subordinate and then walk away.
They were. Didn't you read any of the articles about practices? The kids seemed upbeat and eager for the game. It just points out the fact that has been proven time and time again that you can't tell a damn thing about how a team will play based on their mood at practice. Especially college teams.
 
You care to keep sticking that foot in your mouth and burying your head up your ass, or do you want to admit that you don't know what the **** you're talking about?

same to you, dickhead. And thats the last thing I'll say to you. Your boorishness doesn't deserve further comment. But guess what, I won't be intimidated and I ain't going nowhere.
 
They were. Didn't you read any of the articles about practices? The kids seemed upbeat and eager for the game. It just points out the fact that has been proven time and time again that you can't tell a damn thing about how a team will play based on their mood at practice. Especially college teams.

well were they or weren't they prepared? I read the articles about the practices. In hind sight I call BS on them. This defense was not prepared to play football yesterday, period. The funny thing is there are dozens of other posts saying the same thing. But you guys are trashing me cause I am saying it could have been prevented.
 
well were they or weren't they prepared? I read the articles about the practices. In hind sight I call BS on them. This defense was not prepared to play football yesterday, period. The funny thing is there are dozens of other posts saying the same thing. But you guys are trashing me cause I am saying it could have been prevented.

Everyone agrees that they weren't prepared. But most of us are intelligent enough not to blame Paul Johnson for them being unprepared since he had absolutely nothing to do with it and couldn't have even if he wanted to. Got it?
 
What I don't understand is why can't you understand that CPJ had nothing to do with the bowl. I talked to D Rad himself and he believed practice was going well and they were prepared.

He knew the first couple of practices didn't go well and apparently stepped in to see what the problem was. After that we were told the players like the discipline given to them.

For you to keep insisting CPJ should step in is ludicris. DRad apparently did. So does that make you feel better?

PS: He also told me in Boise that the players had an edge to them and felt it would be a great game. Maybe he's not a great judge of emotions before the game but he told me what he thought and felt.
 
Good afternoon all - hope everyone is somewhat recovered from the effects of the massive quantities consumed due to depressing bowl game and New Year's Eve?

BOR, RW1, Mover, anybody else who has expressed an opinion of the original post, let's go deeper into this concept of "being prepared". Those of you who have played serious athlethics at some competitive level will be familiar with the idea that this can relate to any one or more of several different areas - mentally, physically, technically, tactically.

Everyone seems to agree that GT was "unprepared" (again) yesterday. How exactly do you mean? In which area(s) do you see as the main problem(s)? Are they the same as what caused this problem the other times this season?
 
Point is, It doesn't matter anymore. Today is the 1st day of the CPJ regime. Let's get a great recruiting class in and bring back the spring game and get ready for whoever next September.

We've beat this horse of Chan and JT long enough.

As of 3:47 it's a new beginning.

TO HELL WITH GEORGIA
All day, everyday.
 
Back
Top