Strength & Conditioning - It's a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

[BarrelORum]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

So Beebad, when exactly are you going to answer my questions?

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Originally posted by ahsoisee:
MsTA, you are making false statements again. I said, I bet it was less than ten% of the fans that did not want to give Gailey another year.

Now the higest figure I saw came on the board. It said Braine stated there was about 35% upset over the situation.

It did not state if the 35% wanted Gailey to go or Braine to resign. It just stated about 35% were upset.

Now, if you can find facts or figures that state a certain percentage of fans wanted Gailey to be fired before having another year, please find the figures and post them.

Anything beyond that is mere speculation and is just blowing smoke again without facts. Just the facts maam.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">The FACTS are I did hear that from within!!! And a liar I am not! You should know better!

And, if you would read closely I didn't say Gailey being fired I said the communications from fans not liking what they saw and were negative and concerned was 50%! You need to read others posts and stop trying to spin!

Every time you talk about Chan - YOU USE THE WORD FIRE! Is it something you want????????

Let me add one thing here, in all my communications to the AA over this mess and I still have copies of the emails/letters, I did not call for his firing and projected concern for what I saw and felt about the program.

The 'fire' word you bring up in everything you respond to here. My negativity is all about what I saw and the direction this program has taken - that's the 50% camp. You chose to say 'fire'!

You also TRY to convey that the fans who are not happy are less then those who are - WRONG!!! Your AD does not go in front of the public and say he's been hurt, send out letters, try to gain respect back over a small group of fans critizing the football product!

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Originally posted by mustard:
Mrs TA: Would you agree that if GT goes bowling this year, that CG has worked a miracle?

Consider having lost the 10 players to academics, starting and building a new QB, thin at RB and DT, and playing the 4th most difficult schedule in the land. Will a bowl invite shut off your continual negativity?

Or would you rather not commit so that no matter what our record is, you can continue to snipe at CG?

As for me and my house, we will stand with CG until the "facts" are in, not before they are in.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">If the product on the field is good and the entire program looks better and we DO GO TO a Bowl and play like a Div.1 football program not like what I saw last year, it could happen. But, if we don't - no.

 

[JacketFanPCB]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Excellent post BOR! Since no one else cared to acknowledge it, I wanted to take the opportunity.

Everyone else just wants to argue.

I fully agree. A little patience goes a LONG way!

Please post more often. I for one will respond.

 

[mustard]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

"If the product on the field is good and the entire program looks better and we DO GO TO a Bowl and play like a Div.1 football program not like what I saw last year, it could happen. But, if we don't - no."

Come now, MsTA. A lot of ifs with a ton of subjectivity. My question was: will a bowl invite shut off your negativity?

Your answer is:
1. Good product on the field (you would determine the goodness of the product), AND
2. We go to a bowl (an invite is not enough), AND
3. We play like a Div. 1 FB program in the bowl (it is going to require great Div. 1 FB to get to a bowl), AND
4. It "could happen." (not for sure the negativity would stop).

I agree that your negativity will not stop with a bowl trip because it is simply born out of your sentimental prejudice.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Originally posted by BarrelORum:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by BeeBad:

Quite frankly, you need to read what you are saying 'cause you are sounding very much like a Georgia Tech version of David Koresh... You say you are a GT supporter & you say that you would support whoever is the coach at this point... But then you go into your "Ahso as God" trance, saying, " I do not give an opinion on Gailey's chances of succeeding or failing until after the season for pure honesty. I don't know at this time and neither does anyone else. I will tell you after this season and maybe before the season is over."

So in other words, the Tech coach should be supported by everyone until YOU decide that the time is such that the coach deserves criticism... YOU will let us know when that time arrives... It may be end of the season, it may be mid-season..YOU haven't decided yet... Until then, NOONE has the right to have a strong opinion that gailey will not succeed... If they don't wait until YOU give the okay, they will be tongue lashed, harassed unmercifully and called the lynch mob & other names.. YOU will observe the games as they unfold and we should all patiently await for Your signal.. YOU ARE GOD...

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Beebad, don't you think you are reading a little bit TOO much information into his post? I think his point is one that is reasonable. The FACT of the matter is you cannot judge a coach after one season. Maybe you can, i cannot. If you can judge after one season i would like to know your qualifications in making that judgement, because for MOST reasonable people as well as the ENTIRE Athletic Department feel that Gailey will be a winner here. That goes for me too.

I cannot wait to actually meet the man in person. I have had friends of mine that were doubters hear him speak and meet him in person and each on of them comes away saying the same thing, "WOW!!!" if all these people are saying the same thing about him I have to believe them. He's not a politician, he's a coach, and if he exudes THAT much charisma then that in itself is a STRONG statement about his coaching.

What really interests me is you guys who are of the "win now" mentality. Don't get me wrong, I want to win right now too, but things weren't as Peachy as you people want to believe prior to Gailey. O'Leary's last year was a big disappointment. The only reason Gailey is getting so much grief is because of the last two games of the year. I attribute most of that to the fact that we were running mostly 2nd stringers against the toughest UGA team in 20 years and the fact that we had a QB who couldn't lead. I think the kids gave up on themselves, I don't think they gave up on Gailey.

If after 2 more years of coaching, if I see a lot of the same thing I did last season, then sure, I'll support change at the head coaching level in the man's 4th SEASON! That season would be his do or die season. You're mentality is seriously flawed. It's almost like you refuse to recognize the obvious ramifications of firing a man after 1 year or two years.

Most of you wanted nothing more than to can the man after 1 year and most likely you'll say the same thing after this year. First off, it's harder to coach when you know your job is on the line. Gailey needs to feel comfortbale to do his job. Second, no 1st tier or 2nd tier coach in their right mind would want to take the GT job because of our lack of patience and tolerance. Third, no one wins with high turnover. If we're giving coaches 1 or 2 years to establish a winner then we'll never build one. Take Frank Beamer for example. Here's a guy who is one of the hottest coaches out there and he BUILT his winner. No offense, but GT never built squat.

We have had so much turnover in the coaching ranks and so many highs and lows that our alumni have gotten spoiled and now believe it takes NO TIME to build a winning program. It's this gimme gimme gimme, what have you done for me lately mentality that has really messed up a lot of programs.

i don't know why I'm even bothering replying to you though. If we went 8-4 this coming season you would probably not even be impressed. Exactly what is your expectations of Gailey this year? What EXACTLY would make you think he deserves to be the coach. Please tell me, because I in fact want to know what kind of benchmark were setting for the man. And tell me why you think we can reach those goals as well. I'm very interested to know.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">You talk about meeting him and speaking to him - I met him and spoke with him February 2002. He was nice, talked to us at length during his first venture into the public amongst the fans.

He even asked our afiliation to GT. I told him and my 16 year old added she wanted to go there. A nice conversation but that doesn't constitute ability to coach. Bill Curry I met and talked to more then I can remember, again nice man but didn't do much for GT football.

If 'nice' is why we hire - it could also be a reason for not being successful if that's all you come with.

 

[BarrelORum]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Originally posted by MsTechAnalysis:


If 'nice' is why we hire - it could also be a reason for not being successful if that's all you come with.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Well no kidding Ms Tech, I'm glad you spelled that out for me. I hate it when people try to pigeon hole your arguement based on one statement and then move on like they've answered the question.

Maybe if you and everyone else on this board would read and respond to ALL points you wouldn't be bitching back and forth about percentages and he said she said crap. Some of these reposnes are quite frankly chicken öööö. It's freaking ridiculous reading this board.

So AGAIN,
IS 1 year 2 years enough time for Gailey. You think we ought to fire him? What are your qualifications to know? Have you been around football a lot are you just a fan? What would be a successful season to you this year and in WHAT WAY are those goals attainable by this team? Or are you already sold on this product and just want to watch as it collapses so you and half the people on this board can point the finger say "I told you so" like you knew all along.

Let's get something straight... No one, you, me, or anyone else knows JACK öööö about whether Gailey is a good coach or not. The differnce is unlike most people I don't want to come across as completely ignorant by stating that I've seen enough to know. Because, quite frankly, I haven't.

 

[statelinejacket]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Lets get something straight! I voiced concerns of the strength and conditioning and who the coach (Ed Ellis) is accountable to. Information quoted here so far points to Dave Braine and not Coach Gailey. Just like the academic mess. That was my gripe! Ys'assjk8, and Ahso need the reading comp. classes because I did'nt say anything about firing Coach Gailey! Over at Georgia Mark Richt brought his strength coach with him to Georgia so I have no doubt who is in charge there! But Gailey was to concerned about the Dolphins to be consumed about who is accountable to whom when he arrived at Tech. And it can be argued that was the first step toward the academic mess we have on our hands and if we have a bunch of beer bellies on the lines on Saturdays we will all know where and when that started also. The fact that Georgia shoved us around while we moved the Seminoles off the line shows the value of their strength coach (Dave Van Halanger) that Richt brought with him from Tallahassee to Athens, which is a mistake Bobby Bowden made. One thing is for sure: if we are physically beaten by BYU then its all over because there will be no chance to catch up.

 

[ylojk8]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Originally posted by statelinejacket:
Lets get something straight! I voiced concerns of the strength and conditioning and who the coach (Ed Ellis) is accountable to. Information quoted here so far points to Dave Braine and not Coach Gailey. Just like the academic mess. That was my gripe! Ys'assjk8, and Ahso need the reading comp. classes because I did'nt say anything about firing Coach Gailey! Over at Georgia Mark Richt brought his strength coach with him to Georgia so I have no doubt who is in charge there! But Gailey was to concerned about the Dolphins to be consumed about who is accountable to whom when he arrived at Tech. And it can be argued that was the first step toward the academic mess we have on our hands and if we have a bunch of beer bellies on the lines on Saturdays we will all know where and when that started also. The fact that Georgia shoved us around while we moved the Seminoles off the line shows the value of their strength coach (Dave Van Halanger) that Richt brought with him from Tallahassee to Athens, which is a mistake Bobby Bowden made. One thing is for sure: if we are physically beaten by BYU then its all over because there will be no chance to catch up.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">statelinejacket .. the problem is that you are believing in the information posted by beebad and beebad doesn't have any inside information.

you are also thinking about the fact that MsTA said "beeware, i mean beebad, you seem aware of the facts" .. MsTA doesn't know any facts nor does she care for them. she has gut feelings and instincts.

beebad and MsTA have no inside information about anything regarding Georgia Tech.

you are quick to jump up and believe them because you want to. suit yourself fella.

yes, our SC coach reporting to Braine would be just like the academic mess wudn't it? beebad was making fun of the situation.

and lord, y'assjk8? LOL

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

BOR.. I laid out a very simple concent for Ahso, unfortunately it went way over his head... Let's see if you can grasp it... Everyone appears to have their timetable for deciding whether or not they think gailey will cut it... You now say 3 years (if I recall correctly several months ago you said you would give him ONE more year).. Ahso says 2 years total.. I've heard people say 5 years..

Now let's turn it around, let's say one of those people who say a coach has to have 5 years 'cause he has to get a full recruiting class in to be judged and he said, "BOR, you don't know any football.. a coach has to have 5 years!!!"... What are you gonna say to that if you decide after 3 years gailey ain't the man????

Don't worry... we won't go 8-4 this season, trust me...

Your argument about canning gailey after 2 years & not being able to get a good coach in after that is foolish... If we pay gailey the money he has coming, which shows good faith... then offer topnotch, proven coaches big contracts they will care less if gailey was canned after 2 years.. only thing that would make them hesitate about coming is if we don't honor gailey's full payout.... I'm sure after gailey is canned we will pay him in full...

 

[ylojk8]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

hey beebad, i know you're busy digging a deep hole for yourself as you continue to be pummeled by ahsoisee and now BoR.

if you're not too busy to spare a minute, will you let statelinejacket know that you have no inside information regarding our SC coach and who he reports to. i'm worried that that dude might have a heart attack out of fury .. and it will be for naught.

just let him know that you were making fun of gailey and the system and not to take you seriously about it. save his life. he's not a FOCer .. won't that qualify him to be a life worth saving?

LMAO

hey MsTA .. will you let statelinejacket know that you are not aware of any facts regarding our SC coach? or will you let this poor man suffer? he's in your camp. why torture him?

lord, the posters on stingtalk.

 

[Jack_it]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

This horse is dead. It died a long time ago. Yet people keep trying to beat it. I'm not sure if that's a sign of stubborn, unwavering support for the GT program or just a sign of stubborn stupidity.

BOR opitimizes the debate with his statement, "No one, you, me, or anyone else knows JACK SHxx about whether Gailey is a good coach or not." With all due respect to BOR, the veracity of this statement is completely dependent on the subjective view of what constitutes a "good" coach. Some people will base their view purely on wins and losses, while others will take into account other factors, such as talent, schedule, player motivation, improvement, etc. But in the end, what constitutes a "good" coach will still depend on each person's view.

I think this is the crux of the debate. Everyone wants to think they have the moral high ground, and that their view of what constitutes a "good" coach, is the reasonable, objective one. Not so. Every fan has his or her own veiwpoint (or opinion as some like to call it). Even if we only win two games this year, I'm sure there will be at least one GT fan that will think that CG is a "good" coach based on their own personal criteria (nice hair, nice guy, good role model, good graduation rate, etc.)

The problem, of course, is there's a tension between those who want to support GT athletics no matter what and those that want to improve GT athletics for the future even if it means gutting it today. Obviously, unified fan support is good for the school. But support of a bad administration is bad for the school (at least long-term).

So the issue is not not whether CG is objectively a "good" coach, but whether you (personally) think CG is good for the future of the school.

The argument of the "CG supporters" (which include those who like him and those who just want to give him more time) is that his first year wasn't bad (winning record, bowl appearance)--give him a chance. The argument of the "CG detractors" is that a monkey could have coached the season he had with the team he inherited.

I see the merit of both arguments.

Personally, I want to be a CG Supporter--he potentially may be the coach that will return GT into a powerhouse in college football. But based on the teams' performance and lack of motivation the last two games, I have my serious doubts. Even still, because revamping the coaching staff this quickly will cause great turmoil with our program, I'm willing to give him another year.

The administration, on the other hand, is another story. They've been here long enough to be evaluated. In my opinion, Dave Braine needs to go.

 

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Jack_it... very good take..

jlo'ssssjkH8... you will never be invited to a Pot Luck dinner, 'cause you bring nothing to the table... Don't worry 'bout stateline, he's heading towards another all-american year...

 

[ylojk8]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Originally posted by BeeBad:
Jack_it... very good take..

jlo'ssssjkH8... you will never be invited to a Pot Luck dinner, 'cause you bring nothing to the table... Don't worry 'bout stateline, he's heading towards another all-american year...

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">i'm not worried about stateline .. LOL .. i'm just pitying his gullibility and naivette.

better to bring nothing to the table than to bring the garbage that you bring. but as long as we have people like stateline who are incapable of discerning and consume your garbage with glee, you'll be popular. LOL

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Originally posted by mustard:
"If the product on the field is good and the entire program looks better and we DO GO TO a Bowl and play like a Div.1 football program not like what I saw last year, it could happen. But, if we don't - no."

Come now, MsTA. A lot of ifs with a ton of subjectivity. My question was: will a bowl invite shut off your negativity?

Your answer is:
1. Good product on the field (you would determine the goodness of the product), AND
2. We go to a bowl (an invite is not enough), AND
3. We play like a Div. 1 FB program in the bowl (it is going to require great Div. 1 FB to get to a bowl), AND
4. It "could happen." (not for sure the negativity would stop).

I agree that your negativity will not stop with a bowl trip because it is simply born out of your sentimental prejudice.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">We went to a bowl - the very last game of the season. A game where in most instance you'd believe the team to be better then during the year. It was like distruction had already occured against UGAG and Fresno State was the 'after game torture'!

Prejudice to what Chan? Prejudice would have been to not give him anything. When you're prejudice nothing matters. Even though I didn't like the hire I will give anyone the benefit of the doubt - the problem here is the "doubt" came a lot earlier then I thought!

Going to a bowl, is that the ultimate barometer ... last season sure did prove it to be. The only barometer that bowl gave us was - is this how far we've come with this coach to look this bad!

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Originally posted by Jack_it:
This horse is dead. It died a long time ago. Yet people keep trying to beat it. I'm not sure if that's a sign of stubborn, unwavering support for the GT program or just a sign of stubborn stupidity.

BOR opitimizes the debate with his statement, "No one, you, me, or anyone else knows JACK SHxx about whether Gailey is a good coach or not." With all due respect to BOR, the veracity of this statement is completely dependent on the subjective view of what constitutes a "good" coach. Some people will base their view purely on wins and losses, while others will take into account other factors, such as talent, schedule, player motivation, improvement, etc. But in the end, what constitutes a "good" coach will still depend on each person's view.

I think this is the crux of the debate. Everyone wants to think they have the moral high ground, and that their view of what constitutes a "good" coach, is the reasonable, objective one. Not so. Every fan has his or her own veiwpoint (or opinion as some like to call it). Even if we only win two games this year, I'm sure there will be at least one GT fan that will think that CG is a "good" coach based on their own personal criteria (nice hair, nice guy, good role model, good graduation rate, etc.)

The problem, of course, is there's a tension between those who want to support GT athletics no matter what and those that want to improve GT athletics for the future even if it means gutting it today. Obviously, unified fan support is good for the school. But support of a bad administration is bad for the school (at least long-term).

So the issue is not not whether CG is objectively a "good" coach, but whether you (personally) think CG is good for the future of the school.

The argument of the "CG supporters" (which include those who like him and those who just want to give him more time) is that his first year wasn't bad (winning record, bowl appearance)--give him a chance. The argument of the "CG detractors" is that a monkey could have coached the season he had with the team he inherited.

I see the merit of both arguments.

Personally, I want to be a CG Supporter--he potentially may be the coach that will return GT into a powerhouse in college football. But based on the teams' performance and lack of motivation the last two games, I have my serious doubts. Even still, because revamping the coaching staff this quickly will cause great turmoil with our program, I'm willing to give him another year.

The administration, on the other hand, is another story. They've been here long enough to be evaluated. In my opinion, Dave Braine needs to go.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Jack_it: An appraisal worth quoting and valid in it's content.

 

[MsTechAnalysis]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Originally posted by BarrelORum:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by MsTechAnalysis:


If 'nice' is why we hire - it could also be a reason for not being successful if that's all you come with.

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Well no kidding Ms Tech, I'm glad you spelled that out for me. I hate it when people try to pigeon hole your arguement based on one statement and then move on like they've answered the question.

Maybe if you and everyone else on this board would read and respond to ALL points you wouldn't be bitching back and forth about percentages and he said she said crap. Some of these reposnes are quite frankly chicken öööö. It's freaking ridiculous reading this board.

So AGAIN,
IS 1 year 2 years enough time for Gailey. You think we ought to fire him? What are your qualifications to know? Have you been around football a lot are you just a fan? What would be a successful season to you this year and in WHAT WAY are those goals attainable by this team? Or are you already sold on this product and just want to watch as it collapses so you and half the people on this board can point the finger say "I told you so" like you knew all along.

Let's get something straight... No one, you, me, or anyone else knows JACK öööö about whether Gailey is a good coach or not. The differnce is unlike most people I don't want to come across as completely ignorant by stating that I've seen enough to know. Because, quite frankly, I haven't.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">This debate was not started over something that didn't happen. It started over things that did. You can either join the debate and say - I take a wait and see attitude (no problem with that); or join the debate and say - no this is what I don't like and why.

You've haven't seen enough - ah, the difference, I've seen enough to question the hire; question the direction of the program; question the coaching ability; question the well being of the players in trying to compete at this level; question our coach's ability vs. those he'll have to coach against; question the discipline; question his management skills; question is motivational skills; question is recruiting; question his hiring skills - it's endless!

So, in the end - you haven't seen enough, and on the other side - oh well!

 

[statelinejacket]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

Originally posted by ylojk8:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by BeeBad:
Jack_it... very good take..

jlo'ssssjkH8... you will never be invited to a Pot Luck dinner, 'cause you bring nothing to the table... Don't worry 'bout stateline, he's heading towards another all-american year...

<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">i'm not worried about stateline .. LOL .. i'm just pitying his gullibility and naivette.

better to bring nothing to the table than to bring the garbage that you bring. but as long as we have people like stateline who are incapable of discerning and consume your garbage with glee, you'll be popular. LOL</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">YS'ASSJK8! You should take your drivel and get the hell out of here! Have you not noticed that no one, not one pro-Gailey poster has backed you up in your incoherent rantings? Could it be your just as ridiculous to the side your trying to defend as you are to the ones you are insulting? Think about it. Take your time Please take all the time you need. StingTalk can allow you whatever amount of medical leave to recover from whatever it is that has turned you into a babbling idiot!

 

[mustard]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

MsTA: My last words because it seems that we cannot communicate.

CG is our coach for this season, like it or not. Now, the question comes for you: are you going to continue your negativity thru the season? Will you be on the sidelines cheering the brave and bold, or will you be hollering: "Fire the coach, we don't have a chance, CG is taking this team into oblivion, etc"? Is this public board and your posts representative of what you will continue to say in public?

I can't see one good thing coming from public negativity when the die is cast. It would seem that an objective evaluation would come at the end of the season. One evaluation has already come, and you disagreed with it. Can you give it a rest until time for the next evaluation?

For the good of GT and CG and the team, we ought to get behind these guys because what is set . . . is set for another season. Will our Jackets fare better with screaming and loving support or with hypernegativity dripping all over everyone causing doubt and misteps. If anyone declares the latter, then I pray that it comes back on them so heavily that they drown in it.

It is a choice well within the volition, kinda like loving a family member who is mean and unresponsible and unlikable. You still support and care for them because they are family.

 

[ahsoisee]

Re: Strength & Conditioning - It\'s a Bad Sign For The Gailey Era IF....

MsTA, you still won't produce facts and all you do is throw innuendos around with nothing to back them up.

Your statement "The FACTS are I did hear that from within" is not a fact. It is a rumor, it is heresay. Get the quote and the person that quoted it. Let them put it in writing and verify to its correctness and we can use it. Anything other than John Doe said is rumor and is not fact.

You also said "I said the communications from fans not liking what they saw and were negative and concerned was 50%". Again that is rumor. Provide the verified proof, figures and where they came from. It has to be verified. Any thing John Does says is rumor and is not fact.

You also said "Every time you talk about Chan - YOU USE THE WORD FIRE! Is it something you want????????". Now you are completely rediculous. I have made it clear I don't want him fired without having a chance. Again you can't provide any kind of statistics or facts, so you just throw garbage around.

You also said "My negativity is all about what I saw and the direction this program has taken - that's the 50% camp". Again provide the facts, figures, and verified proof of a 50% camp. Another false lie until you can prove it.

When you come up with the sources and verified facts, it can be believed, but until then they are made up lies.

You also stated "You also TRY to convey that the fans who are not happy are less then those who are - WRONG!!!". I have never said that. Find the post and prove it. I have only rebutted the untrue statements you and a few others have made. Again, some of your lies and misstatements.

You also said "Your AD does not go in front of the public and say he's been hurt, send out letters, try to gain respect back over a small group of fans critizing the football product"!

He is not my AD, where did you get that? He is your AD, my AD, and any person's AD that is a fan of GT. He happens to be the Tech AD and does not report to me. Go find a post where I have pushed anyone for getting rid of Braine or retaining him. You cannot find one. Another smoke screen by you.

And, you are wrong again, many leaders would distribute PR remarks, even if dissenters were less than 10%. I am sure most companies would produce some PR if they had as much as 10% of their customers complain about a product.

You also said "We went to a bowl - the very last game of the season. A game where in most instance you'd believe the team to be better then during the year. It was like distruction had already occured against UGAG and Fresno State was the 'after game torture'!"

Yes, in 2001 Tech went to a bowl in the last game of the season. If your statement is true, then Tech should have been better than during the year. The year was 9-2, the bowl was a disaster, because Friegden was gone, and GOL coached it. He then followed that up with a 7-5 year with a predicted top ten team. Yes it was disastrous and torture.

You have never given Chan the doubt as you claim. You have stated on this board, you did not want him from the beginning. That is not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

You also said "The only barometer that bowl gave us was - is this how far we've come with this coach to look this bad!"

No, there were other aspects of the barometer. It indicated Tech had to get rid of O'Brien, it indicated some of the players laid down in the game, and it indicated Tech had to have a new offensive coordinator, and it indicated Tech had to have a new quarterback coach.

So, you are still blowing all kinds of smoke without any proof. your statements mean zilch unless you can back them up with facts.

BeeBad

You said "BOR.. I laid out a very simple concent for Ahso". Could you please tell me what a concent consists of?

You also said "Ahso says 2 years total". I said no such thing. I said I will tell you at the end of this year or maybe before then what I think about Gailey's chances at success or failure. I did not say he should go at the end of this year.

Until the season is played or a huge trend is set, it will be difficult to determine further trends in his abilities to get the job done at Tech.

As I said, your reading comprehension is atrocious.

Sheesh! Golly Gee! Holy Cow!