Tech picked 8th at the ACC meetings...

Originally posted by BeeBad:
All I want to know is.. after paying out 900K a year... are we at least gonna get kissed when it is over?
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">I don't kiss strangers.

If we don't get better than 8th place, I'll want
at least a reach-around.

wink.gif
 
The question has been brought up of blame. It was stated, "the blame should have been on Gailey last year".

Yes, he is ultimately the blame, because the buck stops here. However, it is up to him to correct the deficiencies.

Has he done that? Maybe! It cannot be denied the offense and quarterback play last year was really bad. So, maybe Gailey has corrected part of the problem by getting rid of O'Brien.

Can we blame the lack of good quarterback play and poor offense last year on O'Brien? Maybe, maybe not. If the quarterback play is better this year and the offense is much better, then it will become obvious O'Brien was part of last years offensive problems.

It is also possible O'brien might have been part of the morale problem last year, if there is no morale problem this year.

When the season is finished and the results are in, we can make a fairly good determination if O'Brien was or was not part of the problem last year.

Another point. Many have jumped on Gailey for not coming out public about problems with the team.

If he feels he is not at fault regarding many of the problems, but knows the reasons, should he come out in public and point fingers at others? No. It would serve no purpose. He would just keep quiet and do the best he could.

Maybe, he is silent on purpose, because a lot of talk would only make things worse.

All of this is possible conjecture, but it is just as valid as all of the conjecture aimed at him, of which, there is no proof.

Whether we want to be patient or not, we have no option. He will coach the team, and the results will decide whether he stays or goes. Nothing else really makes any difference.

All of the bashing from those who wanted to get rid of Gailey has actually helped him.

Think of it! Many have called for his neck because of the academic failures. They have stated we can only win two games this year because of the shortage of players.

They have said Gailey and the coaching staff are in a mess and don't know college football. The magazines and media have picked up on the negative bashing and have rated GT extremely low in the ACC.

The bashers have painted a picture of Tech being at the abyss of football.

Great! This means Gailey has no players to work with, the schedule is too great for Tech to win, and things are so bad, no coach could overcome the deficiencies of the football team.

Before all this bashing came about, he would have been expected to come close to last years record. Now, he is expected to win no more than two games.

He has now been placed in a great position by his bashers. If he wins three games, he has exceeded expectations.

If he wins four games he has done okay with this material. Five games gets him an attaboy and another year. Six games places him in solid position with the administration. Seven games, and he gets a bowl bid and a chance to win eight.

The bashers have lost big time if Gailey wins big this year.

The bashers would not admit it, but they are worried big time Gailey might succeed. Another thing they will not admit is they want Tech to lose so they can replace Gailey.

wink.gif
 
So, win five games and get an "attaboy"? Wow, have we ever lowered our standards.
 
GeeTee, If you learn to read correctly, you should have noted I gave you partial credit for helping lower them. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Father Time
 
nah...never stated that I'd be happy with five wins and give attaboys to our coach with a one year extension because of it...quite the contrary. I believe that statement came from you. So, the pat on the back goes to you. Thanks, anyway.
 
Ahso...
The Chan non-fans did not vote Tech 8th in the ACC - the beat writers for the ACC did! A rude awakening for us fans who can ONLY HOPE they're wrong. As much as I don't like Chan, I want GT to succeed, but he has to succeed before GT can! The writing is on the wall and the beat writers see what we've been seeing and talking about for over a year.

To end up 8th in this conference is a catastrophy. I'm even concerned about Duke! I think they're going to be much better this year and we looked horrible against them last season!
 
...how incredible is it that we are even talking about Duke...much less worried about beating them???

Yep, our program is on the right track.
rolleyes.gif
 
no need to...we weren't the ones who voted GT one step ahead of Duke. Someone is digging in that sand pile for us...maybe they're digging a hole for you to put your head in!

laugh.gif
 
Can we just let the student athletes at Tech play the Games! For gosh sakes...enough of this dribble. No matter what takes place folks, this is still "just a game". Played by students. As a Tech alum AND fan, I stand behind the "T-E-A-M"...and if we were ranked in the top 10, it still probably wouldn't be good enough for some. Good or bad, a Tech fan OR alum STANDS behind them instead of digging at them constantly!
 
Thank you BleedGold! Can we just play the damn games? For the record I believe we are better than UNC, Duke and Wake, no worse than even with Clemson, probably a step below UVA, NCSU and MD, not sure if FSU is really better than those three or not, but have to give them the nod until proven otherwise. The writers have to pick teams from 1-9, they can't just say so and so are even. And given our question marks at QB, RB and with the academic losses their picks make sense. But if you look at it there isn't much difference between
Clemson, UNC, Wake and Tech so that tells me they basically think it's FSU at 1, NCSU, UVA, MD at 1a, UNC, Wake, Clemson and Tech at 5 and Duke last. That's a reasonable prediction.

If we suck, some people will have to answer for it. If we don't some will have to eat their words. Bottom line is let's bring on the games and let the kids decide things on the field. I'm betting we have a much different attitude between the white lines this year whatever the outcome. Maybe the bad apples are gone? (not an editorial comment on any particular player, but all the issues we've faced could actually help the chemistry)
 
If that happens, bye-bye Chan. Thing is Chan may be a decent coach, but team chemistry just isn't there for players to have not played with all efforts last year. Maybe this year will be different as the team may respond well to adversity. One can only blame or credit the head coach. My problem with Chan is not his coaching abilities, but his perception or aurora from what is surrounding this team. If we have that bad of a season that some predict like the ACC coaches and Coleman Rudolph for example, our recruiting class will be pitiful...no matter how good Chan is or people think he is. We haven't had a steller class in a few years. Couple that with the loss of players and losses on the scoreboard, then we're in big trouble.

Hence, Chan will need to go after this season if we have a losing season...no matter how much "effort" we may see from the players.
 
Yep, I agree GeeTee. But we do have to give him this year to be fair. My want is for us to get a solid AD first then He/She could deal with the other stuff with fresh ideas and a clean slate in which to make decisions. THat makes sense to me. I hope this year is similar to 1989 as that was the last time we were picked this low. Unfortunately our Freshman were mostly redshirts, our coaches were excellent and it was the 3rd year of a rebuilding. We are in the 2nd year now of "Unwinding" what O'Leary had built. Not anywhere similar to 89.
 
Originally posted by The Gnome of Zurich:
Yep, I agree GeeTee. But we do have to give him this year to be fair. My want is for us to get a solid AD first then He/She could deal with the other stuff with fresh ideas and a clean slate in which to make decisions. THat makes sense to me. I hope this year is similar to 1989 as that was the last time we were picked this low. Unfortunately our Freshman were mostly redshirts, our coaches were excellent and it was the 3rd year of a rebuilding. We are in the 2nd year now of "Unwinding" what O'Leary had built. Not anywhere similar to 89.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Good post Ghome! Who would have thought we'd drop this far down - not me! And in '89 at least we were rebuilding and the rest of the conference was status quo. The rest of the conference this time is getting better and better and we go backwards, how tough is that!?
 
Originally posted by MsTechAnalysis:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by The Gnome of Zurich:
Yep, I agree GeeTee. But we do have to give him this year to be fair. My want is for us to get a solid AD first then He/She could deal with the other stuff with fresh ideas and a clean slate in which to make decisions. THat makes sense to me. I hope this year is similar to 1989 as that was the last time we were picked this low. Unfortunately our Freshman were mostly redshirts, our coaches were excellent and it was the 3rd year of a rebuilding. We are in the 2nd year now of "Unwinding" what O'Leary had built. Not anywhere similar to 89.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Good post Ghome! Who would have thought we'd drop this far down - not me! And in '89 at least we were rebuilding and the rest of the conference was status quo. The rest of the conference this time is getting better and better and we go backwards, how tough is that!?</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">MsTA, you must not have heard the news.. Chan is Upbeat !!
 
If we finish 8th in the ACC then I'll be calling
for heads to roll too.

Fortunately, I don't think it will happen.

It shouldn't.
 
Originally posted by The Gnome of Zurich:
I dont care what happened, dont ever blame and take resposibility as a good leader. That's the bottomline.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">And who is it that you are leading, gnome?
 
Originally posted by BLEEDGOLD:
Can we just let the student athletes at Tech play the Games! For gosh sakes...enough of this dribble. No matter what takes place folks, this is still "just a game". Played by students. As a Tech alum AND fan, I stand behind the "T-E-A-M"...and if we were ranked in the top 10, it still probably wouldn't be good enough for some. Good or bad, a Tech fan OR alum STANDS behind them instead of digging at them constantly!
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Good post Bleed...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top