"Tech Talking Title"

Re: Well, one statement right there.......

I did not coin the term FOCR, how many times must I tell you that? But here it is again, I DID NOT COIN THE TERM FOCR do you get it now BOR? If you got it before why do you keep asking? CCG has divided the fan base with his coaching, not his words, he has told a few fibs, but that is almost understandable. He is the OC and HC contrary to his saying Nix is the OC we all know better. He may not be much of a coach but I do believe he is smart enought to bite his tongue when in public. Now BOR how many more of the same type questions do you have for me? If you have more then put them all in one post.
 
Re: oldfoggy .. dude .. geis makes a comparison

How long has it been since you've seen your local shrink? Must have been a while, I suggest you get back to him/her quickly. 3518 was correct about you.
 
Re: oldfoggy .. dude .. geis makes a comparison

I suggest you learn to read, I answered almost all of GTL's questions point by point. Rambling maybe some but I was answering his questions.

Are you and GT_D brothers?
 
First of all, I warned about Maryland\'s talent

level. Unfortunately, I didn't follow my own post and made a bad prediction on Tech-Maryland. Unlike YLO, I will admit when I make a mistake. All I heard before the spring was these o-lineman that maybe a little smaller but would be quick and athletic. Now, we have a converted d-lineman we need there and our top backup is Newberry. Doesn't that set off some alarm bells? 2 guys who just moved the o-line this spring are starting and the top backup. YLO, if Bilbo had caught 40 passes for 800 yards instead of 4 passes, you would be jumping all over me about how you saw Bilbo's potential. You were in total agreement with Geis. BOR, I've tried to e-mail the GTAA and they don't respond. The thing that bother me most about the Carlos Thomas is that he was denied a visit even though he was committed to Tech. If there was some understanding that he to meet some academic criteria, that's one thing. But to deny a local kid whose brother is here a visit is just not right. O'Leary's record his last 3 years was 26-12. Gailey's record is 21-17. That's a decline. A tricked up bowl streak doesn't change that.
 
Re: First of all, I warned about Maryland\'s talent

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, I didn't follow my own post and made a bad prediction on Tech-Maryland.

[/ QUOTE ]

Attempted CYA, missed wide left.
 
uhhh ... techie

wait a minute .. hang on a bit.

you know, you put a lot of stock in the "recruiting services ranking" right?

why are you saying that Maryland has not been recruiting well? the recruiting services rankings since 2002 have constantly stated that Maryland has been out recruiting Tech.

i can post the numbers for your perusal if you so desire.

so you admit that you made up the "fat and slow" adjectives when it comes to O'Leary's OL recruits. nobody has said that they were "fat and slow" except you and your ilk, and somehow y'all have been attributing it to FOC'ers. how convenient.

yes, our young OL will be athletic. you can take that to the bank. who cares if we have to convert DL to OL or vice versa?? we'll use the best talent on the team for the best of the team. makes sense, no?

and please don't put words in my mouth. i did not make the Bilbo Sharpe comparison. i just commented that that is what coach Geis sees and he has coached both of 'em. don't think for me, thank you very much.

if Bilbo becomes a break out WR that i hope he does, i will not be thumping my chest stating that i saw potential. please.

the Hill does not allow recruits not meeting minimal criteria on official visits. your issue here is with the hill and not Gailey. there's nothing he could have done about it. that's Georgia Tech for you.

how about comparing Gailey's record in his 1st 3 years with O'Leary's record in his 1st 3 years? leave the half year that O'Leary was appointed interim head coach out if you wish.

the decline could have been because of 10 players flunking out of Tech. no?

even a tricked up bowl streak is not in cards for Vanderbilt, so when you create your spin, leave comparisons with Vanderbilt football out. or just come to terms that you are a BS artist. can't have it both ways my friend.

"i refuse to sit by" .. LOL

i hope you are making all these posts on internet message boards like stingtalk and BuzzOff standing up cause you refuse to sit by.
 
old foggy .. here\'s my request to you

please precisely QUOTE how and where I have insulted you. use precise QUOTES now. you wouldn't have it any other way if the tables were turned right? you love precise QUOTES right?

show me precise QUOTES where i have insulted you. use the personal messages that i have sent in response to yours if you wish.

you say i have insulted you. please show where i have done that.

if you find even one instance, i will apologize profusely. if you can't, please refrain from such insinuations in the future.

that's all i ask.
 
Re: First of all, I warned about Maryland\'s talent

[ QUOTE ]
O'Leary's record his last 3 years was 26-12. Gailey's record is 21-17. That's a decline. A tricked up bowl streak doesn't change that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Techie,

For someone who claims posters distort facts and revise history, you have become the master of it.

First of all, at least get your numbers correct before distorting the results. O’Leary’s record over his last three seasons (1999-2001) was 24-12 not 26-12 (8-4 in 1999, 9-3 in 2000, and 7-5 in 2001). Even if you attempted to count the 2001 bowl game (which he did not coach—remember?), your number is still incorrect. By the way, I firmly believe that if O’Leary had remained at Tech in 2001, Tech would have lost the bowl game--but that’s my opinion.

Secondly, I loved how you manipulated the numbers and compared O’Leary’s last three years to Gailey’s first three. Remember it took O’Leary’s third season to transition from the previous regime before he got enough of his system and recruits in place to get the 7 wins which started that tricked-up bowl streak you mentioned. If you compare the first three seasons of both coaches, Gailey has a slight lead over O’Leary at 21-17 to 18-16. Notice I was nice enough not to include O’Leary’s 0-3 record from 1994. No distortion there.

And lastly, I am perplexed by what your definition of the word “decline” is. You and I have already had a disagreement on the definition of what a “blow-out” is. You think if a Tech team keeps the score close late into a game and then loses it by a score of 34-7, then it is not an embarrassing blow-out. Sorry I do, especially if it is to the team that Tech eventually shared the ACC title with. But I digress. If you look at O’Leary’s last three seasons at Tech, he went from 8-4 in 1999, to 9-3 in 2000, to a very frustrating regular season record of 7-5 in 2001. Do you see a downward trend here—especially since he was 10-2 in 1998? Now what was Gailey’s first regular season record in 2002? History tells us it was 7-5 (also very frustrating). Goodness, it was the same as O’Leary’s last season and Gailey did it with O’Leary’s recruits and without Godsey, Campell, Burns, and a few other stars. So now you see why I am curious as to what your definition of “decline” is, when the real decline actually started before Gailey arrived.

I admit I wrote this with a little TIC, but to also prove a point. I have always had the utmost regard for O’Leary and what he did for Tech. But he is not above criticism especially after he became successful here. In spite of what you may want to think or distort, I have never made excuses for Gailey’s loses or problems as you are prone to do for O’Leary. I have only defended Gailey’s right to have the same opportunity to become successful at Tech as was given to O’Leary. The difference between you and me is: I want Gailey to succeed because that means Tech succeeds. You just want Gailey to fail, and that’s no distortion.
 
Re: old foggy .. here\'s my request to you

OK YLO and this will be my last reply as you are just not worth my time or effort. You stated but I'll paraphrase, Oldfoggy isn't even and engineer. Where as thats true the insuation was that I am not degreed similar to others who post on this board. Well know it all, you do know I have several degrees both in Chemistry. You also know I worked as an Engineer. To me that was insulting. You know it all you! Seems like some here no make that many can insult but when it's brought back home they get their shorts all in a wad.
 
Fogy, any time you respond to blackprix

you are talking to MsTA. Don't let 'em tell you any different.

And you have stated many, many times to many different posters here that we don't know what we're talking about because we didn't follow Tech in the Dodd days. That's a silly standard.

And I do read every post in the threads I open, but you often claim you do not.

Perhaps you would be more welcome here if you treated other posters with respect, even though your opinions differ from theirs?
 
Re: Fogy, any time you respond to blackprix

you don't have to worry about me any longer. This AM I sent an email to the mods and resigned from this board. You FOCRS can have it, as one of our former Presidents said but I'll have to change it slightly you won't OLDFOGGY to kick around any more! So have at I'll still be a Tech fan nothing you guys say or do will change that. I lived without a board for the better part of 60 years so keep lovin this guy, I won't!

Maybe don't remember are you one of the ones who said he was going to kick my Tush? Are you one of the ones who called my wife a mail order bride? Are you one of the ones who called me JAKWAD? Are you one of the ones who called me fog brained? Are you one of the ones who asked about my death? Are you one of the ones who said I'd had a stroke? Enough of you people and your crap. Why should I respect some of you? I responded in kind and now you guys don't like it when I do so. Forgot One are you one of the ones who said foggy is not an Engineer?
 
Re: Fogy, any time you respond to blackprix

fogolo - YOU'RE THE ONE THAT CALLED US "losers that will accept anything". Far more insulting than "Jackwad". It's all about you ol' budrow.
 
old foggy .. give it a rest

you were telling others that they did not have any logic and that was because they did not attend Tech or were not engineers.

i just pointed out that your education from Tech was not in engineering either. that was all i said. just trying to highlight the hypocrisy in your statement.

shall i now cut and paste all the insults that you have hurled my way? it will not be a pretty sight now will it?

i did not call you a single name.

and *i* am not worth your time? i think it's you who is not worthy of my time.

i have spent a lot of time interacting with you despite your insults towards me because i respect you being an old Tech man.
 
I was being sarcastic when

I used the term "fat and slow". I never accused anybody of saying that. Yes, players are moved all the time but usually it's to fill gaps created by injuries. That's not the case with the offensive line. The injuries right now are on the defensive line. I stand corrected on O'Leary's record. It was 25-12. I do count the bowl game because it was O'Leary's staff. O'Leary took over a divided 1-10 team. Gailey took over a team where 8-5 was a disappointment and hasn't managed to get 8 wins yet. We haven't led UGA since 2001 and suffered a record-breaking loss. The offense the past 2 years run by Gailey are some of weakest in the last 20+ years. Even with a weak QB crop in the ACC, Reggie ranked next-to-last in 2004.
Maryland's recruitng while better than Tech's has not been great. UVA has been the much stronger. NC State's has been mixed with some great talent and some real reaches.
If you want to blind yourself to fantasy world practice reports and recruiting classes, that's your perogrative. Reality will start to hit in 2006. We lose at least 6 defensive starters. Gailey's offense will have to produce results because he can't gravy train Tenuta and a defense that will be inexperienced.
 
Re: I was being sarcastic when

3518techie, I just wanted to say one thing about O'leary taking over for Bill Lewis. Yes the team was divided and the majority of the team wanted G O'L for head coach but conversations with George informed me that talent was not the problem but attitude was.

Everyone jumps to George's defense when talking about shambles that Bill left. That's far from the truth. The talent was still there.
 
Re: I was being sarcastic when

You callin' me fat and slow? (ah, the truth for once /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugher.gif)


Over and over again you're whining and whining about the same actual and perceived failings of the coach. The facts are, and these are NOT excuses, they are facts, in the coaching transiting we lost a LOT of players, then we lost a LOT of players due to injuries, then we lost a LOT of players to flunkgate.

It happens to all teams every year, but we lost more than what is typical for most. Even in the best of times GT has never had a lot of depth so the losses hit us even harder. This is not excuses. This is fact. If you think ANY coach would have done much better, then you're in a fantasy world.

[ QUOTE ]
Reality will start to hit in 2006. We lose at least 6 defensive starters. Gailey's offense will have to produce results

[/ QUOTE ]

Reality starts now. We've lost THREE DL starters for next season. The offense WILL have to put points on the board starting at Aubern. Quite frankly, I look forward to it.

We'll be OK in 2006 because the o-line will be experienced, and Gailey will have the fruits of his recruiting in place and ready to go, no matter what you think of them.
 
Re: Well, one statement right there.......

[ QUOTE ]
I did not coin the term FOCR, how many times must I tell you that? But here it is again, I DID NOT COIN THE TERM FOCR do you get it now BOR? If you got it before why do you keep asking? CCG has divided the fan base with his coaching, not his words, he has told a few fibs, but that is almost understandable. He is the OC and HC contrary to his saying Nix is the OC we all know better. He may not be much of a coach but I do believe he is smart enought to bite his tongue when in public. Now BOR how many more of the same type questions do you have for me? If you have more then put them all in one post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhh.. You might want to re-read my post. I never claimed that you did Coin the term FOCER. I insinuated that the people who did and readily use the term FOCER (you being a user of the word) to describe those with a little more tolerance of our coach than others, are the ones dividing this fan base.

Our coach is not the person who describes our fan base as two entities. You as well as the other guys on BO do however classify our fan base into two types.

How someone can divide a fan base through coaching is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. A fan base can become divided indirectly through a team's performance. Happens all the time. It basically is the difference between tolerance points in fans. Some people have a very low tolerance and the first sign of anything wrong, they jump ship or off the band-wagon, whatever you want to call it. Some others wait it out and later might decide to jump ship. Still others need to see more in order to make their decision as to whether or not they jump ship or not.

But it's the fans making that decision to support said coach/team/etc. Sure it has a lot to do with how a coach performs, but lets make a clear distinction between two things. When a coach does bad, fans like yourself stop supporting the coach. What happens if he starts to do well again?

Its like the Syracuse Game. We seriously kicked some ass, the coach had a great game plan. What did the BO5 do? They down played the accomplishment. They still found a way to bash the coach. It doesn't matter what the coach does now in some of these people's eyes, he will forever be a lemon. There's no turning back now. He's bad, and it doesn't matter what achievements he accomplishes at Tech.

When a section of the fan base goes out of its way to make a clear distinction between two types of fans, then they're the ones trying to divide. Not the coach. The BO gang has managed to do just that and worse yet, they love it.

I can understand people not liking Gailey. But I don't understand people who go out of their way to chip away at the support structure underneath a coach, team and school. That's what your little friends on BO do and that's what you do. I don't think you do it intenionally, but you do it nonetheless. Maybe one day you'll recognize this.
 
Re: First of all, I warned about Maryland\'s talent

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that bother me most about the Carlos Thomas is that he was denied a visit even though he was committed to Tech. If there was some understanding that he to meet some academic criteria, that's one thing. But to deny a local kid whose brother is here a visit is just not right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't know what you are talking about.

Carlos Thomas committed to GT and never had an offer from us. That's the truth. He had a condition that he had to meet a certain academic requirement in order to be accepted to Tech. He never met it.

The GTAA has a policy that you don't allow a player to come on an official (not unofficial) visit unless he has the very real opportunity to come and play at Tech. They look at it as being fair to players out there and they don't want their coaches getting into a situation where they are leading a high school athlete on. Carlos did not have that opportunity because he never had an offer.

I think Carlos committed because he was hoping to put some pressure on Tech's coaching staff that they would make him an exception. The Tech coaches couldn't comment on the situation because its against NCAA rules for coaches to talk about recruits.

It was like the kid from St. Louis two years ago who committed to GT and he never had an offer much less interest from us. On signing day, everyone was like "Where's this kid?" The staff said that they never even recruited him. They even called him to say that he didn't have an offer. But the kid wanted to get some publicity and so he went around saying he committed to GT.

Unlike that situation, we were interested in Carlos, but Carlos never had an offer from GT. I can guarantee you Gailey jumped through a lot of hoops to try and get Carlos into Tech. Problem is, in the end Carlos didn;t do the work to get into Tech.

Carlos's situation was directly his own fault.

But spin it some more mix master.
 
Re: First of all, I warned about Maryland\'s talent

BeeGone, that was a damn good post. Please post more.
 
Re: Fogy, any time you respond to blackprix

[ QUOTE ]
So have at I'll still be a Tech fan nothing you guys say or do will change that.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't want to change that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top