Thoughts?

About Damn time. Maybe Gailey will learn that Nesbitt is the best option at QB next week, just in time for UGA. I'll give him a cookie for figuring it out all on his own. But yes, I like Burnett at CB.
Click to expand...
You might want to take that cookie back, because Gailey had nothing to do with the decision. Tenuta is the head coach of his defense.
 
FANOFBOBBYDODD said:
Sure he has made mistakes and will continue to do so but I don't see anyone who could have done better. I believe if we will let him get beyond these issues he will do great. Yes we have had winning seasons every year he has been here and I have seen it much worse.
Click to expand...

Really?

You don't think there is a single coach that could have done better under the same circumstances regardless of how much he might cost or the chances that he would come to GT?

I can think of about 25 to 30 or more, most of whom are unlikely to come to GT, but that's a different question.

Somewhere out there is the next Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, Les Miles, Pete Carroll, etc. And I think that coach could do better, if you could find them. Further, all those supposedly unattainable coaches in that list could do better. I believe O'Leary could do better although I don't want him back.

We could certainly do worse, but I don't think you are stretching your imagination much if you can't think of anyone who could have done better.

P.S.
UNC is better than their record. Hey, Butch Davis, there's another one I think could have done better.
 
lonestarjacket said:
P.S.
UNC is better than their record. Hey, Butch Davis, there's another one I think could have done better.
Click to expand...

Of course they are. They were a missed 2PC/shanked punt/holding penalty away from beating us.

But I should shut up, this isnt a what if thread :fingersx:
 
Somewhere out there is the next Urban Meyer, Nick Saban, Les Miles, Pete Carroll, etc.
Click to expand...
yup, and last year you would have included Charlie Weiss in that list....along with Weis are coaches like Bill Lewis, Gary Barnett, Bill Callahan, and Greg Robinson. and, oh by the way, Saban just lost to LaMonroe! I'm not saying not to make a change...I believe one is warranted in fact.

However, making a change won't necessarily make things better, and it'll be a whole lot easier to make a change for the worse. No, O'Leary would not have done a better job than Gailey under the circumstances Gailey has had.
 
pocket_watch said:
Tens of thousands would argue that O'Leary did a much better job in worse circumstances than Gailey has had..
Click to expand...



O'Leary was a lot of fun...and he has the perfect personality to rebuild, or build, a program. Not sure if he is a next level coach. He was as stubborn about defense (we were horrible when he was head coach) as Gailey is about offense...and as Cremins is about the number of schollie players you need. It seems to be a common coaching characteristic. O'Leary without Friedgen had a difficult time (years 1/2...plus the Peach Bowl in second to last year....plus his last year).

I am thankful for the time O'Leary spent here....right man at the right time. I am also thankful for the time Gailey has spent here thus far...he has been the right man for the right time.

The big question is...is there really a silver bullet out there in college football. Based on the records and some of the game outcomes of the few "can't miss" coaches...I am not sure. Heck...even Spurrier has goen 7-5, 8-5 at an SEC school with major fan support...and is 6-5 in his third year...facing a major downswing to 6-6 if Clemson beats them.

...and I am still grinning at 5-6 LA-Monroe handing it to Nick Saban and the Alabama faithful last weekend!

People can act tough and confident about this situation....but the reality is it is a tough call. Heck...a move could be made just to stir up otimism and stimulate fundraising without any real hope behind the scenes of on-field results being any better. I think the majority of coaching changes at the college level are made because of this line of thinking. Just like politics...it is about fundraising.
 
JTS:
No! In fact, it reaffirms my views. We struggled against solidly inferior competition because our offense is just not good.
Click to expand...

This is a major concern going up against UGA --our point production:

vs. 'bad' teams (ND, Samford, Army, Duke) 44 ppg avg.
vs. 'average' teams (Md, UM, UNC) 23 ppg avg.
vs. 'good' (ranked) teams (BC, UVA, Clemson, VT) 12 ppg avg. (for the record GT gave up 21 ppg against 'good' competition).

12 will not get it done against UGA.


JTS: We still have WR's that don't know where to line up or what route to run and way too many dropped passes. I would say that we basically run a high school wing-T offense, but there are high school teams that get much better execution than us. I bet over a third of our offensive snaps were direct snap runs. What does it say when you're in year 6 of a regime with your most talented and experienced team and your best play is direct snap to the RB? We were in FG range driving to win and our fans were booing the playcalling and the obvious confusion on the sideline with the game management.
Click to expand...

It is pretty bad when --this deep into the season-- your QB and WR cannot get on the same page.

I'm tired of the wing-T offense --we have no variety out of it. Are we really going to line up in the wing-T against UGA and say, "Here we are --we're going to run it right at you?" I hope not.

Game management and sideline confusion seems to just be part of the deal with our teams doesn't it?

ncjacket: I'm sure Chan's a great man and knows football. But sometimes coaches just don't have "it" and never will. Maybe he's just one of those guys?
Click to expand...

I watched my tape of the game yesterday --early in the game the idiot announcers actually said this about CCG --"He's known as an offensive genius." Did anybody else see this?

- - - - -

Over the years --particularly in '84 and '89-- where it might have not seemed likely, I have felt a GT win over UGA was imminent. I felt that way two years ago --and to a degree I felt that way last year. I do not feel that way this year --simply because I've seen no reason to. I do have hope and that will just have to do me.
 
GT65_UGA89 said:
I watched my tape of the game yesterday --early in the game the idiot announcers actually said this about CCG --"He's known as an offensive genius." Did anybody else see this?
Click to expand...

Outside of Tech circles, I think this might actually be true. The NFL seems to have a lot of interest in him for some reason.
 
hiveredtech said:
People can act tough and confident about this situation....but the reality is it is a tough call. Heck...a move could be made just to stir up otimism and stimulate fundraising without any real hope behind the scenes of on-field results being any better. I think the majority of coaching changes at the college level are made because of this line of thinking. Just like politics...it is about fundraising.
Click to expand...

And this is what infuriates me about this whole situation. So many people seem to want to take their chances in the coaching lottery along with Alabama, Nebraska, Notre Dame, South Carolina, Arkansas, Miss St... heck, it seem like 20 teams are doing it. You know, firing their coaches every three years in search of the elusive "next great thing" to take their schools to the Holy Land. And in the meantime, they end up sucking more often than not. Has Alabama been meaningfully good since '92? How about Nebraska? You think they're glad they fired Frank Solich for the sin of losing the Big12 championship?

The thing is, IT DOESN"T WORK. The next Urban Meyer doesn't go to Georgia Tech, he goes to Florida. He might be at Georgia Tech for a season or two, but when Florida calls, he's going to Florida.

Nobody's happy about losing to Georgia. But when I was a student, and a die-hard, road-tripping fan, from 1992 through 1996, we lost a lot of games, and stayed home for Christmas every year. Since then, I've really enjoyed winning, and beating ranked teams every year, and going to bowls. I don't want to go back to sucking like Alabama and Miss St and Notre Dame just so somebody can get their jollies by firing a good coach.
 
So you're happy now, right? Then you should state your case for why Chan is our best bet. But don't tell me I should be happy with losing to ugag when I don't believe it's a given. What infuriates me are those Tech fans who evidently think Dave Braine was exactly right...we just aren't going to be that good on a year to year basis but should be happy with winning more than we lose. If that's our attitude we're paying far too much for our football program. We can get what we have now for far less.
 
elwoodGT said:
The thing is, IT DOESN"T WORK. The next Urban Meyer doesn't go to Georgia Tech, he goes to Florida. He might be at Georgia Tech for a season or two, but when Florida calls, he's going to Florida.
Click to expand...


As long as we are discussing things that infuriate one another. This is exactly what infuriates me. As long as you believe the above, we will NEVER.... EVER be anything more than just where we are now.

The second that some of you start believing that we can be a top tier program, is the exact second that we will be associated as a top tier program. We have a long rich storied history and are in the capitol of the entire Southeast. There's absolutely no reason... NO reason, that we cannot be held in the likes of the Florida's, the Nebraskas, or anyone else for that matter. Hell just as far back as 1991 both those schools would KILL, KILL to have our history.

But as long as you keep believing that these road bumps we experienced in the late 70's, early 80's and for a three year period in the early 90's is a symptom of GT football instead of a curable sickness, we won't ever be anything more than where we are right now.

Frankly, that gets old and doesn't generate interest in the program. Be careful what you want, because its the pathway to a slow death.
 
Correct. If you believe that no good coach will either come here or stay here then you can pretty much bet that no good coach will either come here or stay here.
 
No, no, you're right. It could happen. It could be that a great coach comes to Tech, fully cognizant of the unique challenges at Tech, is committed to stay and build a championship program, and does so from the very beginning, and never has a two-year hiccup that would get him fired prematurely. It could happen.

Where would you put the chances? If Gailey is fired now, what are the chances the next coach at Tech is that guy? I think if you're honest, it's pretty small. Remember, say what you want about GT's potential, it is not a powerhouse now, and we're competing for new coaches against schools that are. Michigan and Nebraska for sure, and Arkansas if you want to put them in that category. So like it or not, we're getting third- or fourth-best already, and the coaching carousel has only begun.

So what are the chances the next guy at Tech is the coach I described? Ten percent? Personally, I think that's generous, but let's say ten percent.

Now what are the chances he's not? What are the chances he's the next Charlie Weis, or the next Bill Calahan, or the next Jim Donnan, or the next Greg Robinson? Or the next Bill Lewis? Not necessarily the worst coach ever, but not equipped to win consistently at a place like Tech. I invite you to make your own guess, but I put our chances at missing on the next hire at 60%.

So, just crazy wild guess numbers here, but I would break it down:

10% - Hes the next Urban Meyer, GT is MNC in three years.
30% - He's not a marked improvement, but not a disaster either. We're right back in the same spot in four years.
60% - He's in over his head, and we're back to sucking. The next coach comes in with the cupboard empty.



So yes, I'll agree, it could be that the only thing standing between GT and greatness is Chan Gailey. It could also be (and is more likey, IMO) that the only thing standing between GT and true mediocrity (losing records, no bowl, no wins over ranked teams) is, yes, Chan Gailey.

The odds themselves don't scare me. If we already sucked, then hey, what would we have to lose? UNC and NCState and Wake Forest and Kentucky and Vandy had nowhere to go but up. They gambled and took they're chances, because why not?

But we don't suck. We've got a good team, with a great defense and an awesome running back. We beat good teams, and recruit well. We could go up, but we could also go a long way down. To me, the odds aren't worth it.
 
We're basically what we've been since Dodd left. Carson had a .500 record, Fulcher was .543, Pepper was .522, Curry was .423 but his first two years were ridiculous, Ross was .543 (again 2 really bad years), Lewis sucked, O'Leary was .612 and Chan was .578 going into this year. So my guess is that unless we make a bad hire, we're going to end up at worst right about where we are now. As much as some of you guys whine, the fact is that Tech has historically gotten good football players and normally wins more than we lose, no matter who the coach is.

The argument is whether we are okay with staying where we are, which is in that tier of teams who hang on the outskirts of the top 25, win a big game now and then, and then crumble when we hit the spotlight.

If you're telling me you believe Chan will get us to that level where we're IN the top 25 consistently, beat ugag on a regular basis and make us relevant in the ACC annually and nationally occassionally, then fine. Support him. But if you support him because you think he's the best we can do AND WE CAN'T BE BETTER THAN WE ARE then I have a real problem with your approach. You aren't supporting him because you think he's good, you're supporting him because you don't think we can be better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top