What if Buzzoff was right?

GEETEELEE

GEETEELEE

USAUSAUSAUSA
Joined
Jul 8, 2002
Messages
39,451
Since in another thread Bunghole Henry was oafishly crowing about being 'right' and gloating over GT's losses I began wondering what would GT fandom life have been and be like if Buttoffers actually were right?

  • GT would have had a string of 2-win seasons under Gailey.
  • Those 2-win seasons would have stretched out for 6 years because the love the "FOCers" have for Gailey would prevent him from being fired.
  • Gailey would have been arrested for a string of cirmes, including fraud, enticing a minor, and violation of oath of office.
  • Urban Myer, Steve Spurier, Rich Rodriguez and Ralph Friedgen all would be lined up hoping to be hired by Tech.
  • 83% of the recuiting class would be 5 star athletes from Georgia, but for Gailey's incompentence.
  • If we had any coach that's not named Gailey we would have beat UGa 4 out of 5 times, never go to a non-BCS bowl and played in the national championship bowl at least twice, considering all of the advantages Tech has over any other school. The ACC championship would be a foregone conclusion.
  • If a coach were to win less than 9 games, he would be summarily dismissed and a new one picked from the above list, graphically illustrating our demand for excellence.
  • The Hive and Stingtalk would have banned all their members and ceased to exist.
  • DRad would read buttoff daily to monitor the program's progress and success and how to improve the program.
  • Big money supports like Jacketsrule and GT1951 would be irrelevant and ignored for their support of Gailey because of all the money flowing in from real GT fans.
Yup. The GT world would indeed be a fine place if the Buttoffers were right. Unfortunately, most of us have to live in the real world. Fortunately, most of us actually realize that we do indeed live in the real world.
 
I don't think anyone's been right about Gailey. To say that he has crippled our program is absurd. He's just not getting it over the hump. He has had his fair chance, so lets go in a new direction. To say that those guys knew all along is laughable.

Their season predictions over the years, especially last year, for the most part were dismal.

Just because you were one of the first non-fans of Gailey, doesn't mean you were right about Gailey.
 
BarrelORum said:
I don't think anyone's been right about Gailey. To say that he has crippled our program is absurd. He's just not getting it over the hump. He has had his fair chance, so lets go in a new direction. To say that those guys knew all along is laughable.

Their season predictions over the years, especially last year, for the most part were dismal.

Just because you were one of the first non-fans of Gailey, doesn't mean you were right about Gailey.
Click to expand...

I'll second everything you've just said.

Gailey is too unpredictable for anyone to have been right about him.
 
Gailey has built a solid, solid foundation for our program. Just because he can't take us to the promised land is no reason at all to withhold recognition for what he has done here.

Matter of fact, I can't name a coach in Tech history I'd rather take over the program from than Gailey.
 
BOR is correct

No one could have possibly KNOWN that CCG would never beat UGA or win the ACC. Heck, we still MAY win this year. For anyone to claim to KNOW different is absurd. See Appy State. See Illinois last game. See UK vs LSU. Wonder who all just KNEW those wouldn't happen?

So, the buzzoffers' assessment may turn out to be correct, but they surely didn't KNOW it at the time.

Biggest thing to me is their methodology.
 
00Burdell said:
Matter of fact, I can't name a coach in Tech history I'd rather take over the program from than Gailey.
Click to expand...
I haven't decided if this sentence is grammatically correct or really what you're trying so say...but...

IMHO Gailey doesn't belong anywhere near the top of the coaching pyramid in Tech's history. While I agree that he hasn't done a bad job...He has left much to be desired and like a previous poster said, has failed to get us "over the hump."
 
I haven't decided if this sentence is grammatically correct or really what you're trying so say...but...

IMHO Gailey doesn't belong anywhere near the top of the coaching pyramid in Tech's history.
Click to expand...

No, he's saying Gailey is a really good act to follow.

And I'd agree, for more reasons than even he may realize. He's leaving the cupboard really full, the student support at an all time high, recruiting in pretty solid shape, and the fanbase hoping for a change, so much so that they'll like the next guy even if he does bad. It's a perfect situation for a new coach, hehe.
 
beej67 said:
No, he's saying Gailey is a really good act to follow.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I meant to say.

Gailey is what he is. At this point I think its obvious to everyone that he's not going to bring home the post-season hardware. I'm already in the acceptance phase that he's not going to be here next year.

So I have shifted my focus from his shortcomings to the good he's done here. And once we relieve him of the burden of expectations he simply cannot meet, I can honestly acknowledge that he will leave the program in better shape than any departing Tech coach I can think of.
 
beej67 said:
No, he's saying Gailey is a really good act to follow.

And I'd agree, for more reasons than even he may realize. He's leaving the cupboard really full, the student support at an all time high, recruiting in pretty solid shape, and the fanbase hoping for a change, so much so that they'll like the next guy even if he does bad. It's a perfect situation for a new coach, hehe.
Click to expand...
You have got to be kidding me? Student support at an alltime high? I wonder how you measure that one?
 
You have got to be kidding me? Student support at an alltime high? I wonder how you measure that one?
Click to expand...

Gosh, wally, I'll start with umm, attendance.

The student body hasn't been around long enough to get jaded about the performance of our team, and the campus game day experience now is a crapton better than it was in the O'Leary era, up to and including the new end-zone student sections instead of cramming half the student body into the upper decks. The field is louder, funner, cooler, students are crazier, the campus is more energized, etc, than it ever was under O'Leary. It's a great situation to fall into as a new head coach - he doesn't have to spend any time "energizing the student body" at all. The alumni/older fans are a different story, but the students are prime for it, compared to what came before.
 
beej67 said:
Gosh, wally, I'll start with umm, attendance.

The student body hasn't been around long enough to get jaded about the performance of our team, and the campus game day experience now is a crapton better than it was in the O'Leary era, up to and including the new end-zone student sections instead of cramming half the student body into the upper decks. The field is louder, funner, cooler, students are crazier, the campus is more energized, etc, than it ever was under O'Leary. It's a great situation to fall into as a new head coach - he doesn't have to spend any time "energizing the student body" at all. The alumni/older fans are a different story, but the students are prime for it, compared to what came before.
Click to expand...
And just think what it will be if we ever have a high powered offense! Other than the kids being moved closer to the field and 15 guys wearing yellow wigs, I think your description is exagerrated a bit in my eyes...but either way, its boring down there during the games when there is practically 0 big plays except a great punt and a sack...
 
And just think what it will be if we ever have a high powered offense!
Click to expand...
I do not argue that. At all. Students like exciting plays. Under the O'Leary regime, our offense was exciting and our defense was one of the absolute worst in the country. Under Gailey that's been flipflopped, where our defense, if sometimes porous, is most definitely exciting to watch, and our offense blows. Students nowadays get loud for 3rd downs and cheer sacks instead of touchdowns, but they still cheer, and they still get involved. And god willing, if we ever have exciting stuff going on on both sides of the ball, the students will be even more excited, and we'll get a lot more sidewalk fans too.

Your problem PO, is that you appreciate exciting offense, but not exciting defense, and you assume everyone else appreciates the same thing you do.

My wife is a great example. She went to Tech, then went to Stanford for grad school. Went to "The Big Game" out there, Stanford-Cal, supposedly the biggest rivalry on the west coast. What was her opinion? This is it, almost verbatim:

"It was horrible football. The stadium was quiet and the players couldn't tackle for sh!t. I went back to my dorm to watch Auburn on TV."

The game she was at had both teams scoring in the 30s, and the game she went home to watch on television had both teams scoring in the teens. This was Willingham-or-thereabouts era, Stanford didn't suck.

When I said 'all time high,' I only speak in my experience. But student support and involvement today is leaps and bounds better than it was under O'Leary. It's not just stadium improvements, YJA is great, the band doing drumline stuff up by the Library is awesome, the campus is nicer. The whole package has dramatically improved over the past 10 years.
 
beej67 said:
I do not argue that. At all. Students like exciting plays. Under the O'Leary regime, our offense was exciting and our defense was one of the absolute worst in the country. Under Gailey that's been flipflopped, where our defense, if sometimes porous, is most definitely exciting to watch, and our offense blows. Students nowadays get loud for 3rd downs and cheer sacks instead of touchdowns, but they still cheer, and they still get involved. And god willing, if we ever have exciting stuff going on on both sides of the ball, the students will be even more excited, and we'll get a lot more sidewalk fans too.

Your problem PO, is that you appreciate exciting offense, but not exciting defense, and you assume everyone else appreciates the same thing you do.

My wife is a great example. She went to Tech, then went to Stanford for grad school. Went to "The Big Game" out there, Stanford-Cal, supposedly the biggest rivalry on the west coast. What was her opinion? This is it, almost verbatim:

"It was horrible football. The stadium was quiet and the players couldn't tackle for sh!t. I went back to my dorm to watch Auburn on TV."

The game she was at had both teams scoring in the 30s, and the game she went home to watch on television had both teams scoring in the teens. This was Willingham-or-thereabouts era, Stanford didn't suck.

When I said 'all time high,' I only speak in my experience. But student support and involvement today is leaps and bounds better than it was under O'Leary. It's not just stadium improvements, YJA is great, the band doing drumline stuff up by the Library is awesome, the campus is nicer. The whole package has dramatically improved over the past 10 years.
Click to expand...
Bottomline is that Offense puts people in the stands- and defense wins championships. Thats what I believe- and at GT we have some big plays on Defense- both good and bad- and Tenuta gets the most out of the talent we have there (which is infinite more than Offense overall but not bigtime.) But overall, the games are boring except for a couple of defensive stands to hold the other team and keep the game low scoring and close. I dont mind a bigtime defensive game at all- when I know those defenses are shutting down good offenses- but when its a "defensive" game because the offense stinks- thats a farce and boring. We need energy down there. And its not in the stands- and if you dont agree with that then you just arent admitting it.Its freaking BORING. Gailey is BORING. Our offense is BORING.
 
beej67 said:
I do not argue that. At all. Students like exciting plays. Under the O'Leary regime, our offense was exciting and our defense was one of the absolute worst in the country. Under Gailey that's been flipflopped, where our defense, if sometimes porous, is most definitely exciting to watch, and our offense blows. Students nowadays get loud for 3rd downs and cheer sacks instead of touchdowns, but they still cheer, and they still get involved. And god willing, if we ever have exciting stuff going on on both sides of the ball, the students will be even more excited, and we'll get a lot more sidewalk fans too.

Your problem PO, is that you appreciate exciting offense, but not exciting defense, and you assume everyone else appreciates the same thing you do.

My wife is a great example. She went to Tech, then went to Stanford for grad school. Went to "The Big Game" out there, Stanford-Cal, supposedly the biggest rivalry on the west coast. What was her opinion? This is it, almost verbatim:

"It was horrible football. The stadium was quiet and the players couldn't tackle for sh!t. I went back to my dorm to watch Auburn on TV."

The game she was at had both teams scoring in the 30s, and the game she went home to watch on television had both teams scoring in the teens. This was Willingham-or-thereabouts era, Stanford didn't suck.

When I said 'all time high,' I only speak in my experience. But student support and involvement today is leaps and bounds better than it was under O'Leary. It's not just stadium improvements, YJA is great, the band doing drumline stuff up by the Library is awesome, the campus is nicer. The whole package has dramatically improved over the past 10 years.
Click to expand...

QFT.

I would rather watch the NY Giants Superbowl season under Parcells a thousand times before I would watch a single game of the St Louis Rams "greatest show on turf" superbowl season. I hate high scoring games. The drama of a low scoring game is much more exciting than the ho-hum back and forth of an NBA game.
 
WracerX said:
QFT.

I would rather watch the NY Giants Superbowl season under Parcells a thousand times before I would watch a single game of the St Louis Rams "greatest show on turf" superbowl season. I hate high scoring games. The drama of a low scoring game is much more exciting than the ho-hum back and forth of an NBA game.
Click to expand...
Id rather watch Joe Hamilton, George Godsey, Shawn Jones, who were recruited and DEVELOPED by College coaches than what Gailey gives us. But its perpetual and therein lies the problem. He is an NFLer, cant develop QB's, therefore an offense doesnt come together, etc. Again, Id love to watch stifling defense if it led us to a championship, but there is no way GT can consistently get the defensive players to have that type of D. What Tenuta has done is remarkable. So we have some bad matchups each year, and give up some big plays, thats ok because he has a system and its about bringing the house. Too bad our Offense will never Bring the House, go downfield between the hashmarks...why? because of Gailey. The buck stops with him. He's a nice man, but painful team to watch
 
WracerX said:
QFT.

I would rather watch the NY Giants Superbowl season under Parcells a thousand times before I would watch a single game of the St Louis Rams "greatest show on turf" superbowl season. I hate high scoring games. The drama of a low scoring game is much more exciting than the ho-hum back and forth of an NBA game.
Click to expand...


Would you let us win this time? :laugher:
 
beej67 said:
Under the O'Leary regime, our offense was exciting and our defense was one of the absolute worst in the country in 1999.
Click to expand...

Fixed....

And no it has not 'flip flopped'. Our offense has gotten dramatically worse. We've gone from a great offense to a bad offense. We went from an average defense to an good defense. O'Leary's last 2 years the defense was statistically similar to Tenuta's defenses. We had other good defensive years as well. We've yet to have a good offensive year under Gailey

We won more games back then and blew teams out a lot more often. We clearly haven't 'flip flopped', we've taken a step or 2 backward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top