When you know your a tech fan! By 33jacket

Yukonwreck said:
there were 500---hell maybe 5000 that said we should keep Gailey--for the two losing seasons we will have just due to making the change--
Click to expand...

The compelling logic here must be the two losing seasons we had during the transition from O'Leary to Gailey.
 
BarrelORum said:
Maybe I should hire those that wrote that by hiring PJ we are de-emphasizing football. Dummy.
Click to expand...
Glad you remembered that uniquely thought- provoking piece. Mission accomplished. We need 36 real games until we know if I'm right. I hope I am not. My thought that day remains my thought today. Paul Johnson was a "safer" pick than the others in the running. He was chosen (as almost any coach is) for a lot of reasons other than winning lots of games. I support that--I am dyed in the wool Tech for more than 50 years. I don't want us to be Alabama or Southern Cal even if we could. We're Tech. There is a coach out there that can do things the TECH WAY and win 75% of his games. Is that Paul? I don't know--no one does----yet. I hope he wins 50 of his first 60 and I retire from message boards.
 
Don't see how Johnson could have been a safer pick at all. Different offense, lower level experience, etc. How was that safer than Cutcliffe for example? Seems to me all of your comments go back to the TO. We'll see how that turns out. But there's really no logic behind it, just your feeling that it won't work. We'll see.
 
I agree with ncjacket. Johnson was in no way a safe pick. He uses a radically different style of offense from most people, he has never coached at a BCS level before, and he's not really a great media guy. The very fact that a lot of people were upset with his hiring shows that he was not the safe pick.
 
My point of view is this: I live where there there are basically no Tech fans, besides my brother. If I see someone with Tech stuff on, I have to have a conversation with them(which has happened once I think in the past year I've been here). For those of us who live in GA., don't take this close proximity to fellow Techsters for granted. In the end, we all love the Jackets, and that's the most important thing. I would give anything to be back in GA., and I'm working to make that happen again someday.
 
There are definitely differences in the communities of people on the various boards and I think that that was inevitable. I know that when I was a student at GT that I didn't fit in with every group of different people at GT even though we all had in common that we attended GT. So it should come as no surprise that there are vastly different groups of people who all have in common that they love GT sports. I think it is great that there are varied communities that support GT sports that cater to different types of posting and people because I think the more varied the communities the more GT fans we'll find.
 
Yukonwreck said:
Don't know five--but there were 500---hell maybe 5000 that said we should keep Gailey--for money reasons--for the two losing seasons we will have just due to making the change--for the rationale that any new coach would not be able to better the record that Gailey was producing.
And there will be 50,000 saying "I told you so" on this board and others if we are 2-5 in October.
Good is the enemy of great. The change was needed. The change has been made. But TechNation was not unified for the change, not unified on who was chosen, and will not be unified behind Coach Johnson and Radakovich unless and until there are seasons with greater than 7 wins and wins agaisnt Georgia.
Click to expand...

Nice back peddle.
 
Yukonwreck said:
Glad you remembered that uniquely thought- provoking piece. Mission accomplished. We need 36 real games until we know if I'm right. I hope I am not. My thought that day remains my thought today. Paul Johnson was a "safer" pick than the others in the running. He was chosen (as almost any coach is) for a lot of reasons other than winning lots of games. I support that--I am dyed in the wool Tech for more than 50 years. I don't want us to be Alabama or Southern Cal even if we could. We're Tech. There is a coach out there that can do things the TECH WAY and win 75% of his games. Is that Paul? I don't know--no one does----yet. I hope he wins 50 of his first 60 and I retire from message boards.
Click to expand...

We don't need 36 games to find out if you are right. You're wrong even if we go 0-11 next season. You don't pay a coach almost twice as much as the old one and pay the full buy out of the old coach if you are "de-emphasizing football". Dumbest post I've ever read on any board. And that's saying something.
 
Wow Yukon, you know you've really done something when BOR comes off as the reasonable one in a debate. Nice job BOR.
 
Don't know five--but there were 500---hell maybe 5000 that said we should keep Gailey--for money reasons--for the two losing seasons we will have just due to making the change--for the rationale that any new coach would not be able to better the record that Gailey was producing.
Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I said we had to keep Gailey because we'd never get a top caliber coach to replace him if we fired after only ever posting winning seasons. And I was wrong. Had someone approached me during the Gailey years, and instead of saying "Fire Chan!" like an asshat, said "Swap Gailey for Paul Johnson, he's a sure thing to want to come here even if we kick Chan out after consistently winning" I'd have said 'Sign me up.'
 
beej67 said:
For what it's worth, I said we had to keep Gailey because we'd never get a top caliber coach to replace him if we fired after only ever posting winning seasons. And I was wrong. Had someone approached me during the Gailey years, and instead of saying "Fire Chan!" like an asshat, said "Swap Gailey for Paul Johnson, he's a sure thing to want to come here even if we kick Chan out after consistently winning" I'd have said 'Sign me up.'
Click to expand...

Interesting purely speculative question: Would we have hired Paul Johnson if his record had been completely the same numbers and bowl-wise, but he had been 0-xxx against Army? Would the fans have been okay with it?
 
gth816f said:
Interesting purely speculative question: Would we have hired Paul Johnson if his record had been completely the same numbers and bowl-wise, but he had been 0-xxx against Army? Would the fans have been okay with it?
Click to expand...

34d1150927357-brooklyn-dodgers-1955-dodgers-snider-labine-hodges-campy

Mets fan? My mom is from Brooklyn and was a big Dodgers fan (back then). Here is a great photo from 1955 when brooklyn won the world series over the new york yankees. in the photo you see DUKE SNIDER, CLEM LABINE, GIL HODGES and ROY CAMPANELLA; anyone that hates the Yankees is a friend to me!
 
Interesting purely speculative question: Would we have hired Paul Johnson if his record had been completely the same numbers and bowl-wise, but he had been 0-xxx against Army? Would the fans have been okay with it?
Click to expand...

0-xxx vs Army would have turned me fairly sour towards him, but only because Navy and Army are on the same talent level. 0-xxx vs ND wouldn't have bothered me. 1-xxx vs ND is better. :)

I've been a PJ fan since the original Gailey search. I'm damn excited about our new coach. He's so much better than I expected. In fact, I'm impressed all around by the kind of names we were able to pull for our coaching search, it seemed so much more professional and high profile (save some Stingtalk HWFO) than our last go round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top