Why are things going to get better? (Part II)

I will answer BeJerk and then make another post on the topic.

Bejerk, you have tried this before and have been told by both me and BlackWatch that we are not the same person. I do not need an alias to confront you on your perpetual bashing and name calling.

This is just another one of your smoke jobs. As I told you the last time you started this garbage, all you have to do is send a message to GTFan or BeeStorm to verify we are not the same person.

toilet_claw.gif
 
I agree with BEESERK. Anybody who thinks this is a good football team is sniffing something. What I would most like to see is some improvement in our consistency and better execution by the offensive line.

Also, whowvwr said the offensive line is pass blocking well must be watching a different team.

That said, I am not giving up on this coaching staff. There are a limited amount of adjustments that can be made with a true freshman quarterback in only 5 games. I think what happens the remainder of the season will say a lot.
 
Originally posted by ncjacket:

"1) IMO our athletes in the defensive secondary are much improved from what we've had in the past. They aren't there yet from the coordination/performance standpoint but you can see the talent there.

3) Tenuta's defense is probably the best we've had since the MNC team. Not to say they're great, but we haven't had a great defense in years."

I agree completely with you here. I grouped these two points together because in my opinion they are similar. I really think Tenuta is a good coach. I really wish we had someone on the offensive side with a similar attention to detail and temperment. If Tenuta tells his defense to jump, they don't bother asking how high. They jump as high as they can and as quickly as possible. I just do not see similar leadership on the offensive side of the ball.

I am not certain that the secondary is vastly more atheletic than some of our past defenses, but one thing I do know is that they are better coached.

Originally posted by ncjacket:
"2) QB position with Reggie and Pat Carter looks solid for the next few years. They obviously are very raw but the potential is there.

4) I do like the kids we're recruiting. We need more, and more speed would be good but they all look like solid contributors."

Once again I grouped these because of their similarity. Gailey certainly seems to have an eye for talent. I really like alot of his recruits, but he just does not seem capable producing the quantity of signees needed to be successful. I also have my doubts about his OL recruits and I am confused by the relatively small number of OL recruits given the type of offense Gailey wants to run. I am concerned next year when we lose Reilly and Dorsey (I am pretty sure he is gone) that we won't have anyone to step up into these positions. So we will be just as thin on the OL, but not as talented as we are this year and we're not exactly setting the world on fire with the OL play now. If Gailey cannot adjust to a different style of play or recruit / develop the OL necessary to play his style of football, we will be in for some pretty long football seasons.

Originally posted by ncjacket:
"5) We'll see on how good a teacher Nix is. But I do like what I've seen so far. How Reggie develops over the year will tell a lot about him IMO."

I have my doubts about Nix. I know he's got name recognition and his dad is a good coach, but I have not seen any on the field results to substantiate everyone's warm and fuzzy feelings for him. I know he was our recruiting coordinator and you can read my post above to see how I feel about our recruiting efforts to date. I know he is our QB coach and you can read my above posts about how I feel about the steps we are taking to improve Ball's technique issues. I am not saying he's a bad coach, but I just have not seen any reason to say he's a good coach yet. I agree with you, however, that the jury is still out on this one.

Originally posted by ncjacket:
"6) It does appear Gailey understands better what he's up against than he did a year ago. Braine doesn't seem as involved with the football program, which is a good thing. The staff seems more together (nothing against BOB, but it never seemed that either he or Chan was comfortable last year) and that is noticeable to the players."

I am not sure that having to go from a coach not understanding the responsibilities of his position to better understanding the responsibilities of his position should really count as improvement. Fully understanding the responsibilities of the position should be a requirement for a head football coach at a major football program. Anything less should be considered a deficiency.

Originally posted by ncjacket:
"7) Attitude of the team seems better than last year. While that may not seem like much, I think it bodes well going forward."

I think the jury is out on this one as well. At this point last season, I didn't think we had an attitude problem. It wasn't until the last quarter of the season that the wheels seemed to come off on the team's attitude.
 
Originally posted by ylojk8:
[QB]JTS,

Flunkgate .. Your new boss tells you don't mess with this aspect. I'd like to know what you would have done.

I really have a problem with this aspect of CG's tenure at Tech. He was advertised as an "experienced" head coach. Any one with experience in a management/leadership position knows that you must do an independent evaluation of your area of control to determine what you must do to be successful, and, as a result of that evaluation, identify the taskes that must be performed, and the conditions that must be satisfied to give you the opportunity for success. In the military this was known as formulating your Mission Essential Task List (METL). Each commander is required to develop such a list, explain each entry in detail, justify it, and have it approved by his (her) commander. This process often envolves having to do a great deal of work to convience the commander that something that you view to be essential really is. Did CCG develop a METL? If he did, did it have "Create support enviroment so that SA's make grades?" Did the detail include monitoring by coaching staff of SA's progress, grades, assignment completion, and class attendence? Was the justification, "To be successful I must win ball games, to win ball games I must have players, to have players, the SA's must make their grades" stated? If it was, why would CCG submit to the task being removed from his list? Even if he was told that it was not his responsibility, he still should have had enough insight to the potential for disaster and set up his own monitoring program in the backgroung so that he could see the crap coming before it hit the fan and could take preventative measures.

Several times in my career I have been told by my boss that something was not my responsibiltiy. I learned to take a very carefull look at those things, espically if my success depended on them. Once in the military, my commander told me not to worry about fuel, it was not my problem. I left the meeting, sat down, reviewed and verified my fuel requirements for 25,000 gals. a day. Without fuel, and lots of it, my command was useless. I got off my but and went right to the class 5 guy in the G4 shop and set up a back channel line of communication so that if my HQ screwed up fuel requsitions, I would get a heads up and could work on covering myself. I knew that the two star at division hq would have my butt if I wasn't where he wanted me to be when he wanted me there. I also suspected that my CO would throw me to the wolves if he had to to save his own rear end. So I took care of it myself. I kept tract of my fuel requisitions. I called my contact to make sure he knew they were coming. I called to make sure they were received on time. And if they were not, I called my boss'es staff and raised high holly hell-of-an-engineer to let them know that I was watching them as closely has they were watching me.

If I were CG, and DB had told me that the academic status of my SA's was not my problem, I would have fought it to the bitter end. If I lost, I would have made it my problem in my own way. I would have stayed on top of it. I would have known that without SA's, my command was useless. I would have set up back channels to monitor the grades and attendance of my SA's. And if the "formal" system in place was not working, I would have known about it before it came crashing down, and if necessary, raised such a stink that it would have been fixed or become a public issue. Remember, RF had Little Joe report to his office each moring so he was sure that Joe went to class. RF understood that his success depended on Joe being able to play, which depended on him remaing academically eligable. He did not leave that to chance. He put it in his METL. He took control of the situation. CG failed in this regard. Believe me, if this were a military situation, the two star would have chewed him up and spit him out, but only after finding someone else who could do the job.
Click to expand...
 
"there is zero evidence that even remotely suggests we are a good team or this is a good staff at this very moment."

From Techs: Granted!!

"Good teams don't have losing records:"

From Techs: Now buddy Beeserk: the best may be yet to come....
smile.gif


I gave Gailey his fair shot.....
TEchs: "all that could be asked", however many are not.......(in my opinion)

To say we ARE a good team right now is an impossibility.

From TEchs: Absolutely, if I misstated, please forgive me.
 
no problem techsa, I think we probably agree actually completely about this team. Sometimes the wording can just get misinterpreted.
 
JacketIM, several people have brought the academic thing up and said similar things to your post. The question I've always followed up with has never been answered though. That is, if Braine assured Chan that he had the academic side covered, and Chan was furthermore told to stay out of the academic issue, what exactly could he have done?

He couldn't ask professors, that would be a violation of school policies and actually illegal if they talked about grades. He could have had other studentnts "spy" on players, but if he was removed from the process he wouldn't even had access to their schedules. He could ask players but they certainly wouldn't have told on themselves or their teammates. Remember, we're talking about student records and who legally has access to them. I'm not convinced there was much Chan could have done except made a huge issue of it. Now perhaps he should have. But he evidently trusted the man who had just hired him to know what he was doing.

Your analogy to Fridge and Joe is colorful, but doesn't really have anything to do with this IMO. When they were here the academic progress of the football team was within the control of the coaching staff. Fridge was simply doing what he was supposed to. Unfortunately Gailey was too.
 
Hey, Beeserk, thanks; the more we correspond honestly, the more I appreciate you ( and I am sure you/me).
I really wish it could be so with the entire board.
 
ylojk8,

Here ya go:

1. Failure to coach up talent.

I will take back, in part, my statement here. PJ Daniel has certainly improved. There is a lot to like about PJ. Our younger players should try to be more like PJ.

In regards to the other players you point out, I have always said that Chan has a good eye for identifying the raw talent needed to be successful at a position. But this is a separate issue from actually developing that raw talent to its full potential.

In the case of Clinkscale, the only reason he got on the field was because the three players ahead of him on the deph chart got hurt. I do not see how you can build a definitive case for improvement here.

I did not mention anything about Foschi, Smith, or Curry in this section at all. So I am not sure why you seem to feel they are excluded from the discussion. I will share that I have not seen any improvement in their play since Gailey arrived.

I not going to mention the players who I think have taken a step back by name because I do not think that's the right thing to do, but I will say that they all play OL or WR. If you think about it, you can probably figure out who they are.

2. Sloppy technique and execution

Tenuta is a great coach. For the most part, the only execution problems we have on defense are the result of fatigue. My comments here are directed towards Chan Gailey and the offense which he is primarily responsible for preparing. Before you ask, Tenuta is solely responsible for our defense and Gailey has very little input here.

In regards to QB technique, Ball's throwing mechanics have regressed over the course of the season and as a result his passing accuracy has gotten worse. Hamilton had similar throwing mechanic issues when Fridge arrived and Fridge rode him on the matter until he got it right. As a result, Hamilton's passing accuracy improved. Gailey made it clear in his quote that he does not believe in teaching technique during the season. My point is that if you do not constantly reinforce the improvements that you have made, you will regress and end up starting from scratch each offseason. This coaching philosophy will lead to Ball not reaching his full potential and losses for our team.

I would not call myself an insider per se, but I have been to just about all of our practices that have been open to the public. I want to make it clear that my comments about not having someone raise or correct problems was specifically directed at the WR position as it pertains to route running and footwork. You seem to be trying to make it sound like it was a generally applicable comment which it is not.

If you think pass blocking has been good this season, we must be watching different games. We have given up about 3 sacks a game and Reggie is probably saving us one or two a game with his elusiveness. Our failures in this area are also contributing to our turnovers. If we can fix this problem, I think Ball will look a lot better at QB.

3. Failure to motivate the team.

We are in agreement here.

4. Failure to adapt to your personel.

I still disagree with you on our pass blocking. I raised the issue of the shotgun because I feel we are having trouble buying time for our QB. One way to buy a little extra time is to put your QB is shotgun. This eliminates the need for the drop back which consumes time. In addition, shorter QBs are generally able to see the field better once they are a few yards behind the line. So the shotgun might help Ball make his initial read faster and as a result get rid of the ball sooner.

I agree with you we need to be using Reggie's speed to spread the opposing defense from sideline to sideline. This will help our running game both on keepers and handoffs.

This item was meant to be directed at Gailey's strategy not his personnel moves which I think have been good. Currently, I think we have done a good job of adapting our personnel to Gailey's prefered strategy and this approach has not led to good results. I beleive that it would be more effective for Gailey to adapt his strategy to our existing personnel and play to our strengths which are Ball, Smith, and potentially Bilbo. We should use the threat of these player's gamebreaking abilities to set up plays for everyone else. Right now it seems we are trying to use a power running game to set long passes. The problem is we do not have a power running game.

5. Failure to make in game adjustments.

The results speak volumes on this issue. I don't have the statistics handy, but we have had anemic offensive stats. If someone has them, please post them. I think you will see my point here, ylojk8.

6. Failure to recruit the necessary quantity of atheletes.

I agree with you here, but we don't need 23 to 25. We need 25.

7. Failure to use all recruiting visits.

I agree if you are not going to recruit someone don't bring them in for a visit, but are you seriously trying to argue that the reason we did not use all of our visists is because there are not enough prospects in the entire US that we're interested in. That position just does not hold any water in my mind. If we can't find enough prospects that we're interested in to use all of our visits then we are not looking hard enough. We had a guy from last year named Tashard Choice, a RB from GA, who ended up getting a scholarship to Oklahoma. He had the grades and SAT score, came to our practices, expressed interest in GT, and according to GG was never recruited by this coaching staff. How can you not use a recruiting visit or scholarship on a player of this caliber and still claim to be putting forth a best effort in recruiting. Failures such as this one along with flunkgate are the reasons for our lack of deph. Flunkgate will hurt us in the short run, but our failures in recruiting will hurt us for the next 3 or 4 years. I know Chan is not responsible for flunkgate. The only reason I bring it up is because people seem to be using flunkgate as a universal crutch for this coaching staff. I just wanted to point out that we are missing just as many players as a result of our poor recruiting efforts and that our recruiting failure will have much longer term impact on our team.

8. Failure to capture the "hearts and minds" of the Georgia Tech fan base.

The fact that we are having this discussion is proof of this fact.

It is in my nature that when I see something broken I want to fix it. I remember a time when all I had to do was show up and root for my team, but now I feel like I have to do something to fix. I am not sure how to fix it, but I am going to try.
 
Originally posted by ncjacket:
JacketIM, several people have brought the academic thing up and said similar things to your post. The question I've always followed up with has never been answered though. That is, if Braine assured Chan that he had the academic side covered, and Chan was furthermore told to stay out of the academic issue, what exactly could he have done?

He couldn't ask professors, that would be a violation of school policies and actually illegal if they talked about grades. He could have had other studentnts "spy" on players, but if he was removed from the process he wouldn't even had access to their schedules. He could ask players but they certainly wouldn't have told on themselves or their teammates. Remember, we're talking about student records and who legally has access to them. I'm not convinced there was much Chan could have done except made a huge issue of it. Now perhaps he should have. But he evidently trusted the man who had just hired him to know what he was doing.

Your analogy to Fridge and Joe is colorful, but doesn't really have anything to do with this IMO. When they were here the academic progress of the football team was within the control of the coaching staff. Fridge was simply doing what he was supposed to. Unfortunately Gailey was too.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">NCJacket, I'll try to answer your question. He should have required the SA's to provide him with each of their schedules and to update those schedules with quiz and assignment grades as the grades were received. He should have required the SA's to bring him (or an assistant coach) proof of those grades. He (or an assistant coach) should have obtained the syllabus or each course a SA under his area of responsibility was taking, and therefore would have known when a quiz or assignment was due. Isn't the syllabus for each course available online? SA's who didn't report their grades/attendance and provide proof when requested would find themselves subject to all the "pressures" a coach has at his disposal. But if it was presented as being for the good of the team, I am sure that all would have complied with the program. He should have set up back channel contacts with SA friendly profs (eg Dr. Adler, etc) in an effort to gain support for his inclusion in the SA academic support system. And if all else failed, he should have threatened to go public with the problem. After all, he has a multiyear contract and it is contended that he has the support of the majority of the fans. I don't think too much of him, but would have supported him to the bitter end if he had made the problem an issue before we lost 10 of our SA's to an ill conceived academic support plan. But, it appears that he didn't even know it was an issue until it was too late.

My point is that, when it comes to control of the one thing that you must have to be successful, you trust no one to take care of it for you. You say, "Thanks, but if I am to be the football coach, I must have a say in all phases of my SA's lives, including -- most importantly including at Georgia Tech -- their academic progress. If I can't have that, you can't have me as your coach." Just as, if you are a product senior design engineer, you insist on having a say in the development of the specs for the widget you are designing.

Finally, I believe my RF-Joe example is relevant to the situation. True, the coaches had a say in the SA's academic support. But, as I recall, RF established his "see me in the morning, every morning, and I will walk you to class if necessary" policy after he found out that Joe was not attending some of the classes he "signed into." The "see me in the morning" part was something RF instituted to protect Joe, and his interest in Joe being able to play on Saturday (or Thrusday). It was not part of the "formal" program. But RF understood that Joe was too important to let the "formal" program stand in his way. I fault CG to the highest degree for not having had that understanding.

I hope I answered your question. Thanks for asking.
 
JacketIM, my point is that I don't think Chan could require the players give him their class schedules or their grades. He could have asked, but if they didn't do it I don't think there was anything he could have done about it. For one thing, it's illegal. You may not realize this but you as an adult can't get your son or daughter's grades without their consent. It's also illegal for professors to provide that information without a release. And if he had demanded it of his players and put any kind of punishment on not complying he would have been directly in violation of his orders from above. So my point remains, he could quit or comply.

So I do agree with that point. He could have made it public and demanded a change or quit, but I don't see how he could have worked around it. Unfortunately for him and the kids he believed what he had been told by Braine and Clough.
 
ncjacket,

We have an Academic Advisor for the football team that is suppose to keep track of these sorts of things right now. How do we arrange for tutors and study sessions for the players if the AA does not have access to this information?

This what I would tell any player that did not want to share their schedule with me:

"I mean it's real simple. If you do not give me your schedule / go to class / get grades you will not play. I cannot spend the limited resources and time of this program on or trust the welfare of this team to a person that will not be there when it comes time to compete. So if you do not want to give me your schedule fine that's your right, but I am the coach of this team and I decide who plays and who doesn't that's my right."

I mean do you really think there are any players that wouldn't share this information with their coach? Do you really think there are any parents out there that would have a problem with someone making sure their child was going to class? I suppose anything is possible.
 
Originally posted by ncjacket:
JacketIM, my point is that I don't think Chan could require the players give him their class schedules or their grades. He could have asked, but if they didn't do it I don't think there was anything he could have done about it. For one thing, it's illegal. You may not realize this but you as an adult can't get your son or daughter's grades without their consent. It's also illegal for professors to provide that information without a release. And if he had demanded it of his players and put any kind of punishment on not complying he would have been directly in violation of his orders from above. So my point remains, he could quit or comply.

So I do agree with that point. He could have made it public and demanded a change or quit, but I don't see how he could have worked around it. Unfortunately for him and the kids he believed what he had been told by Braine and Clough.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Actually, I am aware of the issue about schedules and grades. I have children who attened, and graduated from, institutions of higher education. I am also aware that I had no legal obligation to provide them with any funds or support for that education. So, it was simple. If they wanted to get my money, I got their schedules and grades.

The coach is responsible for the welfare of the SA's and can make rules concerning where they live, when they come and go, and to some extend, who they associate with. A coach that is aware that an SA is having academic problems can excuse that player from practice to allow him/her more study time. An SA who hasn't practiced may not play. If the coach has no firm evidence that an SA is in academic good standing, he may utilize his judgement, error on the side of safety, and insist that the SA spend more time with his studies until he sees proof that the student is in good standing. So the situation is simple, if they want to play, they would give him their schedule and grades. As a parent, I would support that policy. As a contributing alumni, I would support that policy. As a grad who holds the academic integrity and standing of the Institute to be far more important than the won-loss record of the football team I would support that policy.

I conversing with you, I seem to remember a past post of yours which indicated that you are an educator at the college level or have experience in that field. Am I correct? If so, how would you have designed the academic support system at
GT?
 
I asked this question last week and only got two replies. So I thought I give it another go.

Why are things going to get better?

The idea is that if we give Gailey time there will be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. So if you are someone that beleives that Chan Gailey will end up being a great coach if we just give him time, please respond with:

(Remember this coaching staff has been in place for almost two years, two and a half if you include the initial off season, so this should be easy.)

1. What steps has this coaching staff taken to lay the foundation for a successful football program?

2. Provide examples of how this staff has contributed to the improvement of the football program.

3. How will this staff's plan lead to a better team in 3 months, 12 months, or 24 months?

I really want to beleive, but to be honest with you I do not have any real good answers for these questions. If you do, please share them because I think it would make me and others feel better about our current situation.
 
JacketIM I have worked at an ACC school in the past but am not an educator. I was pretty involved with both the academic and athletic sides of the house. I agree with the premise of your post, in fact, that's exactly what we are doing now, and what we did when O'Leary was here. However the situation Chan was faced with precluded him from doing what you suggest. I'm sure the parents wouldn't have had a problem with it, but the simple fact is that he was told by the Institute to stay out of the process. If he had done what you specify he would have been insubordinate and in direct violation of his orders as I understand them. He also would have had no protection from anyone who objected to him extorting player grades from them (only takes one to complain you know). And what we're talking about is not NCAA rules but privacy issues.

JTS, the difference is that when O'Leary was here and now that Braine/Clough have dropped their ill considered experiment, we do have academic advisors who are answerable to the coaching staff. That was not the case last year - they reported to Moore whose reporting was outside the AA. I assume (not positive) that players agree that their academic progress can be monitored by the school when then matriculate. The question is who has access.

Advisors always had access to schedules, they may have access to grades and attendance (not sure how they handle that). Prior to the change back to the old methods they were not to share this with the coaches. Surely you don't think Chan would have been counting on players who were in academic trouble if he knew about it?

Most players likely would have given their schedules to the coaches if they had asked last year. But then what would they have done with it? They didn't have people to monitor anything, they didn't have access to records and they were officially cut out of the loop.

JacketIM, you ask how I would design the academic support system. I don't think it's any secret and in fact what we've done since the Moore fiasco ended should do the trick. It's a bonus to have someone in charge who understands what athletes have to contend with. Too bad we didn't make the change 2 years ago.

I understand the frustration with the coaching staff not being in the know. I simply don't think there was any way for them to cover for the position they were put in.
 
Originally posted by ncjacket:
JacketIM I have worked at an ACC school in the past but am not an educator. I was pretty involved with both the academic and athletic sides of the house. I agree with the premise of your post, in fact, that's exactly what we are doing now, and what we did when O'Leary was here. However the situation Chan was faced with precluded him from doing what you suggest. I'm sure the parents wouldn't have had a problem with it, but the simple fact is that he was told by the Institute to stay out of the process. If he had done what you specify he would have been insubordinate and in direct violation of his orders as I understand them. He also would have had no protection from anyone who objected to him extorting player grades from them (only takes one to complain you know). And what we're talking about is not NCAA rules but privacy issues.

JTS, the difference is that when O'Leary was here and now that Braine/Clough have dropped their ill considered experiment, we do have academic advisors who are answerable to the coaching staff. That was not the case last year - they reported to Moore whose reporting was outside the AA. I assume (not positive) that players agree that their academic progress can be monitored by the school when then matriculate. The question is who has access.

Advisors always had access to schedules, they may have access to grades and attendance (not sure how they handle that). Prior to the change back to the old methods they were not to share this with the coaches. Surely you don't think Chan would have been counting on players who were in academic trouble if he knew about it?

Most players likely would have given their schedules to the coaches if they had asked last year. But then what would they have done with it? They didn't have people to monitor anything, they didn't have access to records and they were officially cut out of the loop.

JacketIM, you ask how I would design the academic support system. I don't think it's any secret and in fact what we've done since the Moore fiasco ended should do the trick. It's a bonus to have someone in charge who understands what athletes have to contend with. Too bad we didn't make the change 2 years ago.

I understand the frustration with the coaching staff not being in the know. I simply don't think there was any way for them to cover for the position they were put in.
Click to expand...
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Thanks NCJacket for the excellent reply. Isn't it interesting how this conversation between people on different sides of this important issue has gone on without either of us resorting to personal insults? I guess both of us are slipping in this important aspect of communication on this board. So, let me try one more approach to this matter. If DB had told CG that strength conditoning was being handled by someone else and was not his concern, and CG accepted the positon of head coach under those conditions, would you hold him harmless if the conditioning program failed with adverse ramifications to the team? Or would you argee that taking the position of head coach with out having control of something as important as the strength conditioning program was dumb, and as head coach he is accountable for his dumb moves? My guess is the later. If that is the case, why would you not place the academic support program at the same level as the strength conditioning program? I hold him accountable for his failure to insist on having a participating role in the academic support program as a condition of his employment, for his failure to maintain situational awareness over the academic status of his SA's, and for his failure to find a way to overcome the institutional and organizational road blocks that may have been placed in front of him in this important part of his resposibilites as a coach at the college level. IMO, CG bears substantial responsibility for the disaster now referred to as "grade-gate." That's my position and I am sticking to it. Now for the mandatory personal insult. NCJacket, you are a yellow running capitalist dog. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
 
JacketIM,
I agree.
For those who didn't through the COMPLETE analysis of Flunkgate by IM,I'll give you the short version.
---CG should have been smart enough (he is being paid TOP dollar for his expertise)when he came in to see the criticality of that aspect AND do something about it-someway,anyway.
 
JacketIM, IMO Gailey is responsible for accepting the position with limitations on his control. FYI strength and conditioning doesn't report to the football office either. Of course, that's been the case for some time. The coaches work with the S&C staff but don't control the program. Maybe Gailey thought that was how the academic side would work?

You are right though that he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens with the program though and has to overcome what he's been faced with. I just think that it was one of those things that was out of his control - which is now in his control.

Oh yeah, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny. So there!
grin.gif
 
Another topic about the same old crap from the same old folks and the same old nonsense.

Shocking. No really. I'm shocked. ..Really.

bsmeter.gif
 
The Jacket,

If you have something to add to the conversation like why you think something is non-sense, feel free to contribute, but this sort of post is just as bad as one of BEEware's. It does nothing, but breed hostility. So if you just want to yell back and forth with someone, please start your own thread. That way, you and BEEware and others can have one centralized place to make conflicting absolute statements without any attempt back them up with a rational. Thank you.

In addition:
Oh yeah, well your wrong, smell bad, and you're not a true GT fan because my momma saw your momma at the grocery store petting Uga
wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top