Why did we give CCG an extension in the first place?
- Thread starter GTKyle
- Start date
TechinItEasy
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,058
Preaching to the choir.
SMoney
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,047
Extension was given because of recruiting if I recall correctly...we had a lame duck coach at the time, so the prevailing thought was that recruits would not sign if they did not know who their coach was going to be a year down the road.
Here's a question (and I don't know the answer), but how often do you see a coach with only one year on his contract left? Aren't they usually extended or already let go at that point? Do you ever have anyone that just serves out the remainder of their contract and is just not rehired at that point? I think the extension is something that you have to do unless you plan on making the move...
Here's a question (and I don't know the answer), but how often do you see a coach with only one year on his contract left? Aren't they usually extended or already let go at that point? Do you ever have anyone that just serves out the remainder of their contract and is just not rehired at that point? I think the extension is something that you have to do unless you plan on making the move...
ContactBuzz
Probably Drinks Cosmopolitans
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 15,219
I wish I could afford the opportunity to make all decisions after seeing the consequences ~5 years into the future. And all of this Sunday Morning Q-backing from the guy that thought Fridge left with GO'L...
He either had to extend Gailey or lose him. And at that time, Gailey had done a whale of a job keeping the ship righted (after losing nearly 20 scholarship players in ONE preseason due to flunkgate, transfer or career ending injury) while continuing to have winning seasons. Criticize all you want about the performance of this year's team (and the last 3 games in '06) but don't go back and REVISE HISTORY to make a point (or better yet, push an agenda).
33jacket
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,323
agreed he did a good job with a sub-avg team at that time.
However he isn't the guy for above avg talent teams either.
I would have signed him for 3 years, not 5 or 6 with the automatic year kick in after we made the bowl.
But I will push my agenda. I want Chan fired. I will push that all day.
F
flushed 01
Guest
we didnt, he should have been sent out the door after the 51-7 in athens ga
ContactBuzz
Probably Drinks Cosmopolitans
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 15,219
I have defended Chan in the past and I still think he's done a good job (all things considered) up until the last 3 of last year. I see no reason to defend him on the boards anymore - but I'm not going to pile on either.
I trust D-Rad to make the right decision whatever that might be. He's done enough in a short amount of time to let me know the athletic program is in good hands.
Buzzfan
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2001
- Messages
- 839
Have we seen what he can do with an "above avg talent team", yet?
The true frosh playing this year notwithstanding, the classes we've signed have either been underrated or over-coached based on results.
Now, CONSISTENCY is definitely an issue.....but it's been more an issue on the D than the O.
33jacket
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,323
I don't know what defines above avg talent for you...but on this team the following will or most likely will be NFL draft picks:
Jamal Lewis
Wheeler
MJ
Guyton
Oliver
Robertson
Gardner
Cox (if injuries check out)
Choice
Possibly AJ Smith if he can get healthy
Possibly Richard
Possibly Tums
I count 8-9 picks currently on this team
Possible up to 12
Definitely 6-7 picks.
When over half your team potentially is or could be an NFL draft pick...then YES we have above avg talent.
Even if you go with the sure thing picks
Wheeler
Choice
Gardner
Cox
MJ
and I think 1 of robertson or oliver is going to get picked
and Jamal Lewis will too
then thats 7 draft picks. Thats alot....for any team in 1 year.
So to answer your question...IMO we are seeing what he can do with above avg talent this year. And frankly...its no different than with below avg talent. Why, b/c his philosophy and schemes are too systemic and not tailored enough to the players, nor do they fit NCAA football. Hes a wimp....gutless..
Buzzfan
Flats Noob
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2001
- Messages
- 839
...and the majority of those guys were 2- and 3-star guys (if you believe in "stars") coming out of high school......some not even ranked at their position. Heck, people were complaining about "wasting a schollie" on Gardner because he was on Calvin's team.
That's the point I was making........they've somehow gone from "also-rans" with few D1A offers to draft picks.....including a 1st-rounder or two. They didn't do it off their HS films.
That's the point I was making........they've somehow gone from "also-rans" with few D1A offers to draft picks.....including a 1st-rounder or two. They didn't do it off their HS films.
ContactBuzz
Probably Drinks Cosmopolitans
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 15,219
I think Durant Brooks is a late round pick. He is certainly no worse than Ryan Plackemeier, who was taken in the final round.
I agree that we've had above average talent the last 2 years when you factor in overall experience and depth. We may not be loaded with 5 star recruits (we'll never be) but when you have JRs and SRs in almost every position on the 2 deep (including many All conference players) you do have above average talent.
I agree that we've had above average talent the last 2 years when you factor in overall experience and depth. We may not be loaded with 5 star recruits (we'll never be) but when you have JRs and SRs in almost every position on the 2 deep (including many All conference players) you do have above average talent.
33jacket
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2002
- Messages
- 3,323
I don't believe in stars and alot of our guys were not even evaluated from these classes so they defaulted to 2 stars (wheeler, guyton, lewis come to mind)
We did a good job of scouting players that most people didn't look at, and did a good job of fitting them in schemes on defense, but we aren't doing a good job meshing everything together and are not doing a good job of in game decisions and pregame preparations. And are doing even a worse job offensively scheming, discipline, coaching and TRUSTING the players.
The talent is there...the coaching isn't. Bottom line.
JTS
Jolly Good Fellow
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2003
- Messages
- 1,969
Assuming that Gailey would want to work in football and since we've been told for the past 5 years that Gailey would have 10+ offers for NFL jobs, I would think that some sort of reduced buyout number would be negotiated. The 4.4M would also not be due all at once. It would be paid in monthly installments. I think that it is much more doable than many think.
clapper
Dodd-Like
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 6,812
Whoa! This sounds more like revisionist history than his post did. It was only two years ago, not five.
We started 2005 off much like this season. Then, got our asses handed to us at VPISU 51-7 and followed it up with that evening stinker against NCSU, which took us pretty much out of ACCCG consideration by the first week in October. Followed that up with 3 consecutive wins to move back to #24 in the polls, only to step on our dick again in (where else?) Charlottesville.
The fanbase was damn near over Gailey at that point and Braine rolls out the extension, along with his stupid ass remarks. I went to that Miami game and the win was no better than bittersweet amongst our folks. Then, we close out the season with two straight losses.
Losing Gailey at the point he was given that extension was perfectly fine for most everybody. There was no urgency at all to bolster recruiting.
ContactBuzz
Probably Drinks Cosmopolitans
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 15,219
At the time of the extension, we were very much feeling the effects of flunkgate that left us with no depth on either LOS (and multiple years of poor recruiting in those areas, including Oleary's final 2 classes - the ones that weren't knocked out by flunkgate) that left us with no depth on either LOS. We were playing freshman and sophomores on both lines - I don't care who's coaching, that is not a recipe for success. We were competing with teams that had more talent and at least twice the depth that we could run out there. The talent gap has now closed and our depth is now on par with (or better than) most teams on our schedule.
Looking at Gailey's tenure as objectively as possible, I don't think any of his teams have underacheived until the last 9 game stretch.
beej67
new around here
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2002
- Messages
- 56,569
4.4M isn't right, JTS, it's more like 2. We have the option of letting him go if we need to. We're not stuck with him like the Falcons and Vick or Bama and Saban.
We probably don't have 2M/yr to throw at the next guy, though, which narrows our options unless we go with a coordinator on a 'trial basis' kind of contract. That's why I'm leaning towards the idea of a Tenuta promotion.
We probably don't have 2M/yr to throw at the next guy, though, which narrows our options unless we go with a coordinator on a 'trial basis' kind of contract. That's why I'm leaning towards the idea of a Tenuta promotion.
ContactBuzz
Probably Drinks Cosmopolitans
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2002
- Messages
- 15,219
Beej - the following was borrowed from the GT sports blog. I'm not going to pretend that I know the intricacies of the contract but the part where we have an out doesn't include win/loss record according to quoted information. And I doubt we're going to find any skeletons in his closet.
If the posted info is accurate and DRad does, in fact, want him out then I'd guess we'd have to settle with him for something between $0 and the stated $4.4M (probably something closer to the $4.4M).
