Re: OK I know it\'s early, but....
Originally posted by ahsoisee:
It is way too early. We do not even know who we are playing yet. Personally, I will not even thing about it until the schedule comes out.
Father Time
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Very interesting. Have you changed your position since 12/2/03 when you posted the following on another board?
"My end of year promise To BeeBad!
I will not wait until after the bowl game. I fully expect almost any average team to get beat in Boise in January. About the only team that could beat those people in January would be a dominant team like Oklahoma, Michigan, or possibly FSU. If our players are not careful, there hands will freeze and break into pieces when the football hits their hands. It is too cold to play a game there for any team.
As far as I am concerned the season is theoretically over. It will be a major miracle if we win out there at that time of the year. If that is where Clemson lost last year, then I can understand why.
Yes, there is no doubt, Gailey should have another year. A first year of 7-6, and a second year of 6-7 or 7-6 is understandable under the present situation.
Gailey's first year was better than the big majority of first year coaches and tops at Tech in the history of first year coaches. His second year is a so-so season, but much better than predicted by the writers and sports analysts. Also, he doubled the expected wins in his second year over the expectations of his biggest detractors at Tech.
I remember Dave Tech making the statement on Stingtalk, "if Gailey wins five games, he will be here until he is 73, the same as Bowden at FSU.
Of course, there are many things that concern me, but next year will have to be a defining year one way or the other.
When Ralph left, we were no longer a superior team in the ACC. It was proven by a very disappointing season of 2001, when we were rated a top ten team. The program dropped to the point that the last coach had the same record, 7-6, in his last 13 games as the new coach in his first 13 games.
The proof of the pudding was also evident at Maryland, where Ralph has yet to go less than 9-3 in his three seasons there.
We had the biggest concentration of athletes in 2001 and could not produce as predicted with that team.
The next year, 2002, we entered the year with no established quarterback and an offensive coordinator who could not develop one of the three returning quarterbacks. We also had a depleted running back situation.
The new coach used a defensive back to start strong, but when he was injured in the fourth game, the season began to be a struggle. Also during the coach's first year, there was considerable resistance from some of his players to the new system employed.
With no established quarterback and a patched up running back position, the team limped home with the 7-6 record. With all of the first year problems facing the team, a 7-6 record was not that bad matched against the previous coach's same record.
I did expect a little better record this year, 2003, but with a freshman quarterback, and a big blow to the defensive line by flunkgate, the season was too erratic. However, it was not the disaster some predicted it to be. So, to be fair, the team exceeded the wins predicted.
In the year 2001, Tech had the best chance to succeed big time in recent history. We were loaded at most positions. We had Kelly, Burns, and Godsey, plus many other quality athletes. We had the best home field advantage to make it work. Most of the key games were in BDS. It is well known, we bombed.
In the first year of Gailey, we had lost a lot of key players to graduation, plus Gailey had to play those same key teams at their home field.
As mentioned, we were thin at running back and we had no experienced quarterback. Gailey still finished 7-6, playing many key games away from BDS.
This year was similar to O'Leary's last year, we had most of our key games at BDS. The two big killers this year were the BYU and Duke games away from BDS. We should not have lost these two games, but we did. However, we had four big upsets to offset these two downers. We were underdogs to Auburn, NCSU, Wake Forest, and Maryland, but Tech won these four.
I am disappointed in several areas of our game and expect some changes to be made after the recruiting season is over.
The biggest disappointment to me has been the lack of Tenuta to adapt to the short passing game from the opponents. This has been the biggest weakness in the whole team since he has arrived in 2002. I have my fingers and toes crossed that he will get a defensive coordinator's job in the pros after this season.
I am afraid Gailey will not take the necessary steps to fire Tenuta, so the only solution to this problem is if he gets his chance in the pros. I am hoping Gailey can use his pro influence to get Tenuta a job as OC on some pro team.
Since Gailey has always been connected with offenses, it would be ignorant of me to say he did not know how to run an offense.
I do think I am smart enough to see that any coach will fall short on other areas of his job, if he is too involved in one phase of the program.
I believe it is absolutely essential for a coach to pay close attention to all phases of the game, therefore, he should abandon his participation with the offense and promote Nix as the offensive coordinator.
This would free Gailey to see the deficiencies in the pass defense, in the special teams, on the offensive line, and the negligence of the assistants to substitute freely. I don't know if the offensive line coach needs to be replaced, but I do know we have had problems there this year.
At least, Gailey and Nix could be watching that area better if Gailey was not completely obsessed with the offensive strategy. Since Nix would be the offensive coordinator, he could also keep an eye on the performance of the offensive line.
Next year, I expect us to beat Connecticutt, Samford, Duke at home, and Wake Forest at home. There is no way we should lose any of those four games. If we lose any of those four, Gailey will be in deep doo-doo.
I think we should have a very good chance of beating Virginia at BDS, and North Carolina there. Those are six games we should have a great shot at winning.
The game at Auburn will be fierce, but with a year under his belt, Ball should be more dangerous and wiser. We should have an outside chance at winning.
North Carolina State will be without Rivers. We will have the experienced quarterback and more flexibility in the backfield. We should have at least an even chance of beating them there and maybe a little more than even.
Florida State will be playing us on our field. The odds are in our favor to win one at BDS. We definitely have a chance for an upset here.
The games at Maryland, Clemson, and UGA will be very tough games, but not out of the question.
We had better win Uconn, Samford, and Duke and Wake at BDS. We take Virginia at BDS, and NC there. That gives us six very winnable games.
We should win one of the three between Auburn, NCSU, and FSU at BDS.
We win one of the three against Maryland, Clemson, and UGA on the road.
We should win around eight games next year. Anything less than seven and/or a loss to one of the weak four and Gailey will be in a very tenuous position.
Father Time
Edited by: ahsoisee at: 12/2/03 9:24 am"
Now I recall that on 12/2/03 we did not know for sure who we were going to play in the HB, but we have known for a long time that we will not be playing Auburn in '04. And I believe that after the ACC meetings it was announced (around October 1st) that we would not be playing FSU or Wake in '04 but would have Miami and VT at home. While I admit that the next time we play Auburn RB will have more experience, I sure hope that he has more than one year of that additional experience.
I am also wondering about your position on Tenuta. Do you still want him to move on or be fired? From all that I have read on this board and other boards, and form all that I have heard CCG say, Tenuta did a wonderful job with an undermaned, but determined defense. I heard Wes Durham speak eariler this fall and he couldn't say enough good things about JT. With our low scoring offense, JT's defense saved our butts over and over again and kept us in every game (except Clemson) for as long as they could hold out. Yes, we had problems with short routes, but we performed well against the run and the deep routes. But even with our problems, could CCG's praise of JT have been disingenuous?
You have gone back in time to point out other posters' inconsistencies, espically when doing so promotes your point of view. I am simply following your example by bringing to your attention a previous statement which you made and asking you the following:
1. Do you still want JT fired or replaced as DC?
2. Do you believe that CCG was being less than candid with us this past season when he frequently and lavishly praised the job that JT has done for us?
3. Do you stand by your position that the 2003 season is over and we will lose in the cold weather in the HB?
4. Do you stand by your position that anything less than 7 wins or a loss to UCON, Samford or Duke will but CCG in a "tenuous position" or "deep doo-doo?"
5. Do you stand by your position that Nix should be the OC?
6. Do you know which teams we will be playing at home and away next year?
7. Did CCG show poor judgement this past year by choosing to function both as HC and OC?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks for your response, and have a very nice Christmas.
PS: Clemson did not play in the HB last year.
