AJC > Sports > Columnists > Archives > 2007 > October > 03 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USGailey must learn to delegate
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Terence Moore
Head coaches in football should deal with the big picture. They should leave the little pictures to the supposedly competent folks around them called assistants.
That’s my preference. No gray area. Just make this a black and white separation. There is so much to worry about in the macro at the top of an NFL or college program that too much emphasis on the micro can make you goofy along the way to losses and the unemployment line.
Even so, you have this blurriness involving Chan Gailey, in the second year of his transformation at Georgia Tech from accomplished play-caller in the pro and college game to whatever he is now.
Technically, Gailey isn’t calling plays anymore, and, technically, he isn’t a meddler.
Technically.
According to John Bond, in his first season as offensive coordinator and successor to Patrick Nix as a post-Gailey play-caller for the Yellow Jackets, “Oh, Coach [Gailey] is involved now, as far as the game plan is concerned, and he’s in there quite a bit, and he certainly has opinions and all those types of things. But as far as calling the plays in the games, that’s my job. That’s me.”
Well, yes, but Gailey isn’t exactly Mark Richt. Just like Gailey, Richt earned accolades as a play-caller, but only at Florida State before arriving at Georgia seven years ago as play-caller, offensive coordinator and head coach. Just like Gailey, Richt decided to become only a big-picture guy when he anointed Mike Bobo as The Man of the Bulldogs’ offense near the end of last season.
Unlike Gailey, Richt isn’t heavily involved in Georgia’s game plan during the week, and unlike Gailey, Richt says little (if anything) to his designated play-caller during games.
Richt does have veto power on plays, but he never uses it.
What about Gailey? “You know what? I can’t think of a time this year that he has vetoed a call,” said Bond, easing into a smile. “He’s really great on game days. He’ll tell you, ‘Last time on second-and-such-and-such, they did this.’ But as far as vetoing a call during the game, if you’re the head coach, you bet that he absolutely has that power.”
Gailey has power, period. He is the boss. If you combine that with his acknowledgment this week that he still has a deep-rooted love affair with play-calling, you have why he ordered Bond to stay conservative during Tech’s 13-3 upset of Clemson on Saturday. The Jackets’ defense was suffocating, which is why Gailey told Bond such a thing. It’s just that Bond should be allowed to reach those conclusions on his own.
There also was the Notre Dame game, when Tech ripped the pitiful Fighting Irish in the season opener on the road. Gailey told Bond in the second half to stick with the running game. Again, Gailey is the boss, but Bond is a competent employee, with an offensive resume that spans from Lou Holtz at Arkansas to high-scoring Illinois State teams to Northern Illinois’ rise on the potent feet of Garrett Wolfe.
Although Gailey strongly praises Bond’s work, the boss is quietly becoming more micro than macro again with a Tech offense that flourishes on the ground but ranks last in the ACC in passing yards per game and passing efficiency.
“You lose the feel of the game from the [press box, where Bond sits], because I’ve been there,” said Gailey, who has spent 16 years coaching in the pros and 17 in college. “From the sidelines, you’ve got a feel of the game, and who’s controlling the line of scrimmage, and sometimes, you lose that perspective from the box. So I’ll say to John, ‘Hey, let’s pound them for a while.’ Or, ‘Let’s think about the next series.’ “
Then Gailey added, “Every now and then, he’ll say, ‘What do you think?’ So I give him my opinion.”
If Bond keeps asking the straight-shooting Gailey his opinion during games, he’ll keep giving it. That’s fine. This isn’t: In the complex world of today’s big-time football programs, the worst thing is to have a head coach calling plays.
The second-worst thing is to have a head coach sort of calling plays.
Permalink | Comments (44) | Post your comment | Categories: Tech / ACC, Terence Moore
Comments
By HomerSimpson
October 3, 2007 9:18 PM | Link to this
Bond was hired because he has a reputation of getting the most out of an offense. Deserved or not, Gailey has gotten a reputation of being TOO involved with the offense. Is it a coincidence that Tech’s offenses have been mediocre at best under Gailey no matter who the OC? If Gailey will let Bond do his job, I think the offense will come around, soon.
By Joe Colvin
October 3, 2007 9:26 PM | Link to this
Terrence, many management styles will succeed. Who are you to question Coach Gailey and suggest how he should run his program?
I think all of you AJC writers are really concerned about a Georgia Tech on the come back. If Tech is successful, UGA will have to compete with them for the best players in the state - and that will hurt Georgia.
For the past week, after Tech defeated a very strong Clemson team, all you AJC guys have done is take pot shots at the program, the players and the coaches.
How about a little positive reporting?
By Weedin out the kids
October 3, 2007 9:45 PM | Link to this
You’re an idiot Terence.
What could you possibly know about how to coach a college football team? How could you possibly know what works best and what doesn’t?
Shut the h* up and keep writing your racist articles about professional sports. Leave college football alone. You’re an absolute idiot that knows nothing about how to coach a football team.
Why haven’t you been fired yet???
By GTZealot
October 3, 2007 10:01 PM | Link to this
If Tech had taken risks and made a critical mistake, CU could’ve easily gotten back in the game given CU’s explosive offense. Going conservative was the right thing to do given that CU was taking all the risks. And the head coach is in charge of those considerations, down to the game plan and in-game major adjustments. Chan should be constantly watching how the O and D is doing, all the while those coordinators need to be focused more on what is working and is not working on their side of the ball. Bond does not have time to evaluate how the GT D is doing; that’s Chan’s job.
By GM
October 3, 2007 10:14 PM | Link to this
Despite what I think about Terrence Moore, I agree with him this time. Gailey needs to give up ANY play calling. Gailey said that he TOLD Bond to stay conservative during the 2nd half of the Clemson game. That leads me to believe he is still in control, and Gailey is too conservative for NCAA football (even though it worked against Clemson, it doesn’t usually). Bond is lying through his teeth (and smiling, or smirking?).
Terrence: good read on Gailey, but look back at your 2nd paragraph, “Just make this a black and white separation”. That is so typical of you to bring up “color” or “race” even if not intentional. You should learn to be a better journalist.
By m
October 3, 2007 10:23 PM | Link to this
When Chan was hired, he said that he wasn’t going to change a thing in Tech’s high powered offense. He also said that the worst mistake he had made in football was trying to be his own offensive coordinator when he was head coach at Dallas. He said he was not going to call plays at Tech. All of these things were flat out lies. CHAN is the worst coach in the history of college football and he should be FIRED TODAY.
By TDone
October 3, 2007 10:25 PM | Link to this
Terence,
Chan Gailey’s job is to coach the coaches and that is exactly what he did.
I don’ agree with everything Gailey does, but I trust him to do the right thing and than I trust you. You are nothing more than a Muttlander. Everybody knows it.
And you are really upset that Tech whipped up on your precious Notre Dame.
You are way out of line here. Keep your day job.
By Tech Forever
October 3, 2007 10:35 PM | Link to this
Hey By Joe Colvin,
A nosehair above .500 ball over 5+ seasons is hardly “succeed(ing)”. Gailey’s ultra-conservative style is earmarked for the NFL game (just as Spurrier’s gun slinger style is earmarked for college). Gailey, and Tech, would be MUCH better off on the field is he’d keep his mouth shut and run the team as a whole. If a scheme is terrible, as has been the case far too many times the past 5+ years, there should be one coach to go after….and it shouldn’t be the HC.
There’s a reason why they wanted to run Little Bowden out of Tallahassee and not Bobby….because the fans KNOW Bobby knows what he’s doing and KNOW jeff didn’t (admittedly it took Bobby longer than most to figure out Jeff didn’t have a clue).
Gailey’s positives with regard to the program (fund raising, recruiting, positive spinning the hard academic atmosphere, his impeccable character, etc.) far outweigh the negatives he brings to the table. But its this one HUGE negative, his approach to the college game via X’s and O’s, that is actually seen on the field. So from the standpoint of fans and booster being happy as well as winning more games he needs to get rid of that one negative…because no matter how great the positives are if you don’t win you go packin….and he’s a 6-6 or 7-5 season away from his exodus.
By fortebuna
October 3, 2007 10:37 PM | Link to this
When Chan was hired, he said that he wasn’t going to change a thing in Tech’s high powered offense. He also said that the worst mistake he had made in football was trying to be his own offensive coordinator when he was head coach at Dallas. He said he was not going to call plays at Tech. All of these things were flat out lies. CHAN is the worst coach in the history of college football and he should be FIRED TODAY.
I agree with every word you said!!! As far as a man of integrity show me that integrity! CHARACTER my tush a flat out liar.
By GM
October 3, 2007 10:44 PM | Link to this
If our AD stays more than another year or two, Gailey will not be head coach, unless he wins 10 games and/or beats UGA this year. Bet on it.
All you Gailey lovers: he is a nice, honest, great guy, and a good pro coach, but that’s it. Let it go, he is mediocre at the college level. Look at his attempt to go pro last year, he doesn’t even want to be here. Why do you defend him so strongly. Goodbye!!!
By GM
October 3, 2007 10:49 PM | Link to this
Tech Forever: You hit the nail on the head!
By MikeGT
October 3, 2007 11:07 PM | Link to this
Uh, Hello? This is exactly what a head coach is supposed to do. What idiot doesn’t know that head coaches get involved in strategy during a game? Whether you like their strategic decisions or not, that’s an entirely different point. Who has a management chain of any sort that doesn’t set policy and make strategic decisions when necessary???
By buzzdon
October 3, 2007 11:26 PM | Link to this
Terrence doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Go Chan = you have my support!! Have those coaches prepare a great plan for the GA game as well as the other games. We were well prepaered for Clemson!!!
By Josh
October 3, 2007 11:38 PM | Link to this
Another racist post by Moore
By GT55
October 3, 2007 11:44 PM | Link to this
Good call Moore, I agree Gailey should let Bond do his job. You got to trust your coaches to do their job or fire him and get one you trust. Go GT!
By bh
October 3, 2007 11:59 PM | Link to this
OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!1 Wonder why tech ranks last. OC not only has to carry team offense but also Gailey.
By Fall Jacket
October 4, 2007 12:05 AM | Link to this
Bond is new and is wading through a personality transition. Once he and Gailey get on the same page and gain trust in each other, Gailey knows he has to turn over the reigns completely. For all of you managers and executives who hire and fire, do you simply hire a man and let him take complete control of his workload w/out giving any input and a little hand holding every now and then? As the season progresses, the offense will improve. Bond was all aobut mixing it up but w/ both Tight ends banged up and our most experienced wide out nixed up, its kind of hard to just start throwing it all over the place. Especially when the first two or three series of every game so far involves dropped passes and mis-timed routes. The play calling is fine right now. Remember, our defense gave up 24 to BC and 24(?) to UVA. You give up that many points and you can throw all you want. Tenuta is improving this defense and the offense will get more breathing room to mix it up more. Patience my young and old grasshoppers…patience….
By ben
October 4, 2007 12:30 AM | Link to this
Terence, I made this exact point in an ajc blog this morning. Guess that makes me a racist and an idiot too.
By DawgCraze
October 4, 2007 2:47 AM | Link to this
It doesn’t matter who’s calling plays at Ga Tech. The Dawgs will once again blow out tech with better players and coaches. The ACC is a total joke.
By surfrider
October 4, 2007 2:52 AM | Link to this
Good Article Terrence. Clemson first of all outside of FSU the first game and that is questionable has played a weak schedule. So it could be like ND, Samford, etc.. The upcoming weeks will tell a lot. No team can be taken for granted and we have yet I believe to loose less than 5 games during this regime. With Tashard Choice back and the passing game looking weak and heat on the coaches it’s naturaly Gailey would put in more insight this past week. But I think Bond’s scheme has potential and he has produced. The passing game is not that far off. It kind of reminds me of 1997, during Joe Hamilton’s sophmore redshirt year, things were’nt clicking until the last 5 games, and then the offensive potential became apparent. From the TV box where one can see a lot and on replays the big question is why has’nt D. J. Donley been getting some reps at WR and why has’nt a combo of Nesbitt, Dwyer and Choice been in the game at the same time particularly if we are to run the ball more. Bennet hit maybe 7 out of 15 passes for what 67 yards? Possibly 4 or 5 of those passes were catcheable for another 100 plus yards. So we’re not that far off. The athletes are there in wr dept., as they are getting open and running good routes.
By mike
October 4, 2007 7:19 AM | Link to this
Good article. Needed to be addressed. The offense appears to be too lame to win a championship. John Bond needs to be in total charge with the offense. Does Tenuata have to check in with Chan?
By Jim 70
October 4, 2007 7:41 AM | Link to this
Amazing, the two examples given were Clemson and ND - both of which Tech won. WHY are you questioning this?????
Now if the examples you gave were where GT was ahead and he meddled and we lost, then maybe you have a story. Or if his meddling was going conservative when we were losing and we couldn’t get more points, you may have a story. (sounds like foxworthy). Anyway, I guess you had nothing else to write about so you are trying to create something that isn’t there!
By DawgHater
October 4, 2007 7:59 AM | Link to this
Amen! Chan should leave out his opinions at all times regarding offense. Chan is still too conservative and too pro-minded. This is not the pro’s. These kids don’t motivate themselves. These kids can give up 21 points in a few minutes. No lead is safe. Chan doesn’t get it.
By DirtDobber
October 4, 2007 8:07 AM | Link to this
Do not believe that Gailey is discontinuing or even decreasing his involvement in play calling . This may be a PR campaign to make the outsider believe that but I wont believe it . The evidence is in the same predictable plays called - S.O.S. for season after season . One can bet on 1st and 3rd downs - 2nd downs are the only mystery here .
By arob
October 4, 2007 8:15 AM | Link to this
Terence, Great article! As long as Gailey has his hand on everyone, the offense will continue to bog down and be predictable. You got this one right. How will it ever change? Modern football has passed Chan up. He has to learn or go.
By gojacket
October 4, 2007 8:58 AM | Link to this
Terence, leave it to you to write about something completely insignificant
By techaholic
October 4, 2007 9:56 AM | Link to this
Not only does Chan Gailey put a negative on the offense, he’s put a negative on this program!
Tech fans this is NOT Head Coach material. Tech needs to smarten up and get real about Chan Gailey, what you see these last 5+ seasons is what we will continue to get - MUCH OF NOTHING!!!!!
By GTDean
October 4, 2007 10:00 AM | Link to this
Chan Gailey is greatest coach in the Universe!!!
If you need further verification, just ignore the fact Tech has been amazingly mediocre since his arrival and read the stuff my fellow nerd buddies and I spew on The Hive. When forced to face the reality that I’ve supported crap football for 6+ years, I just think happy thoughts and “poast” (tee hee) a bazillion one liners mocking any who dare criticize my precious.
By George P. Burdell
October 4, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this
Terence, I can’t remember an article you have written that was more on target than this one. Between watching what is going on on the field and hearing these little pieces of information on Gailey’s suggestions, I’ve made the comment several times that it smells of a Gailey influence. We have a completely new OC and yet our offense looks almost exactly like it did last year.
I like Gailey but he has got to focus on being a head coach and let the OC run the offense. He will end up running Bonds off and then we will hire the next saviour only to come out with the same old vanilla offense. The one common denominator is Gailey and he really needs to back off and let Bonds rise or fall on his own. If he doesn’t get the job done, find someone who will. But to blame the lack of offensive production on someone who has their hands tied is not fair.
By North Ave Pimp
October 4, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this
Good article Terence! Even if you dont like him, he is given you “real talk”. Gailey is Pathetic at play-calling, and yeah he’s a great guy like every one has said. That doesn’t excuse him from giving production. SPURRIER alway’s has a plan “B” even if there wasn’t a plan B before the game started. It might not alway’s work, but atleast he trie’s. He makes adjustment’s in the game. This MULE we have for a coach will drive us right into the ground, refusing to change anything. Try a new QB for more than one play would ya. Didn’t anyone see Taylor’s number’s compared to the rest of the nation “oh wait you can’t it only keeps up with the top 100” Taylor is a good kid, not attacking him, just his number’s C’mon Gailey wake up.
By Tired of waiting
October 4, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this
Gailey’s positives with regard to the program (fund raising, recruiting, positive spinning the hard academic atmosphere, his impeccable character, etc.) far outweigh the negatives he brings to the table.??????
Are you kidding me? I think winning football games and having teams prepared to play will do much more for recruiting and fundraising than babing these guys.
Let him go coach a girls church softball team. We need somebody that knows how to get his team ready to play football. Leave the sucking up and bible lessons to the sunday school teachers.
By jacketnation
October 4, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
WE have NO passing game. Bennett has proven that he is not capable of an air game. That’s all I have to say.
By Joe Colvin
October 4, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
TechForever, If you want to get rid of Gailey and start over say it.
I for one like what I see with the changes in the program. Gailey is putting it together. I think it is time to support him and his team. He sure has my support.
When I played for Dodd, we had fans like you, but at least we didn’t have blogs.
Stop being so negative.
By Buzzzzzzzzz
October 4, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this
The “fire Chan!” idiots are out in full force again. Morons. Luckily, those in positions of power in the administration and the GT Athletic Board know better than to ever listen to these blowhard jerks.
By Tired of waiting
October 4, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this
So we are morons and idiots just because we expect more from a coach making millions of dollars than 7-5 with losses to UGA every year. If you are happy being a loser then I feel sorry for you.
By *jckt1
October 4, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this
nice article terrance…
By Bobby Joe
October 4, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this
Terrence, while I like reading most of your columns, I think you are kinda picking on Chan about play calling. Remember, he is the head coach, and his opinion is worth something during the game, in the same manner your editor may approve your writings. I feel your column this time, was something about nothing!!
By Christine Blackley
October 4, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this
Just for the record. Chan Gailey was NOT an accomplished play caller in the Pros. Miami’s offense was pitiful when he was OC. They were THRILLED when GT took him….they did not have to fire him. He’s the worst kind of head coach…a mediocre one. He wins just enough to keep his job but we Tech fans know he’ll never take us to the next level.
By TechCrybaby
October 4, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this
I like Terence Moore’s insights, but I also like things about Gailey, so there! However, Tech has no balanced and effective offense. Even though the defense heated up again, last Saturday, the Fridge will cool it. Maryland 14, Georgia Tech 9.
By GE
October 4, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this
Last year, the bumble bee fans at Tech were crying for Gailey’s head because the offense(mainly passing)was so inept because he kept Reggie Ball in the game. Well Reggie is gone and now the passing attack with Bennett is worse. Seems like Terrence is right. The common denominator is still on the side lines. Could it be that Gailey was right all along in playing Reggie instead of Taylor.
By Mike Bobo 17 INT
October 4, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this
DawgCraze
Nice comment, coming from some redneck from Athens with a mediocre program. Dawgs will be 9-3 at best, with losses to UT or AU, UF and already USC. Could be 8-4 and a very good chance.
If you think the ACC is a joke when it comes to football, talk to Miami about their 5 national titles, FSU with their 2 national titles, and GT with our 4 national titles.
UGA has 1 national title, and has not even been close in 27 years. If was not for Alabama the SEC could not come close to the total national titles in the ACC. I respect Alabama and LSU, but the remaining SEC teams are weak. Hell, even GT has a more recent title (1990).
Take the top 5 in both polls right now and you will find 2 Pac-10 teams (USC and Cal), and only 1 SEC team (LSU).
Southern Cal (USC) would beat UGA like a dog, pardon the pun, and most other D-1 teams. USC remains the team to beat and I would love see USC vs. LSU and finally shut up all those Clark County trailer trash rednecks who think the SEC is GOD!! Well it is not, and did not even come into power until the late 70’s and 80’s.
By the way, UGA should not even consider playing for the SEC, because UF and UT will derail that ride. Also, UF has won 15 of the last 17…go figure.
By smitty
October 4, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this
nice article TM…..the last line “sort of” says it all in regards to gailey sort of calling plays……..he’s good in some areas of coaching and not so good in others……he’s sort of a good or bad college coach depending on your perspective………….he has a few positives, as some people speak of, such as his integrity/character, his players seem to like and respect him, his recruiting is improving ((not so sure about the fund raising as someone above said) and he occasionally wins a “big” game and these are enough for some people to continue to support him……..i for one, wish he had been replaced years ago…. his poor game management and decision making, his failure to take tech to the next level as he said he would do, his inability or refusal to adapt to 21st century college football, his boring and conservative approach to offense ( which has GT ranked near the bottom in offense every year during his tenure here and i believe is the reason GT has been unable to take that next step)…. he hasn’t beaten GA, he hasn’t had a team ranked in the top 25 to end a season yet; these are all reasons that many GT fans find as sufficient to call for a change. Its simply that his teams UNDERACHIEVE (can you imagine if spurrier was coaching CJ during his collegiate career?), and its usually an offensive letdown that has cost Tech in the really big games….(the conservative, trying not to lose approach usually ends up with a loss)…gailey’s offensive philosophy is stamped all over his teams and i think its his “fatal flaw” of being unwilling to completely relinquish offensive control that has held GT back all these years……he really does need to go
By gt2bama
October 5, 2007 1:46 AM | Link to this
Personally, I could care less who’s calling the plays, as long as sound-minded plays are being called. Coaching is a team effort with Chan being the captain of that team. As the captain, Chan’s responsible for directing the general direction and attitude of the team during games (e.g. playing conservatively versus aggressively) and making certain that the team is prepared adequately. The BC game was not merely evidence of NON-sound-minded play-calling but also total unpreparedness offensively and the usual inability of Tech’s coaching staff to make proper game-time adjustments.
Personally, I don’t think Chan is cut out for the level of the coaching that results in consistent, high-level achievement. He’d probably be more suited for high school coaching, where being a nice man of character is enough. I think there are many men of character who also possess great levels of competence available for coaching at the college level. If character were the only job requirement, then maybe nuns should be college football coaches. But, as it stands, for a multi-million-dollar position, I don’t think being a little more demanding in the hiring and subsequent performance-grading process is asking too much.
By gt2bama
October 5, 2007 1:50 AM | Link to this
Also…I totally agree with what smitty submitted at 4:58 on Oct 04. :)