Page 1 of 4
Thoughts: Chan Gailey?
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:42 pmby SMU Football Blog
Just ruminating. Thoughts on Chan Gailey?
Personally, I think it would be a disaster.
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:44 pmby papawasamustang
I am not in favor of Gailey.
I still think Mason is the man although I hope Barnett is the man
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:45 pmby PonyDogg
I would take Gailey in a heartbeat and we should be excited about it if it happens.
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:46 pmby Stallion
I'm worried we might get stuck with hm
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:49 pmby SMUMan02
I think he'd be a good fit. Offensively, he's an innovator and uses his talent well . See Calvin Johnson.
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:53 pmby Insane_Pony_Posse
better than bennett
not even close to a "wow"
would be a big let down for me
seems like a Copeland type of hire.
oh please no
but if he's the guy, i guess we'll support him
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:53 pmby LakeHighlandsPony
Haven't the people of Dallas suffered enough with Chan?
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:55 pmby dcpony
I'd rather have the Fake Chan Gailey. But at this point SMU could do worse...
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:56 pmby BrianTinBigD
Not sure if he is what we are looking for but not a bad choice. Always had a winning record and is considered a good offensive coach. My concern is his recruiting. Here is where he ranked with Rivals since arrive at Ga. Tech:
2008 - 37
2007- 18
2006 - 57
2005 - 62
2004 - 56
2003 - 50
2002- 63
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:57 pmby dcpony
BrianTinBigD wrote:Not sure if he is what we are looking for but not a bad choice. Always had a winning record and is considered a good offensive coach. My concern is his recruiting. Here is where he ranked with Rivals since arrive at Ga. Tech:
2008 - 37
2007- 18
2006 - 57
2005 - 62
2004 - 56
2003 - 50
2002- 63
Why, because Cavan and PB had better recruiting classes?
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:58 pmby RGV Pony
No thanks.
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:59 pmby BrianTinBigD
No, because he was at one of the better ACC schools and apparently had about the same recruiting class as CUSA schools except he had a much better situation to work with. Though 2007 and 2008 look like good years.
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:17 pmby OR-See-Nee
I'm told by a GT alum that admission standards at GT are the same for athletes as for student population and that there are no soft majors to take. So it may be a similar situation. But that's just what I'm told.
Not a "wow" or a "you'll really be pleased" hire, but a definite upgrade from where we were.
A concern is that he supposedly doesn't have the magnetic personality to energize fans. But the whole personality thing won't matter for the first few years if we have more W's than L's. The personality factor comes into effect after you've been at a place for a while.
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:25 pmby mustang06
Chan is not interested in the SMU job. He will go back to the NFL as an assistant and finish out his career. I know Chan personally and have for a long time. We would be very lucky to get a coach that has been to bowl games for the last six years though. If we are going to go with the coordinator route then Tech's defensive coordinator John Tenuta would be interesting.
Posted:
Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:51 pmby Insane_Pony_Posse
re: Tech's defensive coordinator John Tenuta would be interesting
I remember him being an all-business type of guy while he was at SMU.
He's the kind of guy you don't wanna make mad!
If we go the coordinator route he'd be a person to talk to,
but I think we need a head coach.
