The damned French."Not a real Tech fan" alert.
I don't recall saying we would be a national championship team year in and year out, nor did anything I say insinuate that.I was just getting the options of others. My personal opinion is that we can be a consistent 8 to 9 win team, and that's better than the past.
Edit: national powerhouse.
What Past are you talking about? GT has always been a 8 win team.... Are you talking about the few years under CPJ were we avg 7 wins? Or are you talking about Bill Lewis Year were we had 2 wins? The bottomline is under Paul Johnson we have won 11 Games twice, 9 Games once, 8 games once, 7 games twice and 6 game once.... Name another coach Post Bobby Dodd to have two 11 win seasons? You can't... Be thankful for CPJ and what he has done!!
I'm talking about not going under 8 wins, that's what I mean by consistent and I'm talking about under cpj. No where did I say I was thankful for cpj , And I didn't say we would be a national power house year in and year out. So BOTTOMLINE is you have missiterpeted everything I said.
Ok so Post Bobby Dodd What Coach at GT has not gone under 8 wins? I have attached a link that list all of the coaches... I understand you did not say your were thankful for CPJ.... That is my point.... in 7 years CPJ has won more than eight games in 4 seasons.... That is better than anyone that has come after Bobby Dodd.... If you want to give Bobby Ross a pass because he won a NC....I am ok with that, so you either have to say CPJ is 2nd best after Bobby Ross or #1 in the Post Dodd Era..... And you are still wondering about going below 8 wins....REALLY???
I honestly don't know what point you have been trying to get across. You are not discussing anything from the thread I started. You obviously are misunderstanding me, or maybe it's me misunderstanding you idk.
If you want to have a [semi]rational discussion about GT sports, you're in the right place and welcome. But if your intent is to "call people out" or stir up crap, then this isn't the place for you. There's plenty of opposing opinions on this board, so it's not all sunshine and lollipops, but this ins't the place to get aggressive with other posters. Move the conversation forward by your insight and contributions or find somewhere else to just "rant."
No dog in this fight for sure, but seems to me "with eligibility remaining" is about the same as the management advice I once heard about hiring: "You need to learn the difference between 10 years of experience and one year of experience 10 times." Eligible to continue playing as they had been?
what are you trying to say? that they weren't good players and therefore it didn't hurt the team for them to be leaving?
Nope, didn't say it, didn't imply it. I have no idea who left or why. Lee's departure was a godsend for everybody, one of those rare win-win episodes. I think early on I thought, and wrote I believe, eight wins would be a good year and all above it gravy. I suppose, then, it was a better team, not worse, after they left. Just saying that when people leave, we need to know who and what their contributions had been, and realistically would they have played better to judge the plus/minus of it. And exactly what the "problems" were. I don't know if there were or what they were. Johnson more than intimated some internal stress and "leaders" not buying in, but whether they departed had anything to do with it I don't know. Personally I much prefer the 90% player who gives you 100% than the 100% guy who gives 90%.