MONDAY MORNING before Game 8

I've also said that a head coach should get a five year contract before eligibility for termination. At a minimum, he gets three years to prove his worth in my book (which means nothing to anybody). He has to have time to get HIS players on the field. This is where I still stand.
I don't have to be happy with Kirby or Jim Chaney. It's not required of me. What burns my ass here is the quality of the play. We originally had a Heisman prospect in Nick Chubb, but nobody mentions NC and the Heisman in the same sentence now. Are we barely better than Nicholl's State? If so, we don't win another game this year. How can this be acceptable. And, as much as I want to find a scapegoat for this, the buck stops at Kirby's door, not Jim Chaney's.
If this is what we get to look forward to, I'll piss and moan for the next two seasons and THEN start calling for Kirby's head. That's three seasons to start winning, but I'll guarantee there are those with shorter fuses on this.
You are right on Swinney and Fisher, but that also makes a case for my point. They are the exception. Not only that, but Swinney went 9-5 his first season, Fisher went 10-4.
It may well be that Kirby becomes a great coach, but he's cutting his teeth when he should already have his style and the issues that come with it worked out. Why has the offense failed to improve, 8 games into the season? Kirby's a defensive guy, but he's now HC and needs to step in a put foot to ass. It's great watching him in pressers do his "mea culpas." Or, what I meant to say is that it WOULD be great if we saw some improvement in play, but we see none of this, nothing that indicates that hiring Kirby was a good idea. 4-8 will be a tough pill to swallow, but I guess we can only go up from there.

We're all burned by the quality of play no
doubt...

My only point about KS is this... he's a defensive guy and there is a marked difference between the quality of play between our offense and defense, is there not?

Our issues on D have been a lack of depth and experience while getting gassed because of 3 and outs by the O. It hasn't been gross incompetence on that side.

Meanwhile... over on O.. complete ineptitude both in playcalling and execution.

if it was all on Smart... I would imagine the issues would show up equally on both sides of the ball. It wouldn't be we're not that bad on one side and laughable on the other.

Wartdawg wrote: We're all burned by the quality of play no
doubt...

My only point about KS is this... he's a defensive guy and there is a marked difference between the quality of play between our offense and defense, is there not?

Our issues on D have been a lack of depth and experience while getting gassed because of 3 and outs by the O. It hasn't been gross incompetence on that side.

Meanwhile... over on O.. complete ineptitude both in playcalling and execution.

if it was all on Smart... I would imagine the issues would show up equally on both sides of the ball. It wouldn't be we're not that bad on one side and laughable on the other.

This is the learning curve. He has to learn to manage the offense as well. He has to recognize that this offense should not be this...what's the word? Inept? Flaccid? And, as HC, he needs to be able to fix the problem on the fly. I agree on the D. We've played fairly well there, but we have to score points. You can't have guys like Chubb and Michel in the backfield and be unable to score without a WTF moment every game. Eason had the world loaded upon his back and he's stumbled under the weight. It's to be expected. Had we coached up our receivers, we'd have been up in the first half but for two dropped gimme passes, so it seems to be a virtual consensus that the work needs to begin on the offensive side of the ball.