Beamer has lost me

[Lurker123]

My problem with this take is this: Steve Spurrier was objectively one of the greatest college football coaches ever. He is a hall of famer. He did not manage to break out beyond 6-7 wins a season here until his sixth season. I think his time here established the blueprint on how we succeed- hire a good coach and give him time to build it. Now a key part of this is maintaining good recruiting and maintaining a sense that things are heading in the right direction to keep the momentum going. A few 4-5 win seasons kills that. Particularly once you are beyond the first few seasons. So far Beamer is on track in the same way Spurrier was. He’s gotten some big wins and is getting us to bowls, seems to be doing pretty well in recruiting. Until we have more depth to overcome injuries we are going to have ups and downs

Interesting thought. Is it mandatory to wait 6 or 7 years though to judge the coach though?

Muschamp was pretty obviously a failure, so we shouldn't have kept him longer.

Maybe consider 6 or 7 wins acceptable for a longer period of time before canning a coach?

 

[Deleted11512]

I have not seen anyone discuss the play of Stone Blanton. He is slow. He blocks himself. He has little football IQ playing a position that needs ton of that. This position (linebacker) needs to focus on the ball, react and be in a position to make most of the tackles....that is not the case. Watch him closely on play after play. He is lost. Watch the touch down run where they double team both down linemen and Stone goes away from the gaping hole...is he scared to tackle???? Teams are recognizing this fact and running right at him. In the Georgia game he is lost. He does the same thing and if the Georgia QB was good he had Stone's coverage wide open but Georgia QB missed it over and over.

There are critical positions lacking on this team. Offense-Running back, linemen and WR. Defense- Linebacker and apparently DB's. Positive thing is the defensive linemen appear to have been taught to find lanes and get their hands up to bat down balls. There is no excuse at all to be at this point without running backs with the portal giving you that opportunity. Somebody better figure out the portal and start right now.

At times he looks good, at times he looks lost. But overall not good enough. Having said that, he's not getting much help from his DTs. Like the OL, we're just young behind the starters. I think Pup is going to be great. But he's still trying to learn the position as a freshman.

 

[Deleted11512]

Interesting thought. Is it mandatory to wait 6 or 7 years though to judge the coach though?

Muschamp was pretty obviously a failure, so we shouldn't have kept him longer.

Maybe consider 6 or 7 wins acceptable for a longer period of time before canning a coach?

It depends. Is he going backwards or showing improvement? I think once you don't see a path to improvement you have to cut bait.

 

[HVACVol]

Lol! That was a great moment in CFB. A fanbase that is so beat down and starved of wins actually went to the expense of renting an airplane with a banner celebrating two wins like that!!! Maybe you all should have saved that $$ for your NIL for some OL, DL and running backs. No question you should have spent that time focusing on that Gator Bowl.

They did this while getting beaten in their bowl game. Had their priorities in the wrong place.

 

[Lurker123]

It depends. Is he going backwards or showing improvement? I think once you don't see a path to improvement you have to cut bait.

That is very subjective though. I don't disagree with you, but I also know it's hard to draw that line when it's not black and white.

 

[Atlanta_Cock]

My problem with this take is this: Steve Spurrier was objectively one of the greatest college football coaches ever. He is a hall of famer. He did not manage to break out beyond 6-7 wins a season here until his sixth season. I think his time here established the blueprint on how we succeed- hire a good coach and give him time to build it. Now a key part of this is maintaining good recruiting and maintaining a sense that things are heading in the right direction to keep the momentum going. A few 4-5 win seasons kills that. Particularly once you are beyond the first few seasons. So far Beamer is on track in the same way Spurrier was. He’s gotten some big wins and is getting us to bowls, seems to be doing pretty well in recruiting. Until we have more depth to overcome injuries we are going to have ups and downs

Spurrier had already built his name and cred. I think he came to SC to prove something, but he truthfully didn't work as hard as he could. He certainly didn't assemble a great staff at first. We'll never know, but the more fair comparison is a young SOS who was motivated, much like when he first went to UF. They hadn't really done anything up to that point, but SOS went on an absolute tear right out of the gate.

All great coaches, whether at UF or Baylor or Boise State, reveal their chops by year 3 (usually earlier). That's my whole point. Beamer seems just as young and inexperienced as Day 1.

 

[Cocky Hobbit]

Give him a full group of his recruits, we'll see what he's got and then make a judgement.

I'm getting sick of waiting for his recruits to pan out. The only recruits that matter are 4 and 5 star offensive and defensive linemen. We have been building this team without the proper foundation. The running backs coach didn't recruit and obviously can't coach or can't influence the OC in a way that creates a legitimate running game.

 

[Deleted11512]

I'm getting sick of waiting for his recruits to pan out. The only recruits that matter are 4 and 5 star offensive and defensive linemen. We have been building this team without the proper foundation. The running backs coach didn't recruit and obviously can't coach or can't influence the OC in a way that creates a legitimate running game.

So he's just supposed to walk in the door and have 4-5* OL/DL just falling all over themselves to play here?? You know other more notable programs recruit those guys as well. The OL room he was left was lacking, with no true OTs.

In the '23 class (his 2nd full class) he brought in:
DL - 4 4*s (Not his fault Rhames got caught up in some trouble)
OL - 3 4*s

In the '24 class he has:
DL - 1 5*, 1 4*
OL - 1 5*, 2 4*

I actually don't remember a time in our history where we've had as many talented recruits on the OL. And we're not done yet on the '24 class.

 

[Beanerball]

I agree that 7 years might be too long but 5-6 is needed to turn a program around. Problem is we are still paying off Mus “chump” so we don’t have money to hire away top notch coordinators. Bad place to be in. Not saying we need to replace them now, but can we afford it when and if Beamer wants to do it? We are in a bad spot because of Muschamp’s buyout. And seriously, we can’t afford Deion so why would he come?

 

[Lurker123]

I agree that 7 years might be too long but 5-6 is needed to turn a program around. Problem is we are still paying off Mus “chump” so we don’t have money to hire away top notch coordinators. Bad place to be in. Not saying we need to replace them now, but can we afford it when and if Beamer wants to do it? We are in a bad spot because of Muschamp’s buyout. And seriously, we can’t afford Deion so why would he come?

This didn't sound right to me, so I looked it up. The article I found said Muschamp was paid in a lump sum in 2020. So we are not still paying for him.

But this brings up 2 points. Format, when Beamer was hired, some posters (nobody official) seemed convinced that hiring a less expensive head coach meant we could afford to surround him with the best coordinators. This obviously hasn't come true.

But second, I've seen people argue that "SEC money" is going to pull us away from Clemson. Granted, I've heard this for decades. But how is this money going to help us if we are too cheap to hire decent assistants? Where is all this "sec money" going?

 

[Deleted11512]

This didn't sound right to me, so I looked it up. The article I found said Muschamp was paid in a lump sum in 2020. So we are not still paying for him.

But this brings up 2 points. Format, when Beamer was hired, some posters (nobody official) seemed convinced that hiring a less expensive head coach meant we could afford to surround him with the best coordinators. This obviously hasn't come true.

But second, I've seen people argue that "SEC money" is going to pull us away from Clemson. Granted, I've heard this for decades. But how is this money going to help us if we are too cheap to hire decent assistants? Where is all this "sec money" going?

Beamer hired who he wanted. We were told he would be able to make home run hires bc of his connections and is generally liked in the profession. Whatever the reason, he has not made big splash hires…but it ain’t money concerns. We could have paid more for a more seasoned staff. Muschamps staff was full of “SEC guys” and we see how that turned out.

 

[Atlanta_Cock]

So he's just supposed to walk in the door and have 4-5* OL/DL just falling all over themselves to play here?? You know other more notable programs recruit those guys as well. The OL room he was left was lacking, with no true OTs.

In the '23 class (his 2nd full class) he brought in:
DL - 4 4*s (Not his fault Rhames got caught up in some trouble)
OL - 3 4*s

In the '24 class he has:
DL - 1 5*, 1 4*
OL - 1 5*, 2 4*

I actually don't remember a time in our history where we've had as many talented recruits on the OL. And we're not done yet on the '24 class.

There was an OL class recruited by Brad Scott that was considered #1 in the nation. Of course, it didn't pan out. But I remember it.

 

[Atlanta_Cock]

nm

 

[Atlanta_Cock]

This didn't sound right to me, so I looked it up. The article I found said Muschamp was paid in a lump sum in 2020. So we are not still paying for him.

But this brings up 2 points. Format, when Beamer was hired, some posters (nobody official) seemed convinced that hiring a less expensive head coach meant we could afford to surround him with the best coordinators. This obviously hasn't come true.

But second, I've seen people argue that "SEC money" is going to pull us away from Clemson. Granted, I've heard this for decades. But how is this money going to help us if we are too cheap to hire decent assistants? Where is all this "sec money" going?

I think the money is going to women's programs and to facilities that we neglected for decades. Plus, having W-B off campus requires more money to help develop and beautify the surrounding areas. On campus stadiums typically don't require that type of expense.