The only thing I'm saying is evaluations and development matter more. Clemson hasn't dropped off in recruiting, but they aren't a dynasty anymore. We just signed on paper the first class I can think of off of the top of my head on the right side of the blue- chip ratio, but what ultimately determines quality is the record in the field. Also, I mention 2010 because Spurrier famously wasn't big in recruiting, and to the degree he got involved it was pitching, chasing the QB and maybe a few skill guys he thought were good. He delegated a lot to Beamer, who did those evals. He also offered Earls while he was a 3*, we lost him but we were the first team outside of his backyard to realize how good he is. We also offered Emmanwori, Johnson and Fuller when they were 3*s on no one's radar. Maybe don't say the sky is falling before you know it is. Also, no coach will fix or NIL, so bad example when that's why we don't have that momentum we had in that video I shared.
Did we jump the gun on Brad Scott?
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
I don't have a single don't in my mind we are going bowling. And I called Mizzou finishing in the top 3 of the SEC-E last year, after 3 consecutive finishes before .500.
Evaluations and development DO matter more. That's why I'm not jumping at the gun to compare this staff to that one, which was headed by a living legend.
I agree spurrier wasn't big in recruiting, but it was a LOT easier to recruit a kid to play for him over many other coaches, including Beamer.
Not sure I'm saying the sky is falling. Morenso that we just had a losing season. And we are looking at two in a row unless we pull some upsets.
I also k ow that no coach can fix NIL, but not sure I'm willing to say all our recruiting woes are due to that. A losing season might have a lot to do with it as well.
So, after all that hype, you're talking about 6 wins? (Regular seson) Hardly that far from the 5 I am thinking.
The roof, idk. We still have a hard schedule, and I usually overrate us a bit. I want to say 8, but we have to beat people. But think about this, we upgraded EDGE, we upgraded DT depth, we upgraded LB, We brought in 4 high quality OL transfers, 2 look like they beat out returning players. We might not have an XL, but we probably upgraded in terms of numbers of contributors at WR. We flipped the RB room. That is all looking at transfers alone. We likely added 2 starters from high school in 5*s, and frankly if Stewart doesn't start, that means we're bought and day better than last year there. On top of that, we were second last season in snaps by freshmen to only Clemson, Clemson thinks that returning talent will be enough to bring them from 9 wins to 12, and we don't think being just behind them, on top of the upgrading we did with a top-10 transfer class is enough to get 1 more win with a schedule that'll surely include at least one team not being a good as expected. I also really don't understand how Kentucky, who by the time we played them were actually fielding a worse OL (impressive improvement considering we started with the single worst OL performance of any team other than Colorado), is now favored with no cause to believe they'll be better on the OL, a worse HS class and a wise transfer class after we beat them 2 years in a row. I don't see how Oklahoma lost their steering QB and went 1-2 against ranked teams, had the new QB throw for 2 TDs ṭo 3 INTs against a bad defense in the bowl, and they're suddenly supposed to be a juggernaut against a harder schedule than they've played in well over a decade. I don't know how a Clemson team that had the 32nd defense last year, and lost 5 of their front 6 to the NFL, returns a lot of offensive players who couldn't score a TD against us, and has no QB option other than a guy who threw 2 picks in his own Spring game after starting all of last season is an insurmountable challenge. I'll stake it right now, if Nichols didn't get hurt in the Spring Game, Henry wouldn't have been rolled by his replacement and we wouldn't have had that weird snowball of injuries. If that happened, we would've been able to exploit Rattler, and would've beaten Clemson, and I'm sure a grew others along the way.
We had two things stopping us on defense, no production from EDGE and bad nickel play. Kilgore locked down the Nickel by the end of the year and the 3-3-5 covered for the EDGE problem. Both teams were thought to have good defenses, both defenses have to more points than we did against either of them. We will be a good team.
If it was easier to recruit, why wasn't his average class ranking as good as it last 2? Beamer was also leading the charge in those evals. The three classes that produced by far and away the most of all of Spurrier's classes, and I do mean the three classes that produced the most records, wins, starts and Pro careers, were the 3 Beamer was the recruiting coordinator for. Considering how much out of state and how rated players contributed to 2 of those 3, I think '09 is the only one we get without him. The 6th ranked class didn't come close. 2012, 2013 and 2014 averaged much higher than those 3 Beamer headed, and they were loaded with busts, and we feel apart when it was their turn.
I was saying the minimum of what would happen, not the ceiling. The floor is 5 if a few guys who were great elsewhere are previously fall flat with no one stepping up to replace them. 4 if we have 2018 or 2019 levels of injuries. I think 9 could be the best case scenario ceiling, and we ain't surpass that unless Harbor, Rocket and Sellers all go super sayain, and we haven't been hearing things like that about Harbor. And I can find a video of a national analyst saying he thinks we have an 8 win ceiling if you'd like.
Dude. Give it up. He was terrible. High school coaches told me, he could get skill players but had no linemen. And I knew a ton of high school coaches in those days. I called on them.
This rumor is fact. Again. I knew coaches personally in those days. The Dabo crap….who cares.
I'm not saying it's easier to recruit . I'm saying it's easier to recruit when the team is successful, or in an upward trend. We are nit. Our losing season is making it harder to recruit.
As for giving credit to Beamer for Spurrier's success, many have argued that. It's an old debate. It was also a time of unprecedented local talent, and the coach's name had draw like few others. But that has been beaten to death.
9 as a ceiling? Okay, you are definitely very optimistic. Once again, I read the very long post of all the reasons we will be better. They sound a lot like me when I was younger.
For me back then, every question mark was going to turn up good for us, every new guy was going to be an upgrade. Every other team couldn't possibly improve, or replace guys they lost.
In reality, I was very wrong. Every opponent we play can write paragraphs like that. By the way, you should use paragraphs.
Every opponent thinks theys shored up all their weak spots and added depth. I am hoping we get to 6 wins.
Beamer had been recruiting right in line with Spurrier's classes. And it wasn't unprecedented, we had 4 blue-chips in 2010, that's normal for this state. The 2009 class is the outlier for in- state talent, and it produced less snaps than the 2010 class, just more stars. Lattimore was the star of 2010, but honestly, it rushing didn't take a hit when he went down.
I'm wasn't you to pay close attention to this argument, because you keep misinterpreting it, and I'm starting to think it's intentional. Spurrier had veto power, but he largely delegated setting the recruiting board. Off the top of my head he had 3 RCs while he was here. Our hit rate on recruits was higher with Beamer, the classes after rated higher, and were loaded with busts. On paper, we were better off without Beamer, in reality, we were worse off. That means Beamer leading the charge in identifying talent did the players, many of them overlooked, that brought us our best years. If it was Spurrier, then why those 3 years specifically? If it was the talent, then why was 2011 just average for us and 2010 so bad by ranking? If it was the local talent, then why did the class with the lowest amount of SC kids contribute so much?
"I got their ceiling at 8-4..." - Andy Staples9 as a ceiling? Okay, you are definitely very optimistic. Once again, I read the very long post of all the reasons we will be better. They sound a lot like me when I was younger.
For me back then, every question mark was going to turn up good for us, every new guy was going to be an upgrade. Every other team couldn't possibly improve, or replace guys they lost.
In reality, I was very wrong. Every opponent we play can write paragraphs like that. By the way, you should use paragraphs.
I am hoping we get to 6 wins.
Would you like another one?
Paragraphs are a lost art. I had a difficult English professor in my freshman year. She gave me the worst grade I ever got in college. I hated the witch. My wife and her brother had a bet as to who of the 2 would get a better grade from her. My wife has yet to collect the bet she won.Every opponent we play can write paragraphs like that. By the way, you should use paragraphs.
I looked up the professor once and saw that there is a "Writing Award" in her honor. In retrospect, I probably deserved a worse grade than I got.
As I drive by the forum and fire off a quick response to a post the last thing I expect is to be graded for my writing skills.
I don't think there's a misinterpretation, and it's certainly not intentional of there is.
I am saying that giving Beamer credit for recruits that signed to play for Spurrier is hard to credit Beamer for solely.
In part, you're saying we had less busts when Beamer was RC. I'll take your word for it, as I don't ha e a stat on bust percentages per class. I will say that it's the type of statement people can misremember easily.
Sure, post a 100. That doesn't change the notion that it's extremely optimistic.
It's not meant to be mean. It's lighthearted.
Some people write very long posts. (Like you, and I joke when I ask if that's really a "quick response")
It's a common jest to point out that some people write a lot and don't break up the post. I tend to err in the other direction.
I've been looking over the names in those classes. 2013 class 8 4*s, 2 contributed, we had a higher hit rate with the 2 *s from 2010. Evaluations matter, frankly it was the only good part of Muschamp was the gems he found.
I'll take your word for it. I'm sure if we nitpicked, we could argue over what "contributed" means or come up with reasons someone didn't "contribute" to sway one class over the other.
Larrnz Bryant had one career start, Kelley Griffin was a career backup, Connor Mitch was a dud, David Williams did little here and transferred, Na'ty Rogers got booted for academics, and Devin Washington didn't even see the field, I think. That leave Skai Moore and DJ Park. 2010 2 *s included Dylan Thompson, single season passing leader, two year starter Sharrod Gologhtly, three year starting LT Corey Robinson, the strongest Gamecock ever at the time Byron Jerideau, and that isn't even mentioning the punter Patrick Fish.
That's what I'm saying. You're acting like this is opinion, at that point it's a verifiable fact that our 2*s in 2010 were better than our blue- chips in 2013.
Spurrier always said give him a 3* QB and let him coach them up. He did a great job with Thompson.
Yes, it's opinion, and I'm just thinking I summed it up previously.
"I'll take your word for it. I'm sure if we nitpicked, we could argue over what "contributed" means or come up with reasons someone didn't "contribute" to sway one class over the other."
I guess im just not in the mood to go over multiple class lists and argue over what constitutes "contributed" so we can argue over whether Beamer should get all the credit for walking in a door and saying "I'd like you to come play for Steve Spurrier".
I did not see it. But admit my search was limited to a Wikipedia search.
Than it's my opinion that dollars are now nickels and Beamer already won a championship, since success has nothing to do with success./s
Okay.
Quick question. I know you'll take it as an insult, but it's really not intended to be.
Are you a current student, or a recent graduate?
I remember we'll when I posted and thought just like you do. Age and reality beat it out of me.
Probably true. It's just that it reminds me, to an extreme extent, what I was lile at that age.
Imo, age and experience tend to wring that sort of blind optimism out of you at some point.
I remember. I was an Alabama fan since the 3rd grade. If I had been a little older when I moved here I'd probably have stayed a Bama fan like my brother and sister. But Dad, the Carolina grad, had season tickets and I went to every game. I was still young enough to catch the fever. I've now been a Gamecock for 42 years.
I'm 32. I was following closely when these classes were happening, thought we were improving because the number by our logo was smaller each signing day, and I tracked all the busts as they happened. Good players live up to their billing. These guys we signed with Jr didn't.
The standard is that 2*s are considered not to be FBS quality and 4 stars are expected to be starters by year 3, and 5*s are supposed to be day 1 contributors. By that standard, we can see who the his and misses were. If you were a 4* who never started on a roster where only 30-ish% of players were 4*s, you're a bust. If you're a 2* who makes the NFL, you're a gem. That's by the standards the recruiting industry uses when classifying these kids.
I chose it on covkytalk in 2011 because our defense was compared to his at the time. The joke being that he lives on in a dominant, undersized and fast defense that is good at gang tackling and great against the pass.
So, 20 years younger. I see myself in you. I hope the next couple decades don't temper your enthusiasm the way it was done to me.
But I'm not holding my breath. I've lived through too much.
/end old guy rant
But I'm basing my expectations on things that were unprecedented that have already happened, and how much we look like those Spurrier years that were really unprecedented.
And I've been sticking up for unfairly maligned Gamecocks since people were saying Spurrier would never get it done in '09 and people who sound like you said Shaw was trash in 2012. Funny enough, I thought yall lacked perspective and patience when yall thought Spurrier's young defense in '09 wasn't queued to dominate in a couple of years, and when yall old times were calling for Shaw to be benched.
Yeah, I did too.
I'm reminded of a conversation at work with a young lady who was explaining that her dogs were "her children". Me and the guy next to me smiled politely, and expressed how we felt the same way before we had real children.
She spent the next several minutes trying to explain to us how we didn't know what it was like, even though both of us had pets before children.
We just smiled and nodded at that point. She couldn't be told how children were a small step above pets once they arrived. She'd just just have to live through it.
Get unlimited access today.