I'm still behind Beamer

[18IsTheMan]

This season was an unmitigated disaster. No way around that. We regressed in almost every metric. Defensive stats were down across the board. Offensive stats were down across the board (scoring was down dramatically, 6 ppg). And we looked VERY bad in the process of going 5-7. Some 5-7 teams don't look too bad and show some fight and promise. We did not. Frankly, we were downright fortunate to even get 5 wins. We had a QB, one WR and a RB who showed some promise. Those are the lone bright spots on the year.

That said, I'm still behind Beamer. This year was a forgettable, calamitous season, but I do believe he showed some coaching chops his first 2 years. Cobbling together 7 wins with a bowl victory in Season 1 was downright impressive, considering what he took over and that he did it without mostly without even having a QB. Last year, with our backs to the wall, he delivered the best back-to-back wins in our program's history.

Is Beamer still learning and growing as a coach? Sure. Some gripe and moan that we're paying him for "on-the-job training" but that's just life. Ask Nick Saban if he still learns things. ALL coaches are getting paid for on-the-job training.

I'm also reminded that Spurrier's 3rd year was a total and unmitigated disaster as well, worse than this one in many ways. So a bad year this year doesn't mean things are irretrievably broken. Through 3 years, Spurrier was 21-16 (11-13). Beamer is 20-18 (10-14). No different at all, really. Spurrier took us to bowl games in his first 2 seasons, going 1-1 and missed a bowl in his 3rd season. Beamer has done the same.

As bad as this season was, Beamer has turned next year into a "prove it" kind of season. Unfortunately, Beamer's 4th year task is MUCH, MUCH taller than Spurrier's though. It's going to be downright hard to show much progress, if any, in terms of wins and losses next year. It's just a brutal schedule and it's hard to see a path to even 6 wins. Going 6-6 next year would be a MAJOR win. Beamer also needs to kick it up in recruiting. I know he landed Harbor and has Stewart committed, so that's a good sign, but our overall class rankings are not much different than they ever have been. Recruiting was supposed to be his thing, so we need to see some fruits from that. He also needs to put on his recruiting/salesman hat when it comes to getting some better assistants. Simply put, we will never compete in the SEC with bargain bin hires.

 

[accock]

We will never build a winning program by hiring a new coach every 4-5 years, it has to be long term. It takes at least 4 years to get the kind of players that you need in the program to field a good team and then recruit better after that. That's the way I look at it.

 

[Deleted11512]

Typically year 3 is kind of a crossroads for all coaches. You've either just replaced a coordinator and looking to replace another, or replacing both. For HBC, it was after year 3 that he brought in Ellis Johnson. Dabo hired Venables after year 3, the year prior he hired Morris. I think Beamer knows he has to get this right.

 

[ToddFlanders]

It's also hard to judge Beamer on a year vs. year basis with other coaches as the transfer portal and NIL adds a wrinkle that no other coach has had to maneuver. And this all happened right when he was starting up as the coach.

They should now have a pretty good grasp of how to use the portal and NIL most efficiently. But undoubtedly this past year's ready-to-play talent level was severely diminished by the portal.

 

[SCgo]

Beamer wants to be here. He has certainly done enough to give him a fair chance. Unless our NIL improves, we will always be swimming upstream. We need the big donors.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Typically year 3 is kind of a crossroads for all coaches. You've either just replaced a coordinator and looking to replace another, or replacing both. For HBC, it was after year 3 that he brought in Ellis Johnson. Dabo hired Venables after year 3, the year prior he hired Morris. I think Beamer knows he has to get this right.

Well, we don't agree on all the staff moves that Beamer should consider, but we agree he does have staff moves to consider. These are the ones that will likely determine his ultimate fate here.

 

[gamecock stock]

Beamer also needs to kick it up in recruiting. I know he landed Harbor and has Stewart committed, so that's a good sign, but our overall class rankings are not much different than they ever have been. Recruiting was supposed to be his thing, so we need to see some fruits from that. He also needs to put on his recruiting/salesman hat when it comes to getting some better assistants. Simply put, we will never compete in the SEC with bargain bin hires.

That has been the biggest disappointment of the Beamer era. He was sold as being some sort of super recruiter. His recruiting has been no better than Muschamp's, possibly worse. After an underachieving season on the field, he really needs to strike gold this recruiting season.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Beamer wants to be here. He has certainly done enough to give him a fair chance. Unless our NIL improves, we will always be swimming upstream. We need the big donors.

Big donors aren't happening here. There aren't going to be any billionaire oil tycoons popping up in the state anytime soon. The class of donors we have always had is what we will always have. They can try to nickel and dime the fans for donations, but that's peanuts.

 

[gamecock stock]

Big donors aren't happening here. There aren't going to be any billionaire oil tycoons popping up in the state anytime soon. The class of donors we have always had is what we will always have. They can try to nickel and dime the fans for donations, but that's peanuts.

That's why it is imperative that Beamer do "more with less". Spurrier and Morrison were never great recruiters. But, they could do the X's and O's against anybody or had staff that could. I don't think Beamer can do the "X's and O's. So, he better hire staff who can. Anyone who thinks we are going to have a gush of NIL money, EVER, probably think that Taylor Swift would give them the time of day if she was available. It AIN'T happening....EVER!!!!!.So, as you said earlier, Beamer's future here will be determined by this off-season's hires. He better get it right, this time.

 

[KingWard]

We will never build a winning program by hiring a new coach every 4-5 years, it has to be long term. It takes at least 4 years to get the kind of players that you need in the program to field a good team and then recruit better after that. That's the way I look at it.

Well, actually that seems to work sometimes. Lots of coaches' records are front-loaded, especially among those who get fired. Muschamp was a prime example. Scott was certainly that way. And though it's early, Beamer is trending that way. And, to be honest, though he wasn't fired, Holtz had peaked by his third year and it was downhill from there.

 

[18IsTheMan]

That's why it is imperative that Beamer do "more with less". Spurrier and Morrison were never great recruiters. But, they could do the X's and O's against anybody or had staff that could. I don't think Beamer can do the "X's and O's. So, he better hire staff who can. Anyone who thinks we are going to have a gush of NIL money, EVER, probably think that Taylor Swift would give them the time of day if she was available. It AIN'T happening....EVER!!!!!.So, as you said earlier, Beamer's future here will be determined by this off-season's hires. He better get it right, this time.

Some of our fans were curiously excited about NIL when it was announced, fantasizing about how would benefit greatly from it. I only ever saw it favoring those programs that already had massive financial advantages.

 

[KingWard]

It's also hard to judge Beamer on a year vs. year basis with other coaches as the transfer portal and NIL adds a wrinkle that no other coach has had to maneuver. And this all happened right when he was starting up as the coach....

Those wrinkles were new to everybody who was coaching at their inception. Beamer wasn't the lone ranger on that one.

 

[KingWard]

Big donors aren't happening here. There aren't going to be any billionaire oil tycoons popping up in the state anytime soon. The class of donors we have always had is what we will always have. They can try to nickel and dime the fans for donations, but that's peanuts.

I would place us on about the same level as the Mississippi schools.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I would place us on about the same level as the Mississippi schools.

 

[KingWard]

That's why it is imperative that Beamer do "more with less". Spurrier and Morrison were never great recruiters. But, they could do the X's and O's against anybody or had staff that could. I don't think Beamer can do the "X's and O's. So, he better hire staff who can. Anyone who thinks we are going to have a gush of NIL money, EVER, probably think that Taylor Swift would give them the time of day if she was available. It AIN'T happening....EVER!!!!!.So, as you said earlier, Beamer's future here will be determined by this off-season's hires. He better get it right, this time.

The Spurrier teams circa 2010-2014 were loaded. Whoever recruited them, they got recruited.

 

[18IsTheMan]

The Spurrier teams circa 2010-2014 were loaded. Whoever recruited them, they got recruited.

One advantage Spurrier had that no other USC coach will likely ever have is the boon of in-state talent we had during his tenure. Our success was strongly linked to that unprecedented string of talent the state produced. SOS still had to recruit them, and one thing he did was lock down the top talent in the state. But it is telling that our greatest success coincided with that burst of in-state talent and our success fizzled as that talent pool dried up.

 

[gamecock stock]

The Spurrier teams circa 2010-2014 were loaded. Whoever recruited them, they got recruited.

We had some very good players. But we were not a recruiting juggernaut. Looking at the On3 recruiting rankings from 2006-14, we were ranked 28,7, 22, 11, 50 (don't know what happened there), 16, 18, 19 and 14th. We were respectable but, not overwhelming. Nothing there would have projected to having 3 straight Top 10 teams in the final polls from 2011-2013, including number 4 in the nation in 2013.

 

[Deleted11512]

One advantage Spurrier had that no other USC coach will likely ever have is the boon of in-state talent we had during his tenure. Our success was strongly linked to that unprecedented string of talent the state produced. SOS still had to recruit them, and one thing he did was lock down the top talent in the state. But it is telling that our greatest success coincided with that burst of in-state talent and our success fizzled as that talent pool dried up.

It was the perfect storm of the fertile recruiting instate along with Clemson firing Tommy Bowden.

 

[KingWard]

We had some very good players. But we were not a recruiting juggernaut. Looking at the On3 recruiting rankings from 2006-14, we were ranked 28,7, 22, 11, 50 (don't know what happened there), 16, 18, 19 and 14th. We were respectable but, not overwhelming. Nothing there would have projected to having 3 straight Top 10 teams in the final polls from 2011-2013.

All that means is that we took some goats with the sheep. There were some good NFL careers emerging from those 10,11, and 12 classes.

 

[KingWard]

One advantage Spurrier had that no other USC coach will likely ever have is the boon of in-state talent we had during his tenure. Our success was strongly linked to that unprecedented string of talent the state produced. SOS still had to recruit them, and one thing he did was lock down the top talent in the state. But it is telling that our greatest success coincided with that burst of in-state talent and our success fizzled as that talent pool dried up.

And when certain coaches were no longer with us, especially on the defensive side, and when Spurrier, Jr. became our recruiting coordinator. Put it another way, we faked our way through the 2013 season pretty much on talent alone, but the coaching changes that would bring the program down had already been made and manifested themselves in 2014. It was over.

 

[Deleted11512]

And when certain coaches were no longer with us, especially on the defensive side.

Yep. And Spurrier didn't get that right until year 4.

 

[Lurker123]

We will never build a winning program by hiring a new coach every 4-5 years, it has to be long term.

I disagree. 5 years is plenty enough time to evaluate a coach. (4 is debatable unless it's obvious)

From 2021 article, The average of all coaches is 4.9 years, and it drops to 4.3 years if you eliminate the 4 longest tenued: Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz, TCU’s Gary Patterson, Utah’s Kyle Whittingham and Oklahoma State’s Mike Gundy.

So every 5 years is actually above average for time.

And by this reasoning, we should have kept Muschamp and Brad Scott longer. That's just ridiculous though, because by 5 years, we could see they weren't going to make it.

 

[KingWard]

Yep. And Spurrier didn't get that right until year 4.

I still remember that defensive coach (Thompson?) who had all our defensive linemen standing up at the line of scrimmage.

 

[KingWard]

I disagree. 5 years is plenty enough time to evaluate a coach. (4 is debatable unless it's obvious)

From 2021 article, The average of all coaches is 4.9 years, and it drops to 4.3 years if you eliminate the 4 longest tenued: Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz, TCU’s Gary Patterson, Utah’s Kyle Whittingham and Oklahoma State’s Mike Gundy.

So every 5 years is actually above average for time.

And by this reasoning, we should have kept Muschamp and Brad Scott longer. That's just ridiculous though, because by 5 years, we could see they weren't going to make it.

An Einsteinian post if I've ever read one.

 

[Deleted11512]

I still remember that defensive coach (Thompson?) who had all our defensive linemen standing up at the line of scrimmage.

haha. That was great! The return of FIRE ANTS!!! Oh shite....

 

[Deleted11512]

An Einsteinian post if I've ever read one.

What did Einstein say?? The definition is stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? All we've ever done is fire guys after 4-5 years. Clearly, it's not the measure of success here. The ONLY measure of success here wasn't successful until year 6. Yet here we are...talking about 4-5 years.

 

[Deleted11512]

I disagree. 5 years is plenty enough time to evaluate a coach. (4 is debatable unless it's obvious)

From 2021 article, The average of all coaches is 4.9 years, and it drops to 4.3 years if you eliminate the 4 longest tenued: Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz, TCU’s Gary Patterson, Utah’s Kyle Whittingham and Oklahoma State’s Mike Gundy.

So every 5 years is actually above average for time.

And by this reasoning, we should have kept Muschamp and Brad Scott longer. That's just ridiculous though, because by 5 years, we could see they weren't going to make it.

I'll tell you what...if Beamer wins 1 or 2 games next year, fire his ***. As long as he's right around that bowl mark for 5-6 years that's OK. We afforded that patience to a HOF coach. We have to do the same for a 1st time coach.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I'll tell you what...if Beamer wins 1 or 2 games next year, fire his ***. As long as he's right around that bowl mark for 5-6 years that's OK. We afforded that patience to a HOF coach. We have to do the same for a 1st time coach.

It begs the question: should a coach with a track record of success get a shorter or longer leash than a new coach? On the one had, you can say he gets a longer leash b/c he's shown he can get the job done. On the other hand, you can say he gets a shorter leash because expectations are higher.

 

[Lurker123]

We afforded that patience to a HOF coach. We have to do the same for a 1st time coach.

Did the HOF status buy some of that patience?

Also, Spurrier never had a losing season until his last partial year.

Beamer already has one, and may have another next year.

IF, and it's an if, that happens, does that change your opinion on how much time he gets?

 

[Deleted11512]

That has been the biggest disappointment of the Beamer era. He was sold as being some sort of super recruiter. His recruiting has been no better than Muschamp's, possibly worse. After an underachieving season on the field, he really needs to strike gold this recruiting season.

If you don't have an OL you don't have an O. I can't remember a time where we've ever brought in this many blue chip OL back to back. And he's still working on a few as well. Muschamp never brought in a QB near the level of Ratt. Never brought in a WR near the level of Juice. To me, it's not the just the rankings you have to look at. It's impact players. It's building a foundation in the trenches.

 

[18IsTheMan]

I'll tell you what...if Beamer wins 1 or 2 games next year, fire his ***. As long as he's right around that bowl mark for 5-6 years that's OK. We afforded that patience to a HOF coach. We have to do the same for a 1st time coach.

It also begs the question of what qualifies as 1 or 2 wins. We should default to 4 wins with ODU, Akron, Wofford and Vandy. So a 5 or 6 win season, would really be a 1 or 2 win season, right?

 

[The Reel Ess]

Some of our fans were curiously excited about NIL when it was announced, fantasizing about how would benefit greatly from it. I only ever saw it favoring those programs that already had massive financial advantages.

It helped us last year, getting Beamer on the winning track a little early. It screwed us badly this year.

 

[Deleted11512]

Some of our fans were curiously excited about NIL when it was announced, fantasizing about how would benefit greatly from it. I only ever saw it favoring those programs that already had massive financial advantages.

Juice would be NFL bound if it weren't for NIL. Can you imagine this WR core next year without him??

Can you imagine this year without Ratt? It was bad enough. Thanks to NIL, he was able to come back.

I've heard some things that lead me to believe we're going to VERY active in the portal, and throwing some NIL money around. Lets just let this one play out a little.

NIL is a lot more than collective coffers...A LOT more.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Juice would be NFL bound if it weren't for NIL. Can you imagine this WR core next year without him??

Can you imagine this year without Ratt? It was bad enough. Thanks to NIL, he was able to come back.

I've heard some things that lead me to believe we're going to VERY active in the portal, and throwing some NIL money around. Lets just let this one play out a little.

NIL is a lot more than collective coffers...A LOT more.

Neither Juice nor Rattler had NFL draft projections that made it worth their while to go pro last year. That's the primary factor each one came back.

 

[accock]

Yep. And Spurrier didn't get that right until year 4.

I took Dabo 4 years to win 10 in that shotty conference, he went 4-3 as interim.

 

[accock]

I disagree. 5 years is plenty enough time to evaluate a coach. (4 is debatable unless it's obvious)

From 2021 article, The average of all coaches is 4.9 years, and it drops to 4.3 years if you eliminate the 4 longest tenued: Iowa’s Kirk Ferentz, TCU’s Gary Patterson, Utah’s Kyle Whittingham and Oklahoma State’s Mike Gundy.

So every 5 years is actually above average for time.

And by this reasoning, we should have kept Muschamp and Brad Scott longer. That's just ridiculous though, because by 5 years, we could see they weren't going to make it.

I disagree with you, Pressure from the outside is the reason many schools will never have success, the outsiders don't have the patience and will not give a coach the chance to build something special.

 

[Lurker123]

I disagree with you, Pressure from the outside is the reason many schools will never have success, the outsiders don't have the patience and will not give a coach the chance to build something special.

Then you'd rather Muschamp was still our coach?

 

[Deleted11512]

It also begs the question of what qualifies as 1 or 2 wins. We should default to 4 wins with ODU, Akron, Wofford and Vandy. So a 5 or 6 win season, would really be a 1 or 2 win season, right?

Nope. We had Muschamp out here getting crushed by App State and losing to good teams by 30+ points. A fire worthy year 4, to me, would be losing to an ODU or Akron, losing by 30+ to the good teams we play. The schedule is brutal. I don't know how you could fire someone in year 4 for winning 5-6. Spurrier was able to avoid the massive letdown Ls, however he did lose back to back years to Vandy in 07-08. He stayed in that 6-8 range for 5 years. Beamer dipped below that this year. Ultimately ended up being a busted play against UF from staying at least .500.

I think we'll have a better feel about next year when the portal dust settles.

 

[gamecock stock]

All that means is that we took some goats with the sheep. There were some good NFL careers emerging from those 10,11, and 12 classes.

I don't think we are disagreeing because I did say we got some very good players. But from top to bottom, we were not bringing in TOP 10 classes to translate to 3 straight Top 10 finishes. It took superior coaching.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Nope. We had Muschamp out here getting crushed by App State and losing to good teams by 30+ points. A fire worthy year 4, to me, would be losing to an ODU or Akron, losing by 30+ to the good teams we play. The schedule is brutal. I don't know how you could fire someone in year 4 for winning 5-6. Spurrier was able to avoid the massive letdown Ls, however he did lose back to back years to Vandy in 07-08. He stayed in that 6-8 range for 5 years. Beamer dipped below that this year. Ultimately ended up being a busted play against UF from staying at least .500.

I think we'll have a better feel about next year when the portal dust settles.

Gosh, we're definitely doomed to mediocrity if Muschamp is the standard.