Lettuce talk about the coach hiring juggernaut that is Ray Tanner
- Thread starter Dod Rangerfield
- Start date
Should’ve hired Richey from Furman. Dude lit our a$$ up in Charleston. Furman has been the better SoCon program the past couple of years. We literally hired another Darrin Horn based on a buzzer beater to get to the NCAA Tournament.
Hope Paris does well, but this is so bad I am starting to doubt. It should be quite this bad.
Hope Paris does well, but this is so bad I am starting to doubt. It should be quite this bad.
I’m still baffled about why in the world Tanner thought it was a good idea to hire Muschamp. Does he not have any advisors?
I’m still thinking of what in the world Tanner was thinking when he hired Muschamp.
Pat Kelsey from College of Charleston was the guy.Only been at C of C two years but has them in top 25.He has boundless energy.Candidate for Notre Dame job
I thought the Paris hire was a bad idea at the outset, but I eventually came around on it. However, we are bad. It's hard to tell how much of the current predicament is bad coaching or abysmal talent. Paris, of course, isn't responsible for the latter at this point. I would like think we would be able to see some progress in some aspect of our play over the course of the season. So far we have not. But, again, maybe this roster is just that devoid of talent that no amount of coaching is gonna help.
A point so strong you felt the need to make it twice............& I agree with you.
Sean Miller has Xavier clicking. Maybe if we had another AD last year he might be our coach now?
If we couldn't get Medved, or Sean "Meet Me at Hall's" Miller, I would have preferred Richey or McKie to Paris.
That said, I've been willing to write off this season since before it ever started based on the roster. Just sad it coincides with having GG, who's undoubtedly one and done (and good for him).
I think we should have thrown caution to the wind and hired Greg Marshall. The man would have taken us to multiple NCAATs.
Everybody on this message board would have promoted Chad Holbrook!! We all thought we were in great hands with him so gotta lay off Tanner there!! The Beamer hire is gonna work out great and Tanner also brough back Monte Lee and I think that is gonna payoff in the long run.
Why? The product he's putting on the floor is very much devoid of talent, sure. However, the eye test.....how they look so disorganized & uninterested/unmotivated....that's on him.
This!
^^^^Tanner apologist!^^^^
I agree about current team. You see some #16 seeds in the NCAAT who are grossly out-talented and get crushed, but they still play good basketball. They just don't have the talent to compete. We are not talented and play sloppy disorganized basketball.
As to Marshall, I'm surprised...stunned really...that his name didn't get any traction during the search. He's local. He wins and gets team to the tournament. Yeah, he's a hothead, but we're an afterthought in basketball. If he was hired at Duke, there'd be a lot scrutiny, but the media wouldn't give a hoot if we hired him. I don't really see what there would've been to lose. I guaranteed we'd be sitting on a lot more than 8 wins right now.
This is very true and why they are so hard to watch
BJ McKie should have been the choice to motivate and excite the entire program, imho!
And, another attractive aspect about Marshall is that he routinely defeated more talented teams.
I get what you're trying to say, However 1 out of 5 equals 20%, so yes that is bad.
You didn't get it very good. That was oozing with sarcasm.
As with everything else Gamecocks - Ray just needs 40 more decades to get things turned around.
Paying top dollar for top tier coaches has nothing to do with it. <sarcasm>
Paying top dollar for top tier coaches has nothing to do with it. <sarcasm>
While Beamer's teams have surpassed our expectations, I don't think we can claim that Beamer is a success, or that he will continue moving up. Let's see if he keeps improving or if he plateaus in the next 2 years.
I can't judge Paris after just part of 1 season, he was left with nothing to build on. Also, you would think Tanner would make his best hires in baseball, but not the case, very disappointing. I am not a fan of Tanner as an AD.
He has won 50% of his games vs. Tillman, so that buys him a whole lot of grace. These are Tommy West caliber Tillman teams that Fat Bradstard managed to beat either. These are top 10 Tillman teams.
Something about a blind squirrel and a nut, some assembly required.
We've been over this numerous times. The Holbrook coach-in-waiting hire was a good one at the time.
It's not in the same category as the rest.
And he did keep Staley.
Holbrook was a good hire at the time that just didn't work out. Most programs in the country would have hired him in a heartbeat.
Muschamp was an abject failure and one that very few people thought was a good hire at the time. I remember hearing his name coming up and hating the idea, but once he got hired I talked myself into liking it. (What else can you do?!?)
Kingston so far has been mostly a failure. He does have another year to try and get things turned around, deservedly or not. It's possible, but not probable, that this hire still could be successful.
Beamer so far has been good, but his tenure is too short to say it's a sure success. I have high hopes for the future of the program though, it seems to be going in the right direction.
Paris can't be judged one way or another at this point.
All of that said, Tanner hasn't been an unmitigated disaster making hires. He hasn't been great though...however, how many athletic directors hit on all of their hires? There have been good moments in all of these coaching hires though...Holbrook got to a couple super regionals. Kingston's been to one super regional. Muschamp was the winningest coach in his first three seasons (how many times did we hear that one???). Beamer's accomplishments are obvious. Even Paris got the highest ranked recruit in school history and beat Kentucky in Lexington for the 3rd time in school history.
It does seem to be a negative mark if the AD has to fire most of the coaches he hires.
Muschamp was an abject failure and one that very few people thought was a good hire at the time. I remember hearing his name coming up and hating the idea, but once he got hired I talked myself into liking it. (What else can you do?!?)
Kingston so far has been mostly a failure. He does have another year to try and get things turned around, deservedly or not. It's possible, but not probable, that this hire still could be successful.
Beamer so far has been good, but his tenure is too short to say it's a sure success. I have high hopes for the future of the program though, it seems to be going in the right direction.
Paris can't be judged one way or another at this point.
All of that said, Tanner hasn't been an unmitigated disaster making hires. He hasn't been great though...however, how many athletic directors hit on all of their hires? There have been good moments in all of these coaching hires though...Holbrook got to a couple super regionals. Kingston's been to one super regional. Muschamp was the winningest coach in his first three seasons (how many times did we hear that one???). Beamer's accomplishments are obvious. Even Paris got the highest ranked recruit in school history and beat Kentucky in Lexington for the 3rd time in school history.
It does seem to be a negative mark if the AD has to fire most of the coaches he hires.
If Beamer's trajectory continues upward, no other hire matters.
If Beamer's trajectory takes a downward spiral, no other hire matters.
If Beamer's trajectory takes a downward spiral, no other hire matters.
Not much, Kingstown ( yes I misspelled it on purpose ). Is rolling with borrowed time & has a shot to deliver a solid ( host a regional) type year. That’s the good news
I would say give France a year/ another year etc…. But I am more concerned about we can man up one game and fold like lawn chairs otherwise
Now to me, the jury is still out on Lamont Paris - he has had a chance to prove or disprove what he can do.