Yeah, that's what I thought.
Pull up all those wonderful stats you constantly posted on Satterfield that you used to say he never should have been hired to start with. Let's do a comparison. LOL
Last edited:
Loggains, 3 yr, $1 million/yr
- Thread starter 18IsTheMan
- Start date
Yeah, that's what I thought.
Pull up all those wonderful stats you constantly posted on Satterfield that you used to say he never should have been hired to start with. Let's do a comparison. LOL
We don't need to pay 5 million to attract a decent OC, but I agree that we can afford better than we are doing.
Edit: I completely give you credit for making the early call that Shane would make a bad hire. Not sure how that equates to wanting patience for the bad hire though.
Last edited:
Okay, here's the new guy's stats as an OC.
2016 Bears OC: 17ppg (28th/32)
2017 Bears OC: 16.5ppg (29th/32)
2018 Dolphins OC: 19.9ppg (26th/32)
2019 Jets OC: 17.2ppg (31st/32)
2020 Jets OC: 15.2ppg (32nd/32)
2021: ARK TE Coach
Well to be perfectly frank, Beamer said he spoke to them, he didn't relate what they said. There is no doubt he seems to be a nice guy, which maybe all that they said about him.
I will absolutely give it up for Coach Beamer for putting his entire "dream job" on the line to hire a guy that was named the worst playcaller in the NFL and that certainly takes moxie.
There are 2 things that I guess put me over the edge with this hire.
1. This doesn't look like a coach whose experience fit the description of what Coach Beamer even said he wanted, an experienced playcaller. In no way can it be argued that he fits that bill. There are serious questions that he even called plays at any level because he was on NFL staffs of very hands on playcalling headcoaches. (Also, staying in the NFL for 16 years on a coaching staff is not an accomplishment, there are horrible coaches who just move around for years.)
2. If there was such an involved process to find "the guy" why does it appear that Loggains was always the only choice? It really baffles me that of all the prospective hires in all the FBS, FCS, and NFL that we focused, seemingly to the exclusion of all other candidates, a coach whose resume just doesn't scream success, or even experience as a playcaller. This depresses me for 2 reasons. A. It once again confirms that SC is a backwater school that a homerun hire won't even consider coming here. B. That even though he is on offense selling this hire, Beamer doesn't seem to understand that most of the reaction is based on what he said he wanted was not whom he ended up hiring. A lot of people loved the combative press conference, I saw it more as, Wow, Beamer is scared as hell and in preemptively angry over what fans and press consider legitimate concerns. He doth protest too much.
Look, I get it Beamer could not give a crap about my opinion. Just once it would be nice for SC to get a shiny object. Loggains may work out and I hope I have to eat crow, but he has an extensive resume and nothing about it screams successful playcaller.
Last edited:
As you know, I was against Loggains hiring. If it was up to me, he still would not be hired. As was mentioned in The State newspaper, and someone else mentioned here, Beamer is putting his job on the line with this hire. There's nothing in his stats to indicate Loggains should have been hired. NOTHING. But his hiring may have more to do with implementing Beamer's pro-style offense the way Beamer wants it implemented. After Satterfield left, Beamer said, "Yes, we had a "Tennessee" offense game. But we also had a "Florida" offense game". Does that tell you he was pleased with Satterfield's performance? Nobody can disagree that our offense was like night and day post Florida. Something changed, for the better. As Chris Clark wrote this week, Satterfield's offense was "largely inconsistent"....his words. During the season after a game, Beamer on national TV said he told, Satterfield to get the ball in the hands of playmakers. Saying that on TV was a put down of Satterfield. Satterfield did not have his contract extended after last season. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that Beamer was glad to see Satterfield go.
Beamer has overachieved in his 2 seasons here. So, even though I was against Loggains hiring (and still am), I'm going to give Beamer the benefit of the doubt and SPECULATE that Loggain's hiring had more to do with him being on the same page as Beamer on how to implement the pro-style offense. That's the only sense his hiring makes. I still would have gone with someone else. But, I will be positive and support Loggains unless given a reason not to, like Satterfield gave us all......well....most of us...not to. Because Beamer's job may be on the line with this hire, I'm going to speculate that Beamer did his home work and hired someone who is on the same page as Beamer on how to implement a pro-style offense. Maybe Loggains is not stubborn. So, that gives me hope.
I never called this a "bad hire". But it is EXACTLY what I said it would be. A retread. No proven success. No big name. More like a project.
I can't wait to see what he brings to the table. Maybe in 2 years he too will have us dropped 63 on a top 5 team and beating Clemson at Clemson.
So a bad hire, but without using the word "bad", because you like to argue semantics ad nauseum. Okay.
I will admit though, it shouldn't be hard to out perform that waste of an OC he is replacing.
None of what I stated necessarily makes him a bad hire, so that is your opinion, not mine. Good to see you crying already. No surprise. But THIS is exactly where I told you and the other mental midgets would go.
Looks like we are going to have to make some rent free room in your head for this new guy already.
So, a "retread, project hire with no history of success", but not "bad". Yeah, that's not arguing semantics at all, that's a ringing endorsement.
And I'm behind the new guy. I've already said he's an improvement over the last waste of space that had the job. (Although I admit it's a VERY low bar.)
But I know you feel the need to argue, even when people are agreeing with you. Just have to fill your day with drama, don't you?
We know Shane made one proven bad hire who had 2 yrs and failed - the other is still in question and gets his 2 yrs to prove himself before being declared bad.
I'll let you argue that with the lady who insists on calling it a bad hire while avoiding using the word "bad".
I personally think this guy is a definite step up from that last waste of space at OC.
Kiss is death right there. Did you hear that on that Tater radio you listen to?
Last edited:
It's 3 years. And no he won't. The same idiots that were wanting to fire Satt in October last year will be doing the same to this guy if he struggles year 1.
Oh yeah, the "idiots" that told you Satterfield was a bad hire, only to be proven right.
Wrong. Dropping 63 on Tennessee and 31 on Clemson proved that.
The idiots just couldn't admit they were wrong, and still can't.
Too bad he was judged on his season and not some "fluke", right? So glad that loser is gone.
Of course you are. Every tater I know feels the same. Everyone one of them prefers the OC that beat them gone and replaced by an unproven project.
Last edited:
Hate to break it to you, Clemson fans wanted us to keep Satterfield. Imagine, you and the taters, both on the same page.
Coming from a family of Clemson alumni and IPTAY members, I can attest to this. They're not even sure the Clemson coaches believe Satterfield was calling the plays the past two games....evidently it was way too different in tempo and plays used to set up other plays than what had previously been called.
You hear that on that tater radio station you admitted to listening to?
I knew you were tater when you didn't know who Calvi was.
Seems like the guy can recruit, and he has charisma. So we see why Shane hired him. He values personality highly.
We have no data points on how he will call ball since he has NEVER done it before at a college level. And several of his NFL OC stops the HC called plays not him. When he did call plays it was very bad.
He does have some pedigree QB coaching experience which is a plus. Hopefully he can dial it back to a college level. Satt could not. But this guy seems to have a much much better teaching temperment.
I have warmed up to the hire after my initial reaction. But it still feels like a risky move for Shane. The best endorsement supporters seem to muster is "he cant be worse than Satt". Which I think is TRUE but not exactly a resounding endorsement.
Bottom line this is the guy Shane wanted from the get-go. I don't really think any one else was seriously considered. Much like the Lamont Paris hire, we are uninspired, yet as Gamecock fans we hope and pray for the best. And we support the guy.
We have no data points on how he will call ball since he has NEVER done it before at a college level. And several of his NFL OC stops the HC called plays not him. When he did call plays it was very bad.
He does have some pedigree QB coaching experience which is a plus. Hopefully he can dial it back to a college level. Satt could not. But this guy seems to have a much much better teaching temperment.
I have warmed up to the hire after my initial reaction. But it still feels like a risky move for Shane. The best endorsement supporters seem to muster is "he cant be worse than Satt". Which I think is TRUE but not exactly a resounding endorsement.
Bottom line this is the guy Shane wanted from the get-go. I don't really think any one else was seriously considered. Much like the Lamont Paris hire, we are uninspired, yet as Gamecock fans we hope and pray for the best. And we support the guy.