Good answer to the question. Got it. You have no clue. Thanks for the confirmation.
Beamer, just happy to be here.
- Thread starter Cockytalk84
- Start date
So weird that this is the argument that you guys want to make. "We just suck and will never be better"
So, it's "coachspeak" when he directly contradicts you, but absurd and in no way "coachspeak" when he contradicts me?
Do you even realize the ludicrous hypocrisy of your posts? I told you that you would change your mind on "coachspeak" when it didn't suit you, and it took one post to prove me right.
I wonder how fast you'd change your mind on "coachspeak" if someone suggested that Beamer saying Satterfield calling plays against UT and Clemson was him being polite in public, and just coachspeak?
Lol
I disagree with the notion that Holtz and Spurrier are somehow too removed to be considered relevant, but I agree with you that our best bet is an up and comer.
As I repeatedly said, I wanted someone with a little history of success, even if it meant at a lower level. If we can't get a successful SEC coach, or a successful P5 coach to come here, then go for the guy making a name for himself. The up and comer.
It's a gamble, sure, but just about every hire is.
Where I disagree with the choices made are the philosophies. I don't care for hires with a dubious history (like our last two OC hires) just because they run a "pro style" offense. I think some people become too enamored with that philosophy.
I would rather an aggressive coach, who has some success, even if it's at a G5 school, and even if he's unconventional, or innovative.
Let me explain it to your simple ass.
THIS isn't coachspeak. It's very clear with ZERO wiggle room.
“That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” Beamer said during his Sunday teleconference. “He put the game plan together along with the rest of the offensive staff and he called every single play last night.”
THIS is coachspeak. Plenty of room for interpretation.
"I’m interested in hiring the best coach available for what we need as a program."
Not the best coach available. The best coach available "for what we need as a program." Very subjective.
THIS isn't coachspeak. It's very clear with ZERO wiggle room.
“That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard,” Beamer said during his Sunday teleconference. “He put the game plan together along with the rest of the offensive staff and he called every single play last night.”
THIS is coachspeak. Plenty of room for interpretation.
"I’m interested in hiring the best coach available for what we need as a program."
Not the best coach available. The best coach available "for what we need as a program." Very subjective.
Last edited:
So you're going to double down on the blatant hypocrisy. No surprise.
Mrs Satterfield:" It wasn't that he wouldn't, it's because he couldn't."
Coach Beamer: “I could easily go out and hire the hot names,"
Not subjective, not vague. A direct contradiction of your statement.
Have you ever looked back and thought how your single-minded defense of that moron Satterfield has left you arguing that Beamer is a liar? It's absolutley hysterical how you can get twisted up in these knots just because you won't ever just admit to being wrong.
You did pull up his resume, right? No comparison to Loggains. I would take the pro coach any day over Satt.
Yes I did. Loggains didn't have a lot positive in his pro resume. Jumped around a lot and a lot of negative press. Consistent the worst offenses in the NFL. To be fair to Loggains, he was on some bad teams. But he won't have the top talent here either. Doesn't mean he can't be good at the college level. Satterfield, on the other hand, has proven he can beat Clemson, UNC, TAMU, Auburn, Florida, and Kentucky within 2 years of taking over a complete dumpster fire.
Now, if we were back 2 1/2 years ago, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But after Satts 2 years here, not so much. We could have easily been a 4 win disaster for the last two years, but we got some really big wins that far exceeded expectations. We're there disaster games? Of course. We had Spurrier who was supposed to be an offensive genius and it was no different. Not sure what some of these fire happy howling monkeys expect, but they got more than they deserved.
I'll try to dumb it down for the howling monkeys again. If you had a friend and he said...
“I could easily go out buy a Ferrari, the car when you read the ‘hot boards’ on some of y’all’s websites, that the general public thinks that’s the best car and that’s the car I need to bring into my garage. I’m not interested in winning hottest car in Publix parking lot. I’m interested in buying the best transportation available for what we need as a family.”
Technically, he's not lying. In reality, you won't see a Ferrari in his garage for a reason. Coachspeak 101.
“I could easily go out buy a Ferrari, the car when you read the ‘hot boards’ on some of y’all’s websites, that the general public thinks that’s the best car and that’s the car I need to bring into my garage. I’m not interested in winning hottest car in Publix parking lot. I’m interested in buying the best transportation available for what we need as a family.”
Technically, he's not lying. In reality, you won't see a Ferrari in his garage for a reason. Coachspeak 101.
So again, because this is definitive:
Mrs Satterfield:" It wasn't that he wouldn't, it's because he couldn't."
Coach Beamer: “I could easily go out and hire the hot names,"
Not subjective, not vague. A direct contradiction of your statement.
Taking a guy who spent years in the NFL over a guy who failed at every place he coached in college seems like an easy choice, regardless of the relative lack of success in the NFL.
Well, it's an easy choice for anyone not emotionally tied to Satterfield.
Wrong. When you only include PART of the statement, not the entire statement, it absolutely is vague and subjective.
“I could easily go out and hire the hot names,"
then the rest bring in the caveat.
"the guys when you read the ‘hot boards’ on some of y’all’s websites, that the general public thinks that’s the guru and that’s the guy we need to bring into the program. I’m not interested in winning the press conference. I’m interested in hiring the best coach available for what we need as a program.
Very clear he couldn't get a hot name due to "need". Theory and practice are two very different things.
Coachspeak 101. And you are a liar by omission
“I could easily go out and hire the hot names,"
then the rest bring in the caveat.
"the guys when you read the ‘hot boards’ on some of y’all’s websites, that the general public thinks that’s the guru and that’s the guy we need to bring into the program. I’m not interested in winning the press conference. I’m interested in hiring the best coach available for what we need as a program.
Very clear he couldn't get a hot name due to "need". Theory and practice are two very different things.
Coachspeak 101. And you are a liar by omission
You lost to us and you lost to Duke. Maybe you should go to the Florida Atlantic board and talk crap.
I'm sure your lack of self awareness keeps you from realizing you posted PART of the statement in post #125.
But regardless, Beamer directly contradicts you in the first sentence. Not partially, not maybe, but completely and directly.
Mrs Satterfield:" It wasn't that he wouldn't, it's because he couldn't."
Coach Beamer: “I could easily go out and hire the hot names, the guys when you read the ‘hot boards’ on some of y’all’s websites, that the general public thinks that’s the guru and that’s the guy we need to bring into the program. I’m not interested in winning the press conference.
You can twist in the wind all you want on his choice of words after that, you're fooling no one. He CAN hire anyone, but he doesn't want to does not translate to he CAN'T hire anyone.
Once again, look at yourself. You are so bent out of shape about some former loser coordinator that you are directly contradicting Beamer, and calling him a liar. And in your mind, this somehow makes sense.
You are truly broken.
Wrong. I've been right about everything.
YOU misled by omission. The full text clearly is coachspeak.
YOU have called him a liar over who was calling the plays where the full text is 100% absolute.
YOU obsess over Satterfield, still starting threads about him here long after he is gone.
YOU were the first to mention him in this thread.
YOU have mentioned him here 25 times in the last month across multiple threads
AND
YOU obsess over me and anything I post.
Truly a f'ing nut job.
YOU misled by omission. The full text clearly is coachspeak.
YOU have called him a liar over who was calling the plays where the full text is 100% absolute.
YOU obsess over Satterfield, still starting threads about him here long after he is gone.
YOU were the first to mention him in this thread.
YOU have mentioned him here 25 times in the last month across multiple threads
AND
YOU obsess over me and anything I post.
Truly a f'ing nut job.
Interesting that "coachspeak" only applies when you say it does. Interesting, but not surprising.
It feels odd, being the one to defend Beamer against accusations of lying from someone like you, who used to be so pro Beamer.
And all because you just can't admit you were wrong about Satterfield.
Who would have thought, when push came to shove, you'd be throwing Beamer under the bus in favor of a failed former coordinator. What a fan. A truly broken fan.
You're an idiot. You've never supported Beamer. You never supported Satt. And you already Liked someone that said Loggains that should have never been hired.
Everybody knows and has known for a long time that you are a tater. That game last year must have really hurt. Satt beating your taters like that.
Everybody knows and has known for a long time that you are a tater. That game last year must have really hurt. Satt beating your taters like that.
I'm supporting Beamer right now while you're calling him a liar.
I'm supporting loggains while you're calling him a bad hire. (You'll dance around the word "bad", using words like "project")
You like to throw the "tater" thing around when someone disagrees with you. But based on the above, you sure seem like the one coming across as a tater.
I noticed how quiet you were in the GC Clemson game thread last year. And how you reacted.
Cluck Femson Game Thread | On3
NOT HOW A GAMECOCK FAN REACTS. No celebration. No comments about the biggest win in rivalry history. Just a crybaby post on page 12 about the offense still being 77th. Not how a Gamecock fan reacts. Especially ones that post all the time.
Busted. TATER TROLL. There for everyone to read. Must have really hurt. Are you ok?
Cluck Femson Game Thread | On3
NOT HOW A GAMECOCK FAN REACTS. No celebration. No comments about the biggest win in rivalry history. Just a crybaby post on page 12 about the offense still being 77th. Not how a Gamecock fan reacts. Especially ones that post all the time.
Busted. TATER TROLL. There for everyone to read. Must have really hurt. Are you ok?
Lmao
The big reveal is that I didn't post during the game? Wow, you should be Batman (sorry, batgirl) with those detective skills!
And then, after the game, I replied to a post about end of the year stats with a comment about yet another stat?
Holy smoking gun, Batgirl!
That was a great thread to reread though. In the middle of a fantastic win, while some of us were celebraring, you were still getting repeatedly bashed about your Satterfield crush. Truly funny.
And back to this thread, I repeat, you like to throw the "tater" thing around when someone disagrees with you. But based on the above, you sure seem like the one coming across as a tater.
Last edited:
EXPOSED TATER123 TROLL.
Right here for everyone to read.
https://www.on3.com/boards/threads/cluck-femson-game-thread.783247/
No Gamecock fan reacts like that. Clearly a bitter tater reaction.
Right here for everyone to read.
https://www.on3.com/boards/threads/cluck-femson-game-thread.783247/
No Gamecock fan reacts like that. Clearly a bitter tater reaction.
Last edited:
GREAT thread! I especially like the continual bashing of your Satterfield crush.
You should really put these detective skills to better use. Doesn't your trailer park have a lost puppy or something?
Last edited:
TATER TROLL TATER TROLL TATER TROLL
You post constantly. We beat Clemson. At Clemson. Break their 40 game home losing streak. And knock them out of the playoffs. Epic win. Probably the biggest in rivalry history.
And all you have to say when it is over is:
Tater123: "After 12 games, we are 77th still. And I checked, it was updated after 12 games."
LOL. You ain't fooling nobody, TATER123 TROLL. What a moron.
You post constantly. We beat Clemson. At Clemson. Break their 40 game home losing streak. And knock them out of the playoffs. Epic win. Probably the biggest in rivalry history.
And all you have to say when it is over is:
Tater123: "After 12 games, we are 77th still. And I checked, it was updated after 12 games."
LOL. You ain't fooling nobody, TATER123 TROLL. What a moron.
So, we've reached the point of this thread where you've been proven wrong, AGAIN, and you're going to spam idiocy as a distraction, thinking it'll fool anybody?
You know, "retarded" is a strong word. But, here we are.
You don't see the problem with you supporting Beamer more than you support the Gamecocks?
TATER TATER TATER
No Gamecock fan reacts like this immediately after the biggest win in rivalry history.
Tater123: "After 12 games, we are 77th still. And I checked, it was updated after 12 games."
BUSTED. I bet you will lose your shit when Loggains does it to our orange ass again this year. LOL
No Gamecock fan reacts like this immediately after the biggest win in rivalry history.
Tater123: "After 12 games, we are 77th still. And I checked, it was updated after 12 games."
BUSTED. I bet you will lose your shit when Loggains does it to our orange ass again this year. LOL
Last edited:
Supporting Beamer IS supporting the Gamecocks. We are lucky to have him, and will be lucky to keep him.
Did you miss the last two head coaching searches?
You know, stupidity of this level needs to be shared.
When your opponent is making an idiot of herself, don't get in the way, maybe even help.
Last edited:
Explain it, TATER. Looking forward to another one of your lies.
What Gamecock fan reacts to the big win in rivalry history with that pathetic, whiny, loser comment?
What Gamecock fan reacts to the big win in rivalry history with that pathetic, whiny, loser comment?
It's so weird that you keep arguing that Beamer was the best we could do, because we couldn't do better. It's like you're acknowledging he wasn't good enough for the Gamecocks. Then you're saying we're lucky to have him, even though you acknowledge he's an inferior coach.
You've twisted yourself into quite the pretzel.
Sometimes it's easier to just say "oops", or "my bad" and move on. Desperately clinging to a failed opinion just gets you stuck in those sort of pretzel situations.
Like I'm acknowledging he wasn't good enough for the Gamecocks? LOL. We were lucky he took over this dumper fire after Muschamp. Very, very lucky to have him.
You are flat out lying when you claim I "acknowledge he's an inferior coach". He had FAR exceeded expectations. That's a fact.
But you’re saying the only reason he is our coach is because we couldn’t hire coaches other programs wanted?
Outside of Rattler and Wells, the best players under Beamer have been kids recruited by Muschamp. Maybe we should off on proclaiming one better than the other.
Wow, still going. Only thing that is readily apparent to me is that Lurker and Watson are in extreme man love. 
Wow, still going. Only thing that is readily apparent to me is that Lurker and Watson are in extreme man love.
And I actually went to the effort of replying to you as if you were being serious.
My mistake.
No, that one is settled.
Muschump NEVER beat Clemson with his players or Spurrier's players. Beamer took over the offensive wreck Muschump left and did it in year 2. And the 2 players you mentioned Beamer bring in were the biggest part of it.
THAT alone is enough to put him ahead of Muschump forever, no matter what happens going forward.
Now you're just being intellectually dishonest when Beamer got to play the worst Clemson team in more than a decade while Muschamp had to play teams that won two national championships.
What? We beat #8 CU in their stadium. The following week they blasted UNC for the ACC Championship.
Muschamp got demolished against CU for five straight years. The worst in school history by a mile.
Don't you think your Beamer dislike is getting a little out of hand?
We performed well last week against the 2x NC in their stadium and you're already front-running a potential victory this weekend.
"I think they look more awful than us. But yes, this win will give more false hope to our fanbase."
"Luckily they look awful. So we should win."
Last edited:
Similar threads
