ADVERTISEMENT

CBS: ranking coaching hires

SMH, he was HC at Ole Miss before that! Look at the timeline I posted!
I know. All the more reason for the point I'm making. He had to go through the process a second time before getting a HC position - a process Beamer has not been through once.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOSUSC
Goalpost.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingchunCock
I know. All the more reason for the point I'm making. He had to go through the process a second time before getting a HC position - a process Beamer has not been through once.
Actually it’s the exact opposite of your point. HC without being a coordinator first.
 
Again coach O, not an strong for your case.
No, you're focusing on a timeline. I'm focusing on a process. A process, unlike his dad and most other successful HCs, Beamer has not been through. One example some of you have referred to is Dabo, since he was never a coordinator. They seem to forget he was made Interim HC where he had to prove himself before being made the HC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOSUSC
No, you're focusing on a timeline. I'm focusing on a process. A process, unlike his dad and most other successful HCs, Beamer has not been through. One example some of you have referred to is Dabo, since he was never a coordinator. They seem to forget he was made Interim HC where he had to prove himself before being made the HC.

Again Coach O was never a coordinator before becoming a HC, or interim HC before becoming a HC, PERIOD.

I will say thing again as well, move on or move out, Beamer is HC, PERIOD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingchunCock
They seem to forget he was made Interim HC where he had to prove himself before being made the HC.
So going 4-3 is proving yourself? They almost fired Swinney a few years later.
Bryan McClendon was interim coach at UGA and went 1-0...was OC here, then demoted....interim HC means nothing.
But apparently being a ST coordinator or Asst. HC is akin to being waterboy.
tenor.gif
 
No, you're focusing on a timeline. I'm focusing on a process. A process, unlike his dad and most other successful HCs, Beamer has not been through. One example some of you have referred to is Dabo, since he was never a coordinator. They seem to forget he was made Interim HC where he had to prove himself before being made the HC.
Unlike Meyer, Paterno, Bryant, Switzer and many others.
 
So going 4-3 is proving yourself? They almost fired Swinney a few years later.
Bryan McClendon was interim coach at UGA and went 1-0...was OC here, then demoted....interim HC means nothing.
But apparently being a ST coordinator or Asst. HC is akin to being waterboy.
tenor.gif
It’s all about the narrative and moving the goalposts as needed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dizzy01
The argument of never being a coordinator doesn't hold any water. Every year successful coordinators fail as head coaches, there's no real science to finding the right head coach. Everything that I have seen so far from Beamer says that he's the right guy for the job, BUT until we see what kind of team he puts on the field it's all meaningless. The one thing that I am sure of is that he has been a refreshing change from Muschamp.
 
The argument of never being a coordinator doesn't hold any water. Every year successful coordinators fail as head coaches, there's no real science to finding the right head coach.

It holds water in so much as it's the standard career path for a vast majority of coaches.

I agree it's not a must, and can be circumvented. I simply object to people arguing that it means nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Legendary Cock
So going 4-3 is proving yourself? They almost fired Swinney a few years later.
Bryan McClendon was interim coach at UGA and went 1-0...was OC here, then demoted....interim HC means nothing.
But apparently being a ST coordinator or Asst. HC is akin to being waterboy.
tenor.gif
Did they hire him or not? Apparently, the ones in charge thought he proved himself enough to be hired. Their evaluation of him as an interim is what lead to his hiring. So who turned out to be correct - you or them?
 
It holds water in so much as it's the standard career path for a vast majority of coaches.

I agree it's not a must, and can be circumvented. I simply object to people arguing that it means nothing.
I did not say that it meant nothing, I'm just saying that it's not the determining factor on whether a coach will be successful or not. While everyone wants an offensive guru for a head coach, and I agree that great OC's have success as head coaches, it's still no guarantee. Offensive minded coaches tend to recruit heavy on that side of the ball while defensive coaches want that great defense that will carry the team so they recruit heavy on that side. A coach like Beamer who has coached in all 3 facets of the game wants balance. Of course great coaches are the ones that can put aside their egos and not let their specialty get in the way of recruiting all positions equally.

So, I stand by my theory that hiring a coordinator does not give you a better chance at finding the right guy than hiring someone like Beamer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingchunCock
I did not say that it meant nothing, I'm just saying that it's not the determining factor on whether a coach will be successful or not. While everyone wants an offensive guru for a head coach, and I agree that great OC's have success as head coaches, it's still no guarantee. Offensive minded coaches tend to recruit heavy on that side of the ball while defensive coaches want that great defense that will carry the team so they recruit heavy on that side. A coach like Beamer who has coached in all 3 facets of the game wants balance. Of course great coaches are the ones that can put aside their egos and not let their specialty get in the way of recruiting all positions equally.

So, I stand by my theory that hiring a coordinator does not give you a better chance at finding the right guy than hiring someone like Beamer.
Bingo.
 
Did they hire him or not? Apparently, the ones in charge thought he proved himself enough to be hired. Their evaluation of him as an interim is what lead to his hiring. So who turned out to be correct - you or them?
What difference does it make besides making you look like someone desperately trying to marginalize the hiring of Beamer with petty irrelevant "facts".
 
I did not say that it meant nothing, I'm just saying that it's not the determining factor on whether a coach will be successful or not.

Did not mean to insinuate you specifically. There are posters who have passed it off as meaningless, even if they didnt use that exact word.

I would also agree that it's not THE determining factor, but it can be a major one, so its lacking is worth mentioning/debating.

I do disagree that hiring a coordinator doesnt give you a better chance at a good hire. (Isnt that almost like saying its meaningless?) Any step up of the coaching ladder, given they were successful at that level, reduces the risk.

Equating it to the business world, (and an admittedly extreme example) , a mail room guy could nail an interview, but the guy hiring the next CEO would want to see some experience working above that level succesfully before hiring him.
 
Did not mean to insinuate you specifically. There are posters who have passed it off as meaningless, even if they didnt use that exact word.

I would also agree that it's not THE determining factor, but it can be a major one, so its lacking is worth mentioning/debating.

I do disagree that hiring a coordinator doesnt give you a better chance at a good hire. (Isnt that almost like saying its meaningless?) Any step up of the coaching ladder, given they were successful at that level, reduces the risk.

Equating it to the business world, (and an admittedly extreme example) , a mail room guy could nail an interview, but the guy hiring the next CEO would want to see some experience working above that level succesfully before hiring him.
The analogy would certainly be more appropriate for a coach who only had one position for his entire tenure. In the case of Beamer he coached 6 different positions as well as ST’s in more than one location. All that experience combined equals or exceeds an OC or DC position.
So IMO, any criticism about lack of OC or DC experience is moot.
 
The analogy would certainly be more appropriate for a coach who only had one position for his entire tenure. In the case of Beamer he coached 6 different positions as well as ST’s in more than one location. All that experience combined equals or exceeds an OC or DC position.
So IMO, any criticism about lack of OC or DC experience is moot.

I dont think anyone will argue that moot = meaningless?

I disagree on your interpretation of the analogy. Multiple position level jobs do not add up to more than a coordinator.

One could argue that he has offensive and defensive experience, which is a plus. But a guy could coach every single offensive position, and it wouldnt equal the OC that is responsible for them all and then some, imo. That's why the OC is the direct superior of each of those positions.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Legendary Cock
I dont think anyone will argue that moot = meaningless?

I disagree on your interpretation of the analogy. Multiple position level jobs do not add up to more than a coordinator.

One could argue that he has offensive and defensive experience, which is a plus. But a guy could coach every single offensive position, and it wouldnt equal the OC that is responsible for them all and then some, imo. That's why the OC is the direct superior of each of those positions.
Not saying that OC isn’t superior in terms of responsibility but not many OCs coach all the positions on that side of the ball. IMO, Beamer having coached on both sides along with STs is equal to an OC or DC role.
 
Not saying that OC isn’t superior in terms of responsibility but not many OCs coach all the positions on that side of the ball. IMO, Beamer having coached on both sides along with STs is equal to an OC or DC role.

That is opinion I disagree with, but can understand. I like it more than (no one in particular) someone saying that coordinator experience doesnt matter.

I would much rather argue how something makes up for the lack of coordinator experience than that experience is meaningless, erc.
 
I would much rather argue how something makes up for the lack of coordinator experience than that experience is meaningless, erc.
Or you could throw in ST coordinator + Asst HC experience.
Seems those credentials should account for something.
 
Or you could throw in ST coordinator + Asst HC experience.
Seems those credentials should account for something.

I would put ST coordinator way below OC or DC, but that is a matter of opinion.

I still cant get behind the AHC title, as OU seemed to hand those titles out to everyone. (Slight exaggeration, I know. I think the RB coach was the lone position coach without an additional title.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Legendary Cock
I would put ST coordinator way below OC or DC, but that is a matter of opinion.

I still cant get behind the AHC title, as OU seemed to hand those titles out to everyone. (Slight exaggeration, I know. I think the RB coach was the lone position coach without an additional title.)
No, there were 4 coaches without any additional title. And ST coach is not way below OC or DC, we have a former HC as our ST coach. That’s a good indication of the level of importance.
 
The argument of never being a coordinator doesn't hold any water. Every year successful coordinators fail as head coaches, there's no real science to finding the right head coach. Everything that I have seen so far from Beamer says that he's the right guy for the job, BUT until we see what kind of team he puts on the field it's all meaningless. The one thing that I am sure of is that he has been a refreshing change from Muschamp.

But I thought you were a great fan of Muschamp?? I recall your insistence about this and that he needed time?
 
No, there were 4 coaches without any additional title. And ST coach is not way below OC or DC, we have a former HC as our ST coach. That’s a good indication of the level of importance.

I only looked up this years staff, not last years. Only the RB coach doesnt have a special title.


Edit: that link will show you last years staff too. On that staff only the RB coach was again without a special title.

I am speaking of offensive staff here, which may be why you felt differently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingchunCock
And ST coach is not way below OC or DC, we have a former HC as our ST coach. That’s a good indication of the level of importance.

And many teams give the spot to guys who've never been anything more than a position coach. So I think that argument can cut both ways.
 
I only looked up this years staff, not last years. Only the RB coach doesnt have a special title.


Edit: that link will show you last years staff too. On that staff only the RB coach was again without a special title.

I am speaking of offensive staff here, which may be why you felt differently.
Lb, Db, and one other
 
ADVERTISEMENT