ADVERTISEMENT

CBS: ranking coaching hires

Lb, Db, and one other

Maybe you didnt see my edit at the bottom. I said it was about the offensive staff. You are right that the defensive staff had fewer special titles. But everyone except the RB coach on the offensive side did.
 
They may have but I think Beamer was the only one with AHC

That site actually listed him as "Assistant Head Coach for Offense". The other similar title was "Associate Head Coach", and that was the outside receivers coach.


I am a little surprised, this is the first time I saw it listed as assistant head coach for offense, and not just assistant head coach.

They mixed it up this year though, and made the TE coach the associate head coach for offense.
 
That site actually listed him as "Assistant Head Coach for Offense". The other similar title was "Associate Head Coach", and that was the outside receivers coach.


I am a little surprised, this is the first time I saw it listed as assistant head coach for offense, and not just assistant head coach.

They mixed it up this year though, and made the TE coach the associate head coach for offense.
It could be that Beamer had a more involved role, hence the change in title. It could just be semantics, but Beamer did say he went to OU to specifically learn from Lincoln Riley his offensive philosophy.
 
The fricking post you were responding to, dumbass.
200.gif
 
Using what logic? And Asst HC? That counts for 0?

Using the prevalence and complexity of the offensive and defensive units vs special teams. I dont really think that is a radical position.

As for AHC position. (Which now apparently is assistant head coach for offense; AHCfO) I thought I covered that. On offense, OU gave every coach an additional title except the RB coach. I do think that cheapens the title, when "everyone" gets one. Even more so when Beamers replacement immediately gets a special title too.
 
Using the prevalence and complexity of the offensive and defensive units vs special teams. I dont really think that is a radical position.

As for AHC position. (Which now apparently is assistant head coach for offense; AHCfO) I thought I covered that. On offense, OU gave every coach an additional title except the RB coach. I do think that cheapens the title, when "everyone" gets one. Even more so when Beamers replacement immediately gets a special title too.
OU isn't the only place Beamer was AHC.
And how does "complexity of the offensive and defensive units vs special teams" make one coach more prepared to be a HC than the other?
 
OU isn't the only place Beamer was AHC.
And how does "complexity of the offensive and defensive units vs special teams" make one coach more prepared to be a HC than the other?

You're right, the other time was for his dad.

And are you really asking how running a more prevalent and complex division of a staff is better experience?

An OC or DC has how many position coaches report direcrly to them? How many report to the STC? An OC or DC are responsible for massive playbooks and game plans, tremendously more variation in plays, and significantly more time spent in practice.

I hadn't even thought of salaries before, but here is the staff from last year.


The STC was making about one tenth of the OC and DC.

From this years staff, the STC is also AHC, and makes 450k, which is better, about a half of the OC, but still less than a position coach. (The WR coach). (It was a third of the OC salary when Bobo was still here, but satterfield hired in for a lot less)

 
And are you really asking how running a more prevalent and complex division of a staff is better experience?
Are you really assuming an OC or DC is some kind of division leader within a staff? And that makes them more qualified to be a HC than other asst coaches?
And using staff salaries from a 2-8 team as a comp? Where's Muschamp now?
 
Are you really assuming an OC or DC is some kind of division leader within a staff? And that makes them more qualified to be a HC than other asst coaches?
And using staff salaries from a 2-8 team as a comp? Where's Muschamp now?
To your first question, yes. Those other asst coaches like RB, and TE coach report to the OC. Is there a position coach that reports to the STC?

To your second point, I included beamers first staff too.
 
The problem he's got is he's in a no win situation. The recruiting has been so bad this program being an sec school is going to find it hard to compete for the foreseeable future. Actually this coming year will be hist best shot at getting 3-4 wins. After that the poor recruiting is going to whack this program in a big way the next couple seasons.
 
The problem he's got is he's in a no win situation. The recruiting has been so bad this program being an sec school is going to find it hard to compete for the foreseeable future. Actually this coming year will be hist best shot at getting 3-4 wins. After that the poor recruiting is going to whack this program in a big way the next couple seasons.

Agreed.

But each new staff gets that bounce in recruiting (the first full year) due to new optimism. He needs to cash in on that big time this next year.

After that, imo, he needs to do something to bring identity to the team and recruit to that. As much as some may hate it, Clemson did that with a wide open offense in year three, I think it was. You can sell kids on throwing the ball around and scoring points, exciting brand, etc.

And I think that actually plays to current trend in college football too, of offenses overpowering defenses.
 
Agreed.

But each new staff gets that bounce in recruiting (the first full year) due to new optimism. He needs to cash in on that big time this next year.

After that, imo, he needs to do something to bring identity to the team and recruit to that. As much as some may hate it, Clemson did that with a wide open offense in year three, I think it was. You can sell kids on throwing the ball around and scoring points, exciting brand, etc.

And I think that actually plays to current trend in college football too, of offenses overpowering defenses.
One thing is for sure, it will be a better offense than Muschamp ever had.
 
Agreed.

But each new staff gets that bounce in recruiting (the first full year) due to new optimism. He needs to cash in on that big time this next year.

After that, imo, he needs to do something to bring identity to the team and recruit to that. As much as some may hate it, Clemson did that with a wide open offense in year three, I think it was. You can sell kids on throwing the ball around and scoring points, exciting brand, etc.

And I think that actually plays to current trend in college football too, of offenses overpowering defenses.

I didn’t bother to read the article. Heck, I ignored up until today when I was bored having a drink at the bar.

I imagine the writer thought the Beamer hire was anywhere between laughable and a D.

Being a Gamecock, and being very generous, I wouldn’t go above C.

I’d give it an A for embodying UofSC though.

What any of us think doesn’t matter however. To your point quoted above, I totally agree.

He sort of tripped over himself to start. No surprise.

He also made some good-looking hires.

He’ll need to show Year 1 he has HC chops on game day. If he Muschamp’s that, then it isn’t going to go well.

To overcome our program’s reality and the reality (not fantasy) of his hire, he’ll need some luck. Sort of what Chump got in Year 2.

Most importantly, like you said with the Taters, he’ll need to show an offensive approach to make Carolina “cool”, attractive, fun. Not unlike the Kiffen effect. Of course, Kiffen is a proven offensive mind. Beamer just worked for a guy.

Defense too. Attack. Be physical. Create an identity. We’ve had that on D before, even in meh times. We def need to create another one. Chump’s identity was weak, hold blocks, play off man, all hat, very little cattle.

If the program shows life, then losing will be mitigated for a while.

Act like you didn’t deserve the job and your offense is Roper, BMac 3.0..... it will be a death spiral and he won’t make it past year 1 of the next AD.

He will however have $12M or so and can go back to bring ‘Assistant of Something’ somewhere, lol.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2
To your first question, yes. Those other asst coaches like RB, and TE coach report to the OC.
Really? They "report"? What does that mean? And the OC & DC hire their asst coaches that "report" to them?
You're grasping at straws and we both know it.
Once again, there is no definitive proof that any OC or DC without previous HC experience is any more qualified to be a HC than a guy with position/STC/AHC experience.
 
After that the poor recruiting is going to whack this program in a big way the next couple seasons.
Only if a portion of the best players leave and gut the program. At this point, only Kevin Harris stands out as a big loss after next season. Everything else is a big question mark.

We had to go to transfers & JUCO this past cycle...it can be done again if needed.
 
Really? They "report"? What does that mean? And the OC & DC hire their asst coaches that "report" to them?
You're grasping at straws and we both know it.
I would say "grasping at straws" is pretending position coaches don't report to their immediate superior. Or pretending not to know what report means.

Or ignoring the STC has zero position coaches report to them.

Or ignoring that beamer himself thinks so much of his AHC/STC that he pays him less than his WR coach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Legendary Cock
I can wait to see all the disappointed gamecock fans when he turns this program around
 
I would say "grasping at straws" is pretending position coaches don't report to their immediate superior. Or pretending not to know what report means.

Or ignoring the STC has zero position coaches report to them.

Or ignoring that beamer himself thinks so much of his AHC/STC that he pays him less than his WR coach.
Really? And you know for sure those position coaches "report" to OCs and DCs? Got any proof to back up this assertion?
Do OCs & DCs hire coaches? What makes OCs and DCs qualified as HCs?
But you don't answer those questions...because you can't.
 
I can wait to see all the disappointed gamecock fans when he turns this program around

Ah yes, if you disagree you must be cheering against the gamecocks.

Realistically, no one should be disappointed unless the win total is 4 or less. With the 3 ooc patsies and Vanderbilt, that should be the absolute floor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Legendary Cock
Using the prevalence and complexity of the offensive and defensive units vs special teams. I dont really think that is a radical position.

As for AHC position. (Which now apparently is assistant head coach for offense; AHCfO) I thought I covered that. On offense, OU gave every coach an additional title except the RB coach. I do think that cheapens the title, when "everyone" gets one. Even more so when Beamers replacement immediately gets a special title too.
How many titles referred to AHC for offense? Again, Beamer went there to learn from OU’s Riley specifically his offensive philosophy. That led directly to him being our HC.
 
Really? And you know for sure those position coaches "report" to OCs and DCs? Got any proof to back up this assertion?
Do OCs & DCs hire coaches? What makes OCs and DCs qualified as HCs?
But you don't answer those questions...because you can't.

Do you have proof that position coaches don't report to the coordinators? We can go back and forth like that all day. But it's a lame diversion arguing over the word "report" like you dont know what it means already.

Head coaches are the final word in the hirings. (Except in those weird situations like Bobo this year) And I've already answered what makes OCs and DCs qualified in post # 252.

I also still find it interesting that Beamer appears to value his AHC/STC so much that he pays his WR coach more, and his coordinators twice as much.
 
Last edited:
How many titles referred to AHC for offense? Again, Beamer went there to learn from OU’s Riley specifically his offensive philosophy. That led directly to him being our HC.

We covered that already, a few posts ago.

"That site actually listed him as "Assistant Head Coach for Offense". The other similar title was "Associate Head Coach", and that was the outside receivers coach.
......
They mixed it up this year though, and made the TE coach the associate head coach for offense."

The link I provided gives the titles over the years.

I do concede though, that Beamer says he went there to learn the offense.
 
I dont think that qualifies as "proof", but it's definitely the type of response I expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JGH 35
We covered that already, a few posts ago.

"That site actually listed him as "Assistant Head Coach for Offense". The other similar title was "Associate Head Coach", and that was the outside receivers coach.
......
They mixed it up this year though, and made the TE coach the associate head coach for offense."

The link I provided gives the titles over the years.

I do concede though, that Beamer says he went there to learn the offense.
But not the SAME title. Which was my point earlier that was completely ignored, and finally the ackno that he went there specifically to learn the offense from LR.
 
Do you have proof that position coaches don't report to the coordinators? We can go back and forth like that all day. But it's a lame diversion arguing over the word "report" like you dont know what it means already.

Head coaches are the final word in the hirings. (Except in those weird situations like Bobo this year) And I've already answered what makes OCs and DCs qualified in post # 252.

I also still find it interesting that Beamer appears to value his AHC/STC so much that he pays his WR coach more, and his coordinators twice as much.
Maybe Lembo agreed to that salary so Beamer could pay more for other positions. You nor I have no way of knowing, so why assume it has to do with less value? Lembo is considered one of the best in the country at STs.
 
But not the SAME title. Which was my point earlier that was completely ignored, and finally the ackno that he went there specifically to learn the offense from LR.

Well, I acknowledge that he said it.

As for the title, like I said, this year it was associate head coachfor offense vs assistant head coach for offense. I'm just not sure that's a major difference. And I believe the point still stands that every offensive coach except the RB coach got a special title.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2
Maybe Lembo agreed to that salary so Beamer could pay more for other positions. You nor I have no way of knowing, so why assume it has to do with less value? Lembo is considered one of the best in the country at STs.

Isnt that odd though, one ofthe best in the business, and he makes less than a position coach? And half of what the offensive and defensive coordinators make?

I might agree to the argument that he accepted less (other coaches have) if the STC were paid equally to the OC and DC at other schools with regularity. His being paid less is actually the norm, not the exception.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Legendary Cock
Isnt that odd though, one ofthe best in the business, and he makes less than a position coach? And half of what the offensive and defensive coordinators make?

I might agree to the argument that he accepted less (other coaches have) if the STC were paid equally to the OC and DC at other schools with regularity. His being paid less is actually the norm, not the exception.
No one is claiming that Lembo should be paid equal to OC or DC. So his accepting less may have been to aid in paying other position coaches more. He makes more than the TE, RB, LB coaches.
 
No one is claiming that Lembo should be paid equal to OC or DC. So his accepting less may have been to aid in paying other position coaches more. He makes more than the TE, RB, LB coaches.

I agree that he may have accepted less. The comment about being equal to OC or DC just went back to conversation of if a STC is the same level as an OC or DC. Salaries was just one way to try and compare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2
I agree that he may have accepted less. The comment about being equal to OC or DC just went back to conversation of if a STC is the same level as an OC or DC. Salaries was just one way to try and compare.
They are not even close to being the same. One of the biggest jobs of a ST coach is to make sure all the guys on each team get on the field asap when they are supposed to. On third down he is making sure the punting team is together and ready to go if needed. Nothing pisses off a HC more than having to waste a TO because some meathead is standing on the sidelines with his helmet off not paying attention and causing the team to use a TO. The ST coach does not call plays or design an offense or defense. All FG formations are the same. Most other ST formations are the same with only a couple of different variations. For example, what coaching does he do on the kick off team other than to remind everyone to sprint down field and stay in your lanes? He doesn't teach the kicker to kick longer or more accurate or teach the punter to punt further. It used to be the ST coach was somebody off the coaching staff that either volunteered to be the ST coach or was asked to by the HC. Only fairly recently has it become popular to hire a coach mainly for that role, but that is more due to the fact that it is such a pain in the a$$ for another coach to have to do while he is trying to coach his unit on the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2
I agree that he may have accepted less. The comment about being equal to OC or DC just went back to conversation of if a STC is the same level as an OC or DC. Salaries was just one way to try and compare.
Yeah, I don’t think anyone is trying to claim they are equal I would say all the positions Beamer has coached plus ST is equal to an OC or DC
 
ADVERTISEMENT