ADVERTISEMENT

Did Napier turn us down?

After all HBC did for us I have never understood this sentiment at all.
...nor should anyone have been surprised when it happened.

He "quit" the skins before he came to USC. He also "quit" the NFL after 10 seasons.

He was always coaching on borrowed time...so is Mack Brown & so is Bill Belichick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscnoklahoma2
What? Lol. His father, a "legendary coach", still only won the ACC 4 times in 28 years. The son has exactly zero accomplishments in any area of responsibility. Just how easily are you impressed?
It’s all relative. You’re coming from a team that has won exactly 1 conference championship in it’s over 100 year history. Looking at it that way, Beamer’s like a coaching God.
 
To be fair, practically EVERYONE who was coached by, worked with, or even observed him objectively said exactly the same thing about Muschamp before he was hired as the HC at UF.
So, to be fair, because those people were (supposedly) “wrong” about Muschamp, that means these people are “wrong” about Beamer. Gotcha.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kotr
To be fair, I didn't see IT in Muschamp. fwiw
And that's fine. My point is the coaches he worked under, the players, and even analysts who watch more football than should be allowed all thought he was going to be the next great HC. These people are what most people would say are "in the know." It doesn't mean anything. I was just pointing out that impressions of someone having "IT" don't necessarily translate into real success.
So, to be fair, because those people were (supposedly) “wrong” about Muschamp, that means these people are “wrong” about Beamer. Gotcha.
I don't think so. As I stated in my reply to the first response to my post, it doesn't really mean anything. My point was simply that it doesn't matter how many or which people get the feeling of a coach having "IT." It could be that a guy fails despite supposedly having "IT" according to practically everyone, or that a guy has unprecedented success in spite of almost no one thinking he would. Perception isn't reality. That's all I mean.
 
I would be happy with any of those coaches on the list right now. I do not want to see a hire like the Steve Newton hire in basketball. Go cocks!
 
And that's fine. My point is the coaches he worked under, the players, and even analysts who watch more football than should be allowed all thought he was going to be the next great HC. These people are what most people would say are "in the know." It doesn't mean anything. I was just pointing out that impressions of someone having "IT" don't necessarily translate into real success.

It certainly doesn't mean anything. My opinion is based on VERY limited information.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock and kotr
While Beamer may not be my first choice, I think he’s a potentially interesting hire. I don’t have an issue with hiring a football coach who isn’t a proven HC. I did have an issue with hiring a guy who was a proven failure as a HC, hoping that he would find answers to his previous problems.
Beamer has worked for a lot of successful head coaches and programs. Hopefully, he’s picked up on some of the shared characteristics of winning coaches. The real question here is, what kind of staff can he hire?
 
While Beamer may not be my first choice, I think he’s a potentially interesting hire. I don’t have an issue with hiring a football coach who isn’t a proven HC. I did have an issue with hiring a guy who was a proven failure as a HC, hoping that he would find answers to his previous problems.
Beamer has worked for a lot of successful head coaches and programs. Hopefully, he’s picked up on some of the shared characteristics of winning coaches. The real question here is, what kind of staff can he hire?
True enough, but the rub to that is Muschamp’s first staff. Lance Thompson and BMac were both “national recruiter of the year” awardees; obvious that didn’t translate to South Carolina. But your point is valid for a number of reasons; how comfortable will established coordinators be working under a guy in his first gig, or possibly under a guy that worked under THEM previously. Be interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silver_Coconut
True enough, but the rub to that is Muschamp’s first staff. Lance Thompson and BMac were both “national recruiter of the year” awardees; obvious that didn’t translate to South Carolina. But your point is valid for a number of reasons; how comfortable will established coordinators be working under a guy in his first gig, or possibly under a guy that worked under THEM previously. Be interesting.
Recruiting is a product of the program, not the other way around. Success and culture comes first. Recruiting is circumstantial.
 
As I'm watching Napier's team play against an in-state rival, it has made me wonder something. Is the offense they run actually innovative and difficult to defend, or is it more that his players typically make plays against teams that are under manned? I am not saying this is the case. I am asking sincerely. From what I have seen, the scheme doesn't look unique, but the players continue to make plays when it seems as though nothing is there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Silver_Coconut
ADVERTISEMENT