If it's going to be Beamer, is the administration committed?

[BeCocky77]

Beamer could be a good head coach one day, but it won't be next year or the year after or probably the year after that. One thing we would all agree on without questions: It's a STEEP learning curve from TE coach to head coach.

We simply cannot hire Beamer unless we are COMMITTED to enduring some lean years and ups and downs with him to allow him to grow into the position. It's gonna have to be more of an old school approach where programs just endured some rough early years instead of cutting bait after a couple years of poor performances. It might be 5 years before we would see the Beamer hire start to return benefits.

Frank Beamer is actually the perfect example of this. Hired in 1987 at VaTech, he went .375 in his first 6 seasons, and his 6th season was 2-8-1. Without question he'd have been fired in today's game. Most likely, he'd have probably been axed after going 5-6 in his 5th season. That kind of losing just isn't tolerated in today's game. But, they stuck with him and things magically turned around in year 7, with them going from 2-8-1 to 9-3 and a top 25 finish. That started a great 19 year run for Beamer at VaTech in which he won 80% of his games and had 8 straight double-digit win seasons.

It's highly unlikely that Shane Beamer would bring us instant results. Look, he could end up being like his dad, starting off poorly and ending up being great. The question is, are we willing to make a 6 or 7 year commitment to see him get his legs as a head coach? That's what it will take.

Are we willing to endure the .375 to get to the .800?

 

[lakemurraycock1]

No.

 

[Gradstudent]

No we are not committed to Beamer, it may another Ray Tanner waste of $$/Time decision.

 

[vacock#]

No as well. This way I can say "I told you so" if he does not do well.

 

[BeCocky77]

I don't mean the fans, but the administration.

If they move ahead with Beamer, they have to know it's got to be a long-term commitment. The only thing worse than hiring Beamer would be firing him after he struggles in his first 3 or 4 seasons. What would be gained from that? Why bother hiring a guy who you know is going to struggle early, only to fire him for struggling early.

If they're going to go with someone like him, it only makes sense to do so if they're committed to riding out the early rough patches and enduring blowback from the fans. Administrations used to do this.

 

[Flameout12]

Ask Caslen.

 

[jimnasium]

Motion denied.

 

[viennacocks]

Beamer could be a good head coach one day, but it won't be next year or the year after or probably the year after that. One thing we would all agree on without questions: It's a STEEP learning curve from TE coach to head coach.

We simply cannot hire Beamer unless we are COMMITTED to enduring some lean years and ups and downs with him to allow him to grow into the position. It's gonna have to be more of an old school approach where programs just endured some rough early years instead of cutting bait after a couple years of poor performances. It might be 5 years before we would see the Beamer hire start to return benefits.

Frank Beamer is actually the perfect example of this. Hired in 1987 at VaTech, he went .375 in his first 6 seasons, and his 6th season was 2-8-1. Without question he'd have been fired in today's game. Most likely, he'd have probably been axed after going 5-6 in his 5th season. That kind of losing just isn't tolerated in today's game. But, they stuck with him and things magically turned around in year 7, with them going from 2-8-1 to 9-3 and a top 25 finish. That started a great 19 year run for Beamer at VaTech in which he won 80% of his games and had 8 straight double-digit win seasons.

It's highly unlikely that Shane Beamer would bring us instant results. Look, he could end up being like his dad, starting off poorly and ending up being great. The question is, are we willing to make a 6 or 7 year commitment to see him get his legs as a head coach? That's what it will take.

Are we willing to endure the .375 to get to the .800?

We are getting the .375 for the next several years regarding of coach. The cupboard is pretty bare at my position.

You are fooling yourself if you think any coach will make a quick turnaround. The real question is who can take us to .800 in the next 5 years.

 

[BeCocky77]

No.

No we are not committed to Beamer, it may another Ray Tanner waste of $$/Time decision.

No as well. This way I can say "I told you so" if he does not do well.

Motion denied.

Are you saying the administration won't show this kind of commitment to Beamer or that they shouldn't pursue anyone who will have a rough spell to start his tenure here?

 

[biting curve]

Doesn’t matter who we hire, we need to be committed to them.

Out of our last three HBC’s spanning 20 or so years, the experienced SEC guy got fired and the two older HOF coaches both threw their hands in the air and quit.

 

[jimnasium]

Are you saying the administration won't show this kind of commitment to Beamer or that they shouldn't pursue anyone who will have a rough spell to start his tenure here?

Are we talking about Frank ?

 

[BeCocky77]

Doesn’t matter who we hire, we need to be committed to them.

Out of our last three HBC’s spanning 20 or so years, the experienced SEC guy got fired and the two older HOF coaches both threw their hands in the air and quit.

I'm actually laughing at your post, but that's a pretty bleak assessment of our last couple of decades.

 

[jimnasium]

Beamer could be a good head coach one day, but it won't be next year or the year after or probably the year after that. One thing we would all agree on without questions: It's a STEEP learning curve from TE coach to head coach.

We simply cannot hire Beamer unless we are COMMITTED to enduring some lean years and ups and downs with him to allow him to grow into the position. It's gonna have to be more of an old school approach where programs just endured some rough early years instead of cutting bait after a couple years of poor performances. It might be 5 years before we would see the Beamer hire start to return benefits.
thi
Frank Beamer is actually the perfect example of this. Hired in 1987 at VaTech, he went .375 in his first 6 seasons, and his 6th season was 2-8-1. Without question he'd have been fired in today's game. Most likely, he'd have probably been axed after going 5-6 in his 5th season. That kind of losing just isn't tolerated in today's game. But, they stuck with him and things magically turned around in year 7, with them going from 2-8-1 to 9-3 and a top 25 finish. That started a great 19 year run for Beamer at VaTech in which he won 80% of his games and had 8 straight double-digit win seasons.

It's highly unlikely that Shane Beamer would bring us instant results. Look, he could end up being like his dad, starting off poorly and ending up being great. The question is, are we willing to make a 6 or 7 year commitment to see him get his legs as a head coach? That's what it will take.

Are we willing to endure the .375 to get to the .800?

Alright I went back and finally found which Beamer I don't know much about this coach all I was reading was Beamer. Sorry

 

[SpurrierWalkedOnBeer]

Tanner might should be committed.

 

[TheReelEss]

Beamer could be a good head coach one day, but it won't be next year or the year after or probably the year after that. One thing we would all agree on without questions: It's a STEEP learning curve from TE coach to head coach.

We simply cannot hire Beamer unless we are COMMITTED to enduring some lean years and ups and downs with him to allow him to grow into the position. It's gonna have to be more of an old school approach where programs just endured some rough early years instead of cutting bait after a couple years of poor performances. It might be 5 years before we would see the Beamer hire start to return benefits.

Frank Beamer is actually the perfect example of this. Hired in 1987 at VaTech, he went .375 in his first 6 seasons, and his 6th season was 2-8-1. Without question he'd have been fired in today's game. Most likely, he'd have probably been axed after going 5-6 in his 5th season. That kind of losing just isn't tolerated in today's game. But, they stuck with him and things magically turned around in year 7, with them going from 2-8-1 to 9-3 and a top 25 finish. That started a great 19 year run for Beamer at VaTech in which he won 80% of his games and had 8 straight double-digit win seasons.

It's highly unlikely that Shane Beamer would bring us instant results. Look, he could end up being like his dad, starting off poorly and ending up being great. The question is, are we willing to make a 6 or 7 year commitment to see him get his legs as a head coach? That's what it will take.

Are we willing to endure the .375 to get to the .800?

LOL. You dismiss Beamer as just a TEs coach. Any of the candidates is going to have to build the program. I can accept gradual progress. I think all builds are 5 years unless something really bad occurs. After 3 seasons I expect to see kids who do the fundamentals. After 4-5 years I expect a team to not always be "young" or "thin" at several positions. You can't be young for 5 years. That was a major copout with BOOM!. If we were thin it was because we had not recruited and/or developed well enough.

Beamer's young and energetic. Has been a good recruiter and will relate well to high school kids. All or most of the position coaching will be don't by position coaches and the coordinators. Those hires make or break any progrum.

 

[BeCocky77]

LOL. You dismiss Beamer as just a TEs coach. Any of the candidates is going to have to build the program. I can accept gradual progress. I think all builds are 5 years unless something really bad occurs. After 3 seasons I expect to see kids who do the fundamentals. After 4-5 years I expect a team to not always be "young" or "thin" at several positions. You can't be young for 5 years. That was a major copout with BOOM!. If we were thin it was because we had not recruited and/or developed well enough.

Beamer's young and energetic. Has been a good recruiter and will relate well to high school kids. All or most of the position coaching will be don't by position coaches and the coordinators. Those hires make or break any progrum.

I don't think I was being dismissive at all. He is, in fact, a TEs coach. I'm not sure how else to say it. Yes, he has coached other areas over the years, but he IS a TE coach.

 

[Legendary Cock]

After making a risky/foolish hire last time, I don't see how anyone can have the patience for several more years of on the job training. This is why I've become very opposed to hiring Beamer.

The fact is that in almost 20 years in coaching, no one -- not even his own father -- have seen fit to make him a DC or OC. He seems to be just a spare parts coach that's a pretty good recruiter.

No one -- besides some of our fans -- have him on the HC radar. And that didn't even start until that seemingly self-serving tweet.

 

[polo-loco]

It can't be Beamer. No way.

Which is exactly what I thought five years ago when I said no way Tanner hires Muschamp.

 

[CtownNat1ve]

No. It wreaks of trying to copy the school upstate and find a hidden gem.

 

[TheReelEss]

I don't think I was being dismissive at all. He is, in fact, a TEs coach. I'm not sure how else to say it. Yes, he has coached other areas over the years, but he IS a TE coach.

He is or has, in fact, been Assistant HC, RB's, TE's, CB's and ST's coach and recruiting coordinator. He has coached all over the field in his 20 years of coaching. Did he forget everything when he became AHC/TE coach?

 

[BeCocky77]

He is or has, in fact, been Assistant HC, RB's, TE's, CB's and ST's coach. He has coached all over the field.

But he IS a TE coach, right? That statement is not incorrect.

As to the AHC, I've got no idea what that means. Nobody does. It's most often used simply to bump up a guy's pay.

 

[cocknjax]

Beamer could be a good head coach one day, but it won't be next year or the year after or probably the year after that. One thing we would all agree on without questions: It's a STEEP learning curve from TE coach to head coach.

We simply cannot hire Beamer unless we are COMMITTED to enduring some lean years and ups and downs with him to allow him to grow into the position. It's gonna have to be more of an old school approach where programs just endured some rough early years instead of cutting bait after a couple years of poor performances. It might be 5 years before we would see the Beamer hire start to return benefits.

Frank Beamer is actually the perfect example of this. Hired in 1987 at VaTech, he went .375 in his first 6 seasons, and his 6th season was 2-8-1. Without question he'd have been fired in today's game. Most likely, he'd have probably been axed after going 5-6 in his 5th season. That kind of losing just isn't tolerated in today's game. But, they stuck with him and things magically turned around in year 7, with them going from 2-8-1 to 9-3 and a top 25 finish. That started a great 19 year run for Beamer at VaTech in which he won 80% of his games and had 8 straight double-digit win seasons.

It's highly unlikely that Shane Beamer would bring us instant results. Look, he could end up being like his dad, starting off poorly and ending up being great. The question is, are we willing to make a 6 or 7 year commitment to see him get his legs as a head coach? That's what it will take.

Are we willing to endure the .375 to get to the .800?

HELL NO!
We are still in the wallow pit of MisChamps FGS!

 

[Cocky4SC]

He is or has, in fact, been Assistant HC, RB's, TE's, CB's and ST's coach and recruiting coordinator. He has coached all over the field in his 20 years of coaching. Did he forget everything when he became AHC/TE coach?

To answer this, he is the Assistant Head Coach of OFFENSE. (Yet he doesn't call the plays. It was the way to pay him above market value for being the TE coach). He has coached several different positional groups, and was the RC here. But what has he shown in 20 years that he can be given the keys to the car and not take a car that currently has 4 flat tires and blow the engine? He elected to turn down opportunities in the past to showcase his abilities as a HC... why is that? Wouldn't you want to prove you can do something, in order to get the bigger job later? This sounds like the guys I hire and expect to become CEO overnight. You've got to prove yourself at a lower level IMO, before jumping to the SEC.

 

[BeCocky77]

To answer this, he is the Assistant Head Coach of OFFENSE. (Yet he doesn't call the plays. It was the way to pay him above market value for being the TE coach). He has coached several different positional groups, and was the RC here. But what has he shown in 20 years that he can be given the keys to the car and not take a car that currently has 4 flat tires and blow the engine? He elected to turn down opportunities in the past to showcase his abilities as a HC... why is that? Wouldn't you want to prove you can do something, in order to get the bigger job later? This sounds like the guys I hire and expect to become CEO overnight. You've got to prove yourself at a lower level IMO, before jumping to the SEC.

Thought this breakdown of coaching titles was funny:

If you’re used to a title that everyone swears is made up ...
You’re not an assistant head coach, and you’re not a coordinator. No, you’re the assistant head coach for offense. Seriously. I’m not making this up.

CFB coach job titles, explained: Which is right for you?

Are you sure you want to be a head coach? What about an associate head coach who’s only in charge of the fullbacks?

www.sbnation.com

 

[muscleknight]

If its Beamer then his OC and DC hires will make or break him just like it did Mooch.

 

[67gamecock]

NOPE!

 

[polo-loco]

To answer this, he is the Assistant Head Coach of OFFENSE. (Yet he doesn't call the plays. It was the way to pay him above market value for being the TE coach). He has coached several different positional groups, and was the RC here. But what has he shown in 20 years that he can be given the keys to the car and not take a car that currently has 4 flat tires and blow the engine? He elected to turn down opportunities in the past to showcase his abilities as a HC... why is that? Wouldn't you want to prove you can do something, in order to get the bigger job later? This sounds like the guys I hire and expect to become CEO overnight. You've got to prove yourself at a lower level IMO, before jumping to the SEC.

Exactly. Shane Beamer might be a fabulous head coach, a once in a lifetime talent. But he needs to start at Western Kentucky or even East Carolina before going to the SEC. Nobody else would hire the guy in the ACC or SEC. Why would we? Because he coached with Spurrier? So did lots of coaches. I mean, are we also considering Deke and John Hunt?

 

[slufstuff]

If we ask Napier and Chadwell and both say no, then it might make sense to hire Beamer. But as our first choice? If those two guys flat out turn us down, then it really would be a Muschamp desperation hire.

 

[HeckSpawn]

I'm actually laughing at your post, but that's a pretty bleak assessment of our last couple of decades.

Bleak but on point!

 

[cocknjax]

If we ask Napier and Chadwell and both say no, then it might make sense to hire Beamer. But as our first choice? If those two guys flat out turn us down, then it really would be a Muschamp desperation hire.

Make Napier say No before we make another tentative offer.
If he won’t say Yes qwik, go on to #2

 

[feeble2001]

I would take Beamer over chadwell. Chadwell doesn’t have the connections to hire effective assistant coaches. Game planning against group of 5 and below coaches is completely different than game planning against sec coaches week in and week out.

Beamer can hire the best of the best, chadwell will probably just bring over his myrtle beach squad

 

[cockn'fyr]

We who? This fan base will never be 100% committed to anything!

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

Beamer could be a good head coach one day, but it won't be next year or the year after or probably the year after that. One thing we would all agree on without questions: It's a STEEP learning curve from TE coach to head coach.

We simply cannot hire Beamer unless we are COMMITTED to enduring some lean years and ups and downs with him to allow him to grow into the position. It's gonna have to be more of an old school approach where programs just endured some rough early years instead of cutting bait after a couple years of poor performances. It might be 5 years before we would see the Beamer hire start to return benefits.

Frank Beamer is actually the perfect example of this. Hired in 1987 at VaTech, he went .375 in his first 6 seasons, and his 6th season was 2-8-1. Without question he'd have been fired in today's game. Most likely, he'd have probably been axed after going 5-6 in his 5th season. That kind of losing just isn't tolerated in today's game. But, they stuck with him and things magically turned around in year 7, with them going from 2-8-1 to 9-3 and a top 25 finish. That started a great 19 year run for Beamer at VaTech in which he won 80% of his games and had 8 straight double-digit win seasons.

It's highly unlikely that Shane Beamer would bring us instant results. Look, he could end up being like his dad, starting off poorly and ending up being great. The question is, are we willing to make a 6 or 7 year commitment to see him get his legs as a head coach? That's what it will take.

Are we willing to endure the .375 to get to the .800?

Beamer will only get this job if he presents a great plan for success here and lays out a core staff he feels he could get to join him. He is not going to walk into this interview and sign a contract... I like the idea of him being a candidate, but if he cannot convince our admin he has what it takes to run a program, and he has a specific plan of how to be successful here, we have plenty of other options! Heath talked about this the other day on his show and compared Beamer to Stoops’s hire at Ky. Stoops came in with little experience relevant to being an SEC HC, but he had a plan to recruit the midwest instead of going toe to toe with Bama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn... in the SE and it has kind of worked! If Beamer can present a comparable, reasonable path to success for us and clear vision of how to get there... He has a shot!

Still think Napier is our best bet...

 

[castlesl]

He is or has, in fact, been Assistant HC, RB's, TE's, CB's and ST's coach and recruiting coordinator. He has coached all over the field in his 20 years of coaching. Did he forget everything when he became AHC/TE coach?

being an Assistant, or associate or any other adjective Head Coach is nothing more than a way to pay some one more than their real title warrants. It is a shell game. If you go look at official titles, there are typically 3-4 on every staff that have some type of HC designation beside their actual title. It is required for compensation purposes.

 

[feeble2001]

Beamer will only get this job if he presents a great plan for success here and lays out a core staff he feels he could get to join him. He is not going to walk into this interview and sign a contract... I like the idea of him being a candidate, but if he cannot convince our admin he has what it takes to run a program, and he has a specific plan of how to be successful here, we have plenty of other options! Heath talked about this the other day on his show and compared Beamer to Stoops’s hire at Ky. Stoops came in with little experience relevant to being an SEC HC, but he had a plan to recruit the midwest instead of going toe to toe with Bama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn... in the SE and it has kind of worked! If Beamer can present a comparable, reasonable path to success for us and clear vision of how to get there... He has a shot!

Still think Napier is our best bet...

This is a good post, people think that the interview is going to be “are you good at football?” “Yes I am good at football” “hm you’re hired”

they have to show vision, a plan, and who they will bring in. This is why I don’t like the chadwell hire, he doesn’t have the network to bring in solid assistant coaches. His guys might work good at p5 however them scheming against the best minds in college football is a bigger gamble than hoping Shane brings in guys that can

 

[melvin08]

I would take Beamer over chadwell. Chadwell doesn’t have the connections to hire effective assistant coaches. Game planning against group of 5 and below coaches is completely different than game planning against sec coaches week in and week out.

Beamer can hire the best of the best, chadwell will probably just bring over his myrtle beach squad

His so-called myrtle beach squad did something Saturday Ours couldn't do last year, not to mention they could also beat the citadel while at CSU when, at the same time, we could not! I say bring em on, it's an Upgrade, and Winners make connections!

 

[castlesl]

Beamer will only get this job if he presents a great plan for success here and lays out a core staff he feels he could get to join him. He is not going to walk into this interview and sign a contract... I like the idea of him being a candidate, but if he cannot convince our admin he has what it takes to run a program, and he has a specific plan of how to be successful here, we have plenty of other options! Heath talked about this the other day on his show and compared Beamer to Stoops’s hire at Ky. Stoops came in with little experience relevant to being an SEC HC, but he had a plan to recruit the midwest instead of going toe to toe with Bama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn... in the SE and it has kind of worked! If Beamer can present a comparable, reasonable path to success for us and clear vision of how to get there... He has a shot!

Still think Napier is our best bet...

Stoops was a Def. Coordinator at Houston, Arizona and Florida State. He was on about 4 others staffs and well and was well thought of. When Levitt was hired at USF from K-State, Jim brought him to USF. His track record of success was much greater than Beamers.

I am not saying Beamer will be a terrible HC. I am saying their is no evidence that he will be a good one any more than any other random coach currently on a staff in D-1.

 

[feeble2001]

His so-called myrtle beach squad did something Saturday Ours couldn't do last year, not to mention they could also beat the citadel while at CSU when, at the same time, we could not! I say bring em on, it's an Upgrade, and Winners make connections!

Like I said, scheming against Sunbelt squads week end and week out is not the same as the SEC. they could be good for sure but let’s not kid ourselves in thinking their success is any less riskier than the guys Beamer would bring in, more so I would say

 

[TheReelEss]

being an Assistant, or associate or any other adjective Head Coach is nothing more than a way to pay some one more than their real title warrants. It is a shell game. If you go look at official titles, there are typically 3-4 on every staff that have some type of HC designation beside their actual title. It is required for compensation purposes.

I know. But why would a savvy coach like Riley want to pay Beamer more than he's worth? He wouldn't.

 

[cockn'fyr]

Beamer will only get this job if he presents a great plan for success here and lays out a core staff he feels he could get to join him. He is not going to walk into this interview and sign a contract... I like the idea of him being a candidate, but if he cannot convince our admin he has what it takes to run a program, and he has a specific plan of how to be successful here, we have plenty of other options! Heath talked about this the other day on his show and compared Beamer to Stoops’s hire at Ky. Stoops came in with little experience relevant to being an SEC HC, but he had a plan to recruit the midwest instead of going toe to toe with Bama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Auburn... in the SE and it has kind of worked! If Beamer can present a comparable, reasonable path to success for us and clear vision of how to get there... He has a shot!

Still think Napier is our best bet...

Old news, but whoever is the man has got to lock down SC with Clemson going more national. that means not letting UGa., UT and UF cherry pick who they want and the NC boys coming in and grabbing who they want off the border, we have to be the ones grabbing a few from those states, every year! If memory serves, Beamer got some good commits from Georgia!