Like I said. Arguing semantics. Pathetically stupid as usual.
Can we end the stupidity if Watson comes back and makes the same statement without that big bad word "unproven' that's making you cry like such a big baby?
On to 2024: Tougher schedule, younger team, less talent?
- Thread starter Bucs90
- Start date
Like I said. Arguing semantics. Pathetically stupid as usual.
Can we end the stupidity if Watson comes back and makes the same statement without that big bad word "unproven' that's making you cry like such a big baby?
The question:
"Do you think it's a good thing for a program to stick with a coach had back to back losing seasons?"
Again, highlight the part that talks about "proven", "unproven" or "long term success".
How do you argue the semantics of words that don't exist in the question?
"Do you think it's a good thing for a program to stick with a coach had back to back losing seasons?"
Again, highlight the part that talks about "proven", "unproven" or "long term success".
How do you argue the semantics of words that don't exist in the question?
Like I said. Arguing semantics. Pathetically stupid as usual.
Can we end the stupidity if Watson comes back and makes the same statement without that big bad word "unproven' that's making you cry like such a big baby?
That's what I thought. Moral of the story. Vague questions get vague answers.
And, no matter how you finagle the question over and over and try to argue the semantics of words that don't even exist in the question, the answer is STILL "it depends".
It depends on talent level.
It depends on depth.
It depends on injuries.
It depends on resources like NIL.
It depends on conference schedule and where those games are.
It depends on difficulty of the non-conference schedule.
It depends on how competitive you are in loses.
It depends on a LOT of things.
But, most importantly, it depends on what Ray Tanner thinks, and Beamer ain't going anywhere.
You and taterwatson can keep on rubbing each other's rock all you want. Doesn't mean shit. Just noise.
And, no matter how you finagle the question over and over and try to argue the semantics of words that don't even exist in the question, the answer is STILL "it depends".
It depends on talent level.
It depends on depth.
It depends on injuries.
It depends on resources like NIL.
It depends on conference schedule and where those games are.
It depends on difficulty of the non-conference schedule.
It depends on how competitive you are in loses.
It depends on a LOT of things.
But, most importantly, it depends on what Ray Tanner thinks, and Beamer ain't going anywhere.
You and taterwatson can keep on rubbing each other's rock all you want. Doesn't mean shit. Just noise.
Only for gutless little trolls like you who use semantics to try and weasel out of giving a straight answer. As transparent and typical as it is pathetic.
You got the straight answer. And the correct answer.
Not every question, especially vague questions like that one, can be answered with either yes or no. The world is a little more complicated that than.
Question: "Do you think it's a good thing for a program to stick with a coach had back to back losing seasons?"
Correct Answer: "It depends"
Semantics had nothing to do with it. Just simple English and common sense. If you want to believe the answer is either yes or no, have at it. Don't care. Like I said, the only opinion that matters is Tanner's, and Beamer isn't going anywhere.
Not every question, especially vague questions like that one, can be answered with either yes or no. The world is a little more complicated that than.
Question: "Do you think it's a good thing for a program to stick with a coach had back to back losing seasons?"
Correct Answer: "It depends"
Semantics had nothing to do with it. Just simple English and common sense. If you want to believe the answer is either yes or no, have at it. Don't care. Like I said, the only opinion that matters is Tanner's, and Beamer isn't going anywhere.
Only for gutless little trolls like you who use semantics to try and weasel out of giving a straight answer. As transparent and typical as it is pathetic.
LOL. You mad. Love it. Stay mad. Beamer ain't going nowhere.
Makes my heart happy how Beamer makes you and taterwatson cry.
Makes my heart happy how Beamer makes you and taterwatson cry.
I shouldn't have to spell it out to you that the question was about Beamer.
"back to back losing seasons" is not precise enough to make a judgement for a program that is historically a .500 team. The details matter.
Alabama. Yes.
Vandy. Nope.
South Carolina. It depends.
This is the problem. You don't actually believe anything you post. You're just a troll in the sense you just refuse to admit you're wrong.
Because I'm not wrong.
When Muschamp got fired, he absolutely deserved it. Beamer took over that dumpster fire and overachieved in his first two years. This year was a let down, but nothing like the garbage we saw near the end of Muschump.
So two years of losing seasons was enough to fire Muschamp, but not enough to fire Beamer?
Even though Muschamp had more wins in the first 3 years.
It's just not even fun when you refuse to be intellectually honest.
You make a good point. And I say that as someone who was vehemently opposed to the hire. BUT, one can point to things that Beamer accomplished that Muschamp did not. And the bottom line is that we all know it won't happen after his 4th season. So arguing it should if he has a losing season next year, is unproductive. I might be biased, because I, like you and Lurker, want to see us win, BUT I have a hunch we are going to surprise folks next year. I guess my optimism comes from the fact I think we have helped ourselves through the portal. Time will tell.
Lmao
I've said repeatedly he's not being let go after 4 years, but you still keep repeating that as if I'm arguing it.
Reason 5000 I think you're not even reading my posts, just whining and crying like a little troll.
I agree and disagree.
I agree he has a good point. Multiple losing seasons isn't good for one coach and bad for another, they should be bad for both.
I also agree he won't be gone after 4 years. I've said a few times that the wheels would REALLY need to come off for that to happen.
But where I disagree in a way is that discussing it is not productive. I am of the opinion that ALL of the talk on these message boards is unproductive. Granted, back and forths with a certain young lady are a few steps below "unproductive", but even good discussions on this board amount to no impact on the team, etc.
Boiled down, I think it's entertaining to discuss what we think will happen and what we wish would happen. Even though those are two different things.
Last edited:
The only thing Beamer has accomplished that Muschamp is getting to play bad Clemson teams that Muschamp didn’t get to do.
But you guys are doing what we always do. “We’ve fixed our problems in the offseason” then the season will come around and you’ll realize we didn’t.
Lastly, you guys are really underestimating how bad next offseason will be if we have a losing season. We started off hot in the 2024 class because of the end of last season. All that momentum has dried up. We are struggling to recruit in the portal now. It’s only going to be worse if Beamer is seen as a lame duck going into 2025.
Watson,
Beamer did beat 2, at the time, Top 10 teams in Clemson and UTjr. He did finish in the Top 25. And, unlike Muschamp, he has never lost to a non-Power 5 program.
I never said we DEFINITIVELY "fixed our problems". I said I have a "hunch" we will surprise people and I "think" we helped ourselves in the Portal. I referred to my "optimism", which basically means "hopeful". Don't read into my words anything more than what I'm saying. As I ended my comment, "time will tell".
We are ranked 9th in the nation in the Transfer Portal ranking and in the high school rankings, we are ranked 15th in the nation when after calculating the average stars. Those are good rankings. Any objective look would find we will be bringing in players who have the potential to help us next year. I did not say WILL HELP us. I said HAVE THE POTENTIAL to help us. Again, time will tell.
If we have a bad season next year and if the 2025 season goes like the 2020 season, I will be right there with you in the front of the line trying to run off Beamer. And that's especially true since I was not thrilled with the hire to begin with, but rather, very disappointed.
It's just crazy how much emphasis our fans are putting on this one week stretch. When Clemson wasn't really a top 10 team and it turns out we had their signals from Michigan.
lol his one G5 loss came to a 13-1 team coached by Drinkwitz. Pretending Beamer wouldn't have lost to that team is comical when Beamer hasn't even shown himself to be in the same ballpark at Drinkwitz.
It's just crazy to me that you need 3 losing seasons in a row to think someone isn't competent to be the head coach. That would mean Beamer had one winning regular season in 5 years.
Everyone of those comments are refutable. But. I'm not going to take the time since your are dead set in your views on Beamer and, I've got other matters to take care of. If my memory serves me accurately, you do agree with me that Beamer will be given the opportunity to go into a 5th season. Consequently, this topic is irrelevant. Take care.
No. I belive our fanbase is going to come apart at the seams after we struggle this year.
Those aren't mutually exclusive. You're right the fan base will come apart. He's right that we're going to have to see it happen.
If we have two straight losing seasons, these boards will be miserable. A few still optimistic, some going the "just settle" route, and more and more clamoring for a change.
It's in beamers hands to avoid that. Just qualify for a bowl next year.
Credit to BringBackGarcia on another message board for this post regarding the Sellers optimism.
The truth is that without this belief and hope, we have very little to make us feel any optimism heading into next season. We’ve just lost our best qb in possibly the history of the program, had our WR1 transfer to a school we’re playing, rebuild an entire RB room to run behind a line that struggled last season, lost more WR to the portal, having to discover a pass rusher and hope that our safeties stay put while we figure out if we have a CB who can cover. All the while, we couldn’t even get bowl eligible.
Sometimes it’s just better to have a few months of hope, even if September takes it all away.
The truth is that without this belief and hope, we have very little to make us feel any optimism heading into next season. We’ve just lost our best qb in possibly the history of the program, had our WR1 transfer to a school we’re playing, rebuild an entire RB room to run behind a line that struggled last season, lost more WR to the portal, having to discover a pass rusher and hope that our safeties stay put while we figure out if we have a CB who can cover. All the while, we couldn’t even get bowl eligible.
Sometimes it’s just better to have a few months of hope, even if September takes it all away.
Last edited:
True.
I read somewhere else that if nothing else, the portal turnover has amped up the optimism a LOT for teams in the off season.
Everyone picked up huge contributors, and everyone's opponents got decimated.
I read somewhere else that if nothing else, the portal turnover has amped up the optimism a LOT for teams in the off season.
Everyone picked up huge contributors, and everyone's opponents got decimated.
Spot on. EVERYBODY lost players. EVERYBODY is bringing in new blood. If the high school rankings and portal transfer rankings are any indication, our "new blood" is something to get excited about.
As college football's rules are today, the next season is just not "next", it's also NEW. The enormous amount of turnover at all schools means what you did in 2023 does not necessarily repeat itself in 2024.
This is true. Which is why I’m so perplexed you and @GoCocksFight2021 are already ready to excuse another losing season next year.
I don't think Stock should be lumped with Mrs Satterfield over anything. There's insults, and then there's hitting below the belt.
I'm still laughing over Lurker's comment.
I don't think I'm excusing anything. If we go 0-12, I think it's obvious what Tanner should do. Most of us, not you, I feel it's safe to say, feel we did better than expectations in each of Beamer's first two seasons. Let's say we do better than 0-12 next season but, go only 4-8 or 5-7. Then I would say we underachieved for the 2nd consecutive year. Then that makes his 5th year, the "rubber match". I said it before and I'll say it again, Tanner is going to give Beamer as much time as he gave Muschamp. That's what I thought you were agreeing with earlier when you wrote:
"Yeah that's our problem. The AD's tenure is riding on this hire so we'll give it far longer than we should."
Last edited:
Yes, I think Tanner gives him a fifth year but not because that's the right thing to do. Tanner will only be selling out our future to try to save his legacy.
I'm not sure how 6-6 in year 1 was overachieving? We won one more SEC game than the prior season. That should relatively be the floor for us.
I don't think people realize how keeping a lame duck coach for an extra year is going to be so much more damaging in the portal era than in the past.
Somebody should call into the Beamer show and ask why Shane gets paid $6.5M a year to miss bowl games.
We actually went 7-6, won the games we were predicted to win that year, won a game we were predicted to lose, (and went into that game as underdogs), in the pre-season (Auburn), were expected to lose to Florida in the pre-season but beat them, and won the bowl game, big. against North Carolina, that we went into that game as big underdogs. So, yes, Beamer absolutely overachieved in his first season.
Last edited:
I'm sure to an outsider it feels weird for you to say the difference between being fired and overachieving was one SEC win...
I counted 2 SEC wins plus one O-O-C in my previous post, from what was expected (losses). I'm sure an outsider would nod in agreement, most Carolina fans, for sure, regarding that season.... that it was better than expected.
Last edited:
