Open and honest discussion of HC Shane Beamer
- Thread starter ky-usc2020
- Start date
This thread is nothing but whiners whining about our head coach.
Beamer isn't going anywhere. If we lose every game the rest of the year, he isn't going anywhere.
He might make some defensive staff changes at the end of the year, but I am ok if he doesn't. This team has some gaps at a few positions and help is on the way.
If we fire our defensive coaches, we likely lose the best DE recruit we've had in 10 years.
Beamer isn't going anywhere. If we lose every game the rest of the year, he isn't going anywhere.
He might make some defensive staff changes at the end of the year, but I am ok if he doesn't. This team has some gaps at a few positions and help is on the way.
If we fire our defensive coaches, we likely lose the best DE recruit we've had in 10 years.
Exactly! If he’s fired, what money do we have to pay another coach? We’re paying for Muschamp still, then we’d be paying out Beamer?
Are we paying muschamp still? I found conflicting articles on it when I last looked it up.
But realistically, he's not fired this year, and he's probably not fired next unless the wheels really come off. So surely we'd be done with muschamps buyout by then, right?
And when is the new SEC contract coming in? Our athletic department should be looking at a nice raise then.
I really think if Shane went and found a legit coordinators, he could be great. I hate to mention Dabo but, it’s what he did.
I apologize for this post. I'm having a real bad day and don't want to be that person.
Possibly. But I'm sure they don't want to spend that money spinning the head coaching wheel again.
The issues we are having deal with player talent and position coaches.
Paying another big buyout sets us back, IMO.
The OC appears at least to have improved Rattlers output a lot. And while working with that O line.
I do wonder what defensive changes will be made this off-season, if any.
Agreed.
Well, like I said, it won't be this year or next unless it gets so bad we don't have a choice. So, imo, that gives us 2 1/2 years get our finances in order for IF it needs doing.
Yep. At the end of the day, it's all about paying fans perception of the program. If the donations and season ticket sales start to dry up, then they will have to reconsider what human billboard they want as the face of the program moving forward.
So far, Beamer has recruited and marketed the program well. However, if we keep trending this direction, he's likely going to need to shuffle his assistants a bit if he wants to stick around.
No worries. He's just some weirdo that is obsessed with everything I post. Been doing it forever.
And 100% tater troll. Never a good thing to say about South Carolina. Never a bad thing to say about Clemson.
Agreed.
We've obviously upgraded at OC, I'm curious to see what moves he makes on the defensive side, and maybe at OL.
Starving a program of cash is a death sentence now. If you don't like the coach you have, you likely aren't going to get one much better with less resources. The money has to pour in first.
Agree. With these buyouts, it's like paying two head coaches at one time.
If the Clemson decline continues, it's a model for why we probably shouldn't be switching out or overpaying head coaches if we can avoid it. Dabo is a talented marketing clown and overall good CEO when he has the right people around him.
However, it was Venables and Elliot/Scott who made it happen on the field. Now Clemson is paying Dabo $10mil a year until the end of time. The Clemson brass is probably beginning to rethink that decision. They would probably like to spread that money around a little better at this point.
Last edited:
I think everyone kinda felt the defense would struggle some this year. We lost some talent. What we needed is for the offense to build on that momentum and win some shootouts for us like it did against Clemson and Tennessee last year. And that just hasn't happened. Points per game is closer to year 1 than year 2, and that ain't gonna get it done. We need to score more than last year to pick up for the defense like the defense did for the offense in year 1 and some of year 2.
Our defense is a little bizarre. Our DBs are often right with receivers but don't turn around to try to make a play on the ball. instead, they let them catch it and then make the tackle. Many of these longer pass plays could be batted away.
On offense, it's not as broken as it appears. We need a quick outlet like what Wells provided so we can stop the pass rush bleed. We witnessed last season that establishing this type of balance made all the difference. And of course if we can stay on the field longer it takes the pressure off our defense.
The challenge for us is keeping the 1st team healthy as it's typically a big dropoff between our 1st and 2nd teams. Hopefully Beamer will end up with another Top 20 recruiting class and we don't take the NIL/Portal hit we did at the end of last year.
Yeah, no idea why we don't do that more. How many times to do we have to see Rattler drop back, and by the time he makes his first read, he is already running for his life ending with a sack? The Mizzou game looked like we reverted back to the UNC gameplan.
LOL. You cryin' too? I figured you would be too busy between your hamas rallies and trying to figure out what a woman is.
Your point? Beamer doesn't have a blank check and a spending list. If we are in contention for a player, the corporations decide if it is the right fit for them too. You really have it out for Beamer. Maybe take a few days off and realize there are more important things in life. If you can't find any, there's your answer.
I think believing that the staff has no input on NIL deals is like believing we didn't pay players before NIL.
It fits the official narrative, but isn't really true.
That being said, I saw a previous post describe it well. Some companies (local car dealership for example) are going to put more money in for name players. The companies will make those deals themselves. OL will not get the draw that skill 0position players do.
But once a collective pile starts getting put together, which is what the boosters are doing, the ability to divy it up becomes possible.
In that case, I agree with some others that building lines is a great place to start pushing NIL money.
Yep. Has to be a good fit for both. And that fit to market is much narrower for us than many in bigger markets.
They do have input. What I'm saying is that it has to be a good fit for both parties. The idea of blaming Beamer because we're paying a certain NIL player who isn't showing his full worth is total garbage.
At the end of the day, it comes down to the abundance of resources that is tied to a school. This is why most of the big NIL schools are either located near a larger city or they have prolific donors with money to burn and think it's fun to buy a team. These are the same people who have multiple 20,000 sq. ft. mansions around the world for a family of two. Carolina isn't in that league and never will be.
Last edited:
The idea that it's tied to both parties gets solved though, when you start having collectives. Collectives can spread the money around.
In the case that you bring up, a single company and a single player, you are right. The skill positions are going to get most if not all of those.
Pool some NIL money, and it can start to be directed to areas of need.
You're also right that we aren't in the league of some of those schools. But if I wanted to compete at my best, you obviously have the one on one deals with the skill position players. But I'd start spreading some of that collective money to linemen. We won't ever keep up, but we can compete with middle of the pack then.
The challenge is that Carolina needs high profile skill players to put fans in seats. Look at the history of the program. Our adminstration would rather have a team go 6-6 with a few big names like a Rattler versus a more rounded 8-4 team who has no big names and beats teams in the trenches. It's a show and you need your stars of the show regardless of the outcome. It's the short game but also the American way.
Don't disagree. Just not sure it's how u would do it.
I believe a good line can make 4 star skill position people competitve, especially if we're talking about midling programs and not the elite. Butbpoor lines with a couple 5 stars makes for bad football. (That's literally what we have thisbyear)
Now to your point, whether it WILL be done is different than whether we think it SHOULD be done.
Ultimately, it's still a resources issue. If you pay to have a good line, you're going to lose bidding wars for big players. This convo reminds me of a year or two we had under Spurrier. We were winning games ugly. Connor Shaw would perfectly manage a game and squeak out a victory, but it was hell to watch week in and out.
Agreed. Maybe I wasn't clear with my words, but that's what I meant.
I would rather build lines, and play with 4 star skill guys then bad lines and 5 star skill guys.
You are right that it's a trade off, I'm just saying which direction I think it should go.
And you were right before, we aren't going against the "big boys" and winning often.
IMO, the best thing that could happen to USC Football is the expansion of the playoffs to 16 teams.
That's the inflection point where there's an actual shot of us getting in once and awhile. You might start seeing NIL money really ramp up if donors believe we could be in the hunt. Right now, we're downstream bowl contenders at best. That's not sexy.
That's the inflection point where there's an actual shot of us getting in once and awhile. You might start seeing NIL money really ramp up if donors believe we could be in the hunt. Right now, we're downstream bowl contenders at best. That's not sexy.
I can't figure out why this hasn't happened already? All of the other divisions are 16 or greater. One is 32. CFP always has top TV ratings. Should be a no-brainer.
I was about to go into a rant about byes and unfair advantages with a 12 team playoff before I noticed you wrote 16 teams.
From what I can see, the same folks who run the brothel also talk about maintaining the integrity of the game.
I don't have a 'Cock in this 'Cockfight, but I see mixed results leaning toward the downside.
- On the plus side, he made a nice pickup of Rattler in the portal and Harbor seems like a high upside player.
- But the OL is abysmal. I don't know the story behind that. In 2012, Mizzou lost 4 of the top 5 preseason OL and by game 3, we were down 7 of the top 10. Our QB got killed by everyone's DL and injured about 3 games in. We had a terrible year. Coach Spurrier said we looked and played like Vanderbilt. Ugh. I don't know the SC injury situation, but the product on the field is some combination of missing out on recruits, injury and not coaching guys up.
- I don't care about him kicking stuff. At least it means that he cares. The thing that I picked up on in his interviews (and I may be wrong) is that when he said the coach stuff about. "We need to coach better", he just didn't sound as sincere as when he called out specific bad plays. He seems frustrated with the players, but unless they aren't trying, that's his job to get through to them and fix.
- The defense is mediocre. There isn't a specific player I identified as being simply bad. I also didn't see a standout. Deebo got quite a few tackles, but you only had 2 TFL for the entire team. I don't know why. Is the system too complex and the players are tentative? Or do you just need a couple of good pickups in the transfer portal to turn things around?
I'm just watching you whine about Shane Beamer worse than a 1 year old cries when they are sleepy.
It's just who you are
Everybody needs to give a dynamic “young head coach” a chance to build a program. He’s been forced to play 2nd and 3rd string this year because with distructive injuries, as a “young coach” he didn’t have established recruiting contacts for player recruit for replacement situation. He’s now recruiting like hell to really give him the capability to have a third “recruiting performance” string to show what he can do. Not saying “ wait till next year”, but I’m giving a young Beamer coach time to build his own bench.
LOL. You are insane. I'm probably his biggest supporter on this board.
Check your meds. It's obviously impacting your reading comprehension.
Nobody needs to give him anything. He is going to get his chance. All the whining and crying won't matter. Tanner is 100% committed to Beamer for the long run, as he should be. All we need is the money to back him up.
SEC Offensive Efficiency Rankings
#1 LSU
#2 Kentucky
#3 Ole Miss
#4 Georgia
#5 Missouri
#6 Alabama
#7 Texas A&M
#8 Vanderbilt
#9 Mississippi State
#10 Tennessee
#11 Florida
#12 Auburn
#13 Arkansas
#14 South Carolina
SEC Defensive Efficiency Rankings
#1 Georgia
#2 Alabama
#3 Tennessee
#4 Ole Miss
#5 Texas A&M
#6 Kentucky
#7 Missouri
#8 Florida
#9 Auburn
#10 Arkansas
#11 Mississippi State
#12 LSU
#13 South Carolina
#14 Vanderbilt
oof
#1 LSU
#2 Kentucky
#3 Ole Miss
#4 Georgia
#5 Missouri
#6 Alabama
#7 Texas A&M
#8 Vanderbilt
#9 Mississippi State
#10 Tennessee
#11 Florida
#12 Auburn
#13 Arkansas
#14 South Carolina
SEC Defensive Efficiency Rankings
#1 Georgia
#2 Alabama
#3 Tennessee
#4 Ole Miss
#5 Texas A&M
#6 Kentucky
#7 Missouri
#8 Florida
#9 Auburn
#10 Arkansas
#11 Mississippi State
#12 LSU
#13 South Carolina
#14 Vanderbilt
oof
