Langston Moore thinks the program is progressing under Muschamp. I'd take his opinion over any on this site.
Sunshine Pumpers Forum
- Thread starter Gamecockben1979
- Start date
Which means SOS was also losing to some really crappy teams during those years.....and during the 11 win seasons.
Fair enough if you don't agree...
I think people only want to compare Muschamp years 1-3 to Spurrier's years 6-9 (not his years 1-5 nor his years 10-11)
When you do compare their years 1-3 you get the "yeah well Spurrier beat some good teams" argument which holds some water I guess but also Spurrier lost to some crap teams too. My personal opinion is just there isn't enough of a difference for me to say one has totally out-performed or under-performed the other. One key part of that whole equation is when Spurrier came here we felt like we were getting one of the God's of CFB coaching and when Muschamp came here there was a ton of skepticism (which I'm not arguing against because I felt some of that too), just that fact alone I think taints the perception of the 2 coaches and their respective results.
Anyways, I just like to choose being positive over negative...like my initial post on this thread stated, I'm alive today and that's my right to have that choice and I think it serves me best, not just with football fandom. It was also nice to have a week off from Gamecock football...regardless of which side of the Sunshine Pumper debate we stand on we all live with and carry the burden and heartache of being a Gamecock fan....it's just been our reality and to me I embrace it as much as I can and step away for a break when I can't properly have it in proper perspective.
Spurrier was a proven winner and he was beating ranked teams, including Clemson, in his first three years. Sorry, Muschamp isn't Spurrier. He was lucky to get another shot so fast and because he failed at Florida, he doesn't get a mulligan. Is that fair? Probably not. But who ever said life was fair?
I see many, many posts in this thread that seem to imply that Spurrier led our program into the pits of college football. His biggest failure was his lack of a defensive coach with any modicum of what defense means ( with the exception of Charlie Strong-who also got squirrely on 3rd and long). He felt that he could win by just out scoring his opponents when he would have increased his win total by more than just a little by having someone to direct his defense who emphasized coverage and tackling--look at his best records.
Who is to bless and who is to blame? Being a Gamecock Fan is not a burden short of pledging your first born to the Prince of Darkness; it is a choice which should be more pleasant.
PS.... he also screwed around with his QBs too much...maybe he would have been in heaven with the RPO thingie
Last edited:
Strong? What the heck are you talking about? Strong never was the DC under Spurrier. Nix was his first DC. Ellis Johnson was the primary reason Spurrier was so successful. His defenses were fantastic. Great coach and assembled a great defensive staff.I see many, many posts in this thread that seem to imply that Spurrier led our program into the pits of college football. His biggest failure was his lack of a defensive coach with any modicum of what defense means ( with the exception of Charlie Strong-who also got squirrely on 3rd and long). He felt that he could win by just out scoring his opponents when he would have increased his win total by having someone to direct his defense who emphasized coverage and tackling--look at his best records.
Who is to bless and who is to blame?
PS.... he also screwed around with his QBs too much...maybe he would haven in heaven with the RPO thingie
name the other defensive minds... not just DCs but backfield and lb coaches who were involved in this effort... again I say we won more by scoring big time than by shut outs
Brad Lawing - DL
EJ - LBs
Ward - Secondary
These were the primary ones.
And you have a piss poor memory.
And as I mentioned, Muschamp hasn't had significant upset win since he's been here. Some would argue that his first win over UT and the wins last year over over NC State and Michigan would qualify. That UT win has seriously diminished since then. It was hard to tell how good NC State really was. Michigan probably the biggest, but their offense was more putrid than ours.
Spurrier not only beat some good teams, but more often than not, we just look more competitive and better prepared on the way to those 11 win seasons. I can't say the same for Muschamp's teams.
Can you honestly say that Muschamp's teams look any better today than they did when he first got here? We could usually say that about Spurrier's teams.
Well Muschamp better beat Clemson's rear ends this year since Spurrier did it in year 3. Spurrier also never lost 56-7 to them and Spurrier had several wins over ranked teams in his first 3 years. Muschamp might pass Spurrier in wins by beating a bunch of nobodies but if he gets that record by never beating Clemson or winning any meaningful games over ranked teams then he's a failure in my opinion.
I like greater predictability on the field - on the positive side. I love the rough and tumble of the board, as long as it doesn't get insulting on a personal level.as OPPOSED TO THE MAYHEM/Chaos on the field ?
BRAVO! This may be POST OF THE YEAR!
Well I mean if some want to compare records between the two in the first 3 years then let's take a deeper dive and see what wins they had in those 3 years.You are going to have to reassess what constitutes success around here.
But remember, Holtz left Spurrier in amazing shape.Well I mean if some want to compare records between the two in the first 3 years then let's take a deeper dive and see what wins they had in those 3 years.
it made more sense to me when the board riders blamed the misery on Brad and Sparky and their ilk rather than SpurrierWell I mean if some want to compare records between the two in the first 3 years then let's take a deeper dive and see what wins they had in those 3 years.
Yeah really. Poor Spurrier had to dismiss half the team when he got here and Cory Boyd begged him to play instead of being kicked off. Plus Spurrier had to break in a new QB that Holtz never even used. Spurrier inherited a broken team a year removed from the brawl. Muschamp walked in on nothing even close to that. He basically had to do at Florida what Spurrier did here but Spurrier made it work.But remember, Holtz left Spurrier in amazing shape.
Oh, I remember walking out of the stadium during Spurrier's first five years thinking we looked like crap. People seem to overlook Nix and his swiss cheese defense and Hunt's stand up OL. We looked totally lost in some games, offensively and defensively.
Deep down they know Spurrier was the man but they dismiss it because they know the current coach isn't creating the same excitement and optimism that Spurrier did.it made more sense to me when the board riders blamed the misery on Brad and Sparky and their ilk rather than Spurrier
You may want to take another look at that roster.Holtz left Spurrier in an absolute vacuum.
Didn't he ultimately get rid of a supposed stud hoss linebacker for one?
I suppose I should defer to you since you seem to have an entirely different recollection than I do. By the way do you have much in the way of Deitzel testimony perhaps a yard of astro- turf?
Last edited:
See I disagree with this and I think its easy to "mis-remember" a lot of the early Spurrier years because we was SO successful prior and we were all so hoping that it was going to be that NEXT game that it all clicked and it just never did....for the first 5 years.
I specifically remember during early Spurrier years the Oline being atrocious, we had an offense that apparently took guys 3 years to learn, and we'd beat a good team then not show up randomly.
D. Summers and Moe Thompson = 8/9 starters? There were a few serving a one game suspension against a 0-15 Central Florida team because of an off season fight but they were not kicked off the team.
Moe ThompsonDidn't he ultimately get rid of a supposed stud hoss linebacker for one?
I suppose I should defer to you since you seem to have an entirely different recollection than I do. By the way do you have much in the way of Deitzel testimony perhaps a yard of astro- turf?
It wasn't due to the fight, it was due to stealing laptops and the school pressing charges against them. Happened after the brawl.
That was Thompson, Mainard and Telfort. Thompson was a big loss as was Summers, who couldn't stay away from the weed.
was he on the field or in the booth or somewhere explaining where was the real best place to be?
I remember just fine. Just because we would get beat by some teams doesn't mean that it was as consistently awful in big games like it is now.
Oh we definitely got blown out every once in a while under Spurrier. But it wasn't as consistently awful as it has gotten under Muschamp. But my point still stands that Spurrier beat some of those good and ranked teams and Muschamp doesn't seem to be able to. I agree about Hunt and Nix. They were terrible. And Spurrier hung on to them way too long.
Hunt, I had completely forgotten about him. He was pretty much a waste of a coaches whistle and Nix was the first in a long line of empty mace containers. Possibly they were joined at the hip or had some dirty pictures of Spurrier pulling the wings off of June Bugs.
we got shelled under Spurrier because of his defensive coaches ineptitude but I thought the Champer is supposed to be the defensive Guru. Someone help me; am I laboring under a misapprehension?
Similar threads
