ADVERTISEMENT

What do yall think of Beamer so far. The pros and cons

I think you need to take a look at your post history. In almost any thread, if there's a post that simply doesn't have the same rosy view on Beamer and the process that got him here as you do (and not all-out blasting them), you almost never let it go. You have to go after everyone with all the accusations and finger wagging I mentioned. And you ALWAYS have to get in the last word.
Not true. Go ahead, you can have the last word.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Legendary Cock
Year 1 better fundamentals and more discipline on the field. Wins and losses will not necessarily indicate improvement or lack of. I think how well we appear to be coached will be evident. I hope for 5-7 wins but don’t expect it. Reasonable expectations for year two should be 5-7 at minimum and improvement each year after, also it may take 3 years to see recruiting where it needs to be. The challenge is getting better players. If we show improvement in fundamentals and players responding to better teaching the better players will follow. How long that will take is anyone’s guess.
Better fundamentals and more discipline is impossible to quantify.
 
Pro - he seems to be the opposite of Muschamp, in every way.
Con - I agree with jeff, I would’ve thought at least on OK transfer would’ve followed.
Time will tell.
How many years do y’all give him to reach 10 wins or an Eastern Division before people start to get restless?
I just like to see progress...that is all
 
And that is certainly a fair timeframe
A quick look at history shows that the 5-6 years is the definitive timeframe:
  • Sparky Woods was here 5 years and his last 3 were losing seasons so it was obvious the program wasn't going anywhere.
  • Brad Scott was here 5 year and went 1-10 in his fifth year so it was obvious he wasn't going to workout
  • Lou Holtz took over a 1-10 team and in his 2nd & 3rd years won back to back Outback Bowls.
  • Steve Spurrier was here 10 years and in year 6 won an SEC East title followed by three 11 win seasons
  • Will Muschamp was here 5 years and teams got progressively worse the last 3 years so it was obvious he was going in the wrong direction
Of the 3 above coaches let go after 5 years does anyone feel that they should have been given more time?
 
Year 1 better fundamentals and more discipline on the field. Wins and losses will not necessarily indicate improvement or lack of. I think how well we appear to be coached will be evident. I hope for 5-7 wins but don’t expect it. Reasonable expectations for year two should be 5-7 at minimum and improvement each year after, also it may take 3 years to see recruiting where it needs to be. The challenge is getting better players. If we show improvement in fundamentals and players responding to better teaching the better players will follow. How long that will take is anyone’s guess.
For sure. The disagreement will be what are valid expectations.
Serious question. Do you know Beamer at a personal level? If not why the obtuseness?
 
Obviously, like everyone, what I really care about is wins and losses. However, in really grading Beamer as a coach, I'll be looking to see how we do on the fundamentals. Can we at least tackle properly. Can we catch the ball. etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingchunCock
There is only one thing that you can judge objectively at this point. Recruiting! At this point we're not doing so well. Going into May we have a total of 2 commits. I know they are working hard and making a lot of offers, but the only thing that really counts is closing the deal, and they have not been able to do that thus far. Maybe things will pick up in May and June. After July most of the better recruits will be committed, so I hope it picks up with vigor shortly.

With Spring practice we are playing against ourselves so we really cannot judge much else as to the team we have now. That will have to come in September.
No visits allowed hurt recruiting for us. Horrible time for that for us. Coming off a 2 win season and then guys can't visit, he's lucky to have any commits for next year. Then with the new December signing day, that hurts even worse because most guys were committed when Beamer started. He did manage to pull in transfers that will start on day 1. Give him 3 or 4 years and let's have this discussion. Right now, he's just fighting an uphill battle to get recruits to notice us.
 
No visits allowed hurt recruiting for us. Horrible time for that for us. Coming off a 2 win season and then guys can't visit, he's lucky to have any commits for next year. Then with the new December signing day, that hurts even worse because most guys were committed when Beamer started. He did manage to pull in transfers that will start on day 1. Give him 3 or 4 years and let's have this discussion. Right now, he's just fighting an uphill battle to get recruits to notice us.
That is all true but can't be used as an excuse. We are under the same constraints as all other schools, many of which also had coaching changes. There are about 50 schools ranked ahead of us that have more commits at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uscwatson21
Not really. WRs will catch better or they won’t. Tackling will be better or it won’t. If the take bad pursuit angles it will be obvious.
Like I said, you're going to claim these things improved whether or not they actually improve. Unless of course you are going to provide the hard data for dropped balls and missed tackles/bad pursuit angles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOSUSC
Like I said, you're going to claim these things improved whether or not they actually improve. Unless of course you are going to provide the hard data for dropped balls and missed tackles/bad pursuit angles.
Right because you can’t see with your own eyes. Geez. Last year we had a boatload of these issues. Improvement won’t be hard to notice.
 
No you can’t objectively see it because you’re going to see what you want to see.
uscwatson, don't waste your time arguing with this poster. JMO. I have still to meet the nonsense that a single poster can dish out.
 
Most of my Clemson fans ( I have 1) say that we missed on Chadwell, and Beamer was a poor hire.

Personally I like the Beamer hire. I think he has enthusiasm and positive energy. Most insiders have said he focuses on a team first approach, which was lacking with Muschamp. JC Sherbert said on his podcast from speaking with people around the program, Muschamp emphasized the next level, NFL potential, which lead team mentality took a back seat. And it makes sense, especially with defenses. We had a lot of talent in the secondary the last 2 years and they played awful.

As far as assistants go- Stepp was a home run hire and Torian Gray was also a great one. Tapping Eric Kimrey should pay off. White is a proven D/C. Satterfield? Who knows he has been successful and not successful in the past.

Clemson fans think they're experts on all things about football just because their team has been successful. They're not.
 
A quick look at history shows that the 5-6 years is the definitive timeframe:
  • Sparky Woods was here 5 years and his last 3 were losing seasons so it was obvious the program wasn't going anywhere.
  • Brad Scott was here 5 year and went 1-10 in his fifth year so it was obvious he wasn't going to workout
  • Lou Holtz took over a 1-10 team and in his 2nd & 3rd years won back to back Outback Bowls.
  • Steve Spurrier was here 10 years and in year 6 won an SEC East title followed by three 11 win seasons
  • Will Muschamp was here 5 years and teams got progressively worse the last 3 years so it was obvious he was going in the wrong direction
Of the 3 above coaches let go after 5 years does anyone feel that they should have been given more time?
Yes, Sparky was stabbed in the back by a worse AD than Ray-King Dixon. He refused two bowl bids that would have had a positive impact on Sparky's recruiting supposedly because athletes needed "to study for exams". Sounds like Mushhead read King's book on how to get fired from an AD position.
He made a nationwide mockery of USC in his search for a MBB coach.

Note:In King's defense he did not want the job and had to be begged to take it after the disastrous Holderman episode. Supposedly the powers that be at USC thought USC needed an AD with integrity to follow Holderman.
 
Yes, Sparky was stabbed in the back by a worse AD than Ray-King Dixon. He refused two bowl bids that would have had a positive impact on Sparky's recruiting supposedly because athletes needed "to study for exams". Sounds like Mushhead read King's book on how to get fired from an AD position.
He made a nationwide mockery of USC in his search for a MBB coach.

Note:In King's defense he did not want the job and had to be begged to take it after the disastrous Holderman episode. Supposedly the powers that be at USC thought USC needed an AD with integrity to follow Holderman.
Stabbed in the back? He shoulda been gutted like a fish and ridden out of town on a rail. His BEST team was 6-5. His last 3 teams went 3-6-2; 5-6; and 5-6. He wasn't even eligible for a bowl the last 3 years. His best 2 years of a 25-27-3 tenure were his first 2 and then downhill after that. He wasn't even that great at App ST. His last year there was 6-4-1. He was a classic example of someone promoted well beyond his abilities. Never should have been a coach here in the first place.
 
Last edited:
And you won’t see it because you’re blinded by your bias.

Imho, this little back and forth is the perfect example of what I expect for years to come.

Without tremendous improvement on the field, the board will be flooded with debates on what really constitutes "improvement". And things like "heart" and effort or toughness will be bantered about as if they should be obvious to everyone, when they are just as clouded by opinion.
 
Imho, this little back and forth is the perfect example of what I expect for years to come.

Without tremendous improvement on the field, the board will be flooded with debates on what really constitutes "improvement". And things like "heart" and effort or toughness will be bantered about as if they should be obvious to everyone, when they are just as clouded by opinion.
No doubt, but don’t you think reduced YAC would indicate improvements in tackling? Less dropped passes? Those are easy things to see improvements on.
 
No doubt, but don’t you think reduced YAC would indicate improvements in tackling? Less dropped passes? Those are easy things to see improvements on.
I think that it doesnt bode well for beamer if his apologists resort to YAC as a talking point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOSUSC
I think that it doesnt bode well for beamer if his apologists resort to YAC as a talking point.
If we can’t tackle those numbers will be huge. If we finally do learn how to do that, those numbers will drop. How many times last year did we have 4-5 guys trying to tackle only to miss and give up big plays?
 
Yes, Sparky was stabbed in the back by a worse AD than Ray-King Dixon. He refused two bowl bids that would have had a positive impact on Sparky's recruiting supposedly because athletes needed "to study for exams". Sounds like Mushhead read King's book on how to get fired from an AD position.
He made a nationwide mockery of USC in his search for a MBB coach.

Note:In King's defense he did not want the job and had to be begged to take it after the disastrous Holderman episode. Supposedly the powers that be at USC thought USC needed an AD with integrity to follow Holderman.

If I was a head coach and not allowed to go to a bowl by a AD for that ridiculous reason, I would quit on the spot. Or maybe not quit and get a plaintiff's lawyer who would sue on the contract for constructive termination. I know y'all criticize Texas for having the big cigars who interfere sometimes with the program. But the Texas big cigars would never let an AD sabotage his own football coach that way. Where were the SC big cigars and why didn't they raise a ruckus?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lakecock1
If we can’t tackle those numbers will be huge. If we finally do learn how to do that, those numbers will drop. How many times last year did we have 4-5 guys trying to tackle only to miss and give up big plays?
It will be interesting to see if you actually stick with your assessment being based on pure data.

But even then I’m guessing you’re going to want to include the statistics from the non conference games that will skew the data
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOSUSC
I like the enthusiasm and I like what he was doing with some of the marketing, but I wasn't blown away by the spring game. Not sure how much that matter anyway. I do feel he is working hard. Will that result in success? I don't have a feel for that yet. Too many unknowns.
 
If I was a head coach and not allowed to go to a bowl by a AD for that ridiculous reason, I would quit on the spot. Or maybe not quit and get a plaintiff's lawyer who would sue on the contract for constructive termination. I know y'all criticize Texas for having the big cigars who interfere sometimes with the program. But the Texas big cigars would never let an AD sabotage his own football coach that way. Where were the SC big cigars and why didn't they raise a ruckus?
There should definitely be a comfortable medium. It's hard to believe that there was no one in his ear at the time telling him what a stupid and terrible decision this was. After all, this was back in the days before there were 40+ bowl games, and making a bowl was a major accomplishment.

Having said that, I'm not really surprised at all. Overall, our fans and boosters have never demanded success. We are happy with it when it just happens. But we typically don't demand that we make the tough decisions to actually make it happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SOSUSC
There should definitely be a comfortable medium. It's hard to believe that there was no one in his ear at the time telling him what a stupid and terrible decision this was. After all, this was back in the days before there were 40+ bowl games, and making a bowl was a major accomplishment.

Having said that, I'm not really surprised at all. Overall, our fans and boosters have never demanded success. We are happy with it when it just happens. But we typically don't demand that we make the tough decisions to actually make it happen.

I’m always amazed at how the big money boosters continue to contribute large sums of money with the return they get.

Maybe those guys prefer to be treated as VIPs more than winning. But you would really think at some point enough is enough.
 
I’m always amazed at how the big money boosters continue to contribute large sums of money with the return they get.

Maybe those guys prefer to be treated as VIPs more than winning. But you would really think at some point enough is enough.
There’s a lot of fulfillment in contributing to something you love. It’s not simply wins and losses.
 
Obviously, like everyone, what I really care about is wins and losses. However, in really grading Beamer as a coach, I'll be looking to see how we do on the fundamentals. Can we at least tackle properly. Can we catch the ball. etc
Because if we can't do these, we aren't going to win.
We have a lot of work to do when it comes to fundamentals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jweaks
There should definitely be a comfortable medium. It's hard to believe that there was no one in his ear at the time telling him what a stupid and terrible decision this was. After all, this was back in the days before there were 40+ bowl games, and making a bowl was a major accomplishment.

Having said that, I'm not really surprised at all. Overall, our fans and boosters have never demanded success. We are happy with it when it just happens. But we typically don't demand that we make the tough decisions to actually make it happen.
I agree with the comfortable medium, and admit Texas booster have been too involved at times. But I promise there isn't a Texas AD or Head Coach that could get away with skipping a bowl because he wants the players to study more. I doubt Darrell Royal who won three NCs, our stadium is named for and we have statues of could get away with it. Current coaches and ADs I know couldn't.
 
It will be interesting to see if you actually stick with your assessment being based on pure data.

But even then I’m guessing you’re going to want to include the statistics from the non conference games that will skew the data
It’s a pretty simple eyeball test. We either look like a team with solid fundamentals or we don’t. How many times under Muschamp did we look completely lost on the field? How many time were 3+ guys around the ball but unable to make a tackle....again easy to see improvement.
 
It’s a pretty simple eyeball test. We either look like a team with solid fundamentals or we don’t. How many times under Muschamp did we look completely lost on the field? How many time were 3+ guys around the ball but unable to make a tackle....again easy to see improvement.
About 50 out of the 58 games he coached.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WingchunCock
Spurrier had 6 four stars in his first "full recruiting cycle" class (2006). Muschamp had 7. Spurrier coached his players "up". Muschamp obviously coached his "down". Beamer already has 2 four stars, out of the 4 commitments. Don't know how many recruits we can have in this class. But, it looks like Beamer's first class could very well top 7. If Beamer can coach them "up" like Spurrier did or like Frank did at Virginia Tech, I'll call it right now: we will, at some point, win the SEC under Shane Beamer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jerryusc
ADVERTISEMENT