What do yall think of Beamer so far. The pros and cons
- Thread starter jeff2001
- Start date
That is patently incorrect. He left Carolina for VT and they nose-dived. Last Conf. championship was 2010....the year before he came. He came to be in line to take over that job, and it was found he wasn't nearly ready and didn't make a big enough contribution to be 'the' guy. I hope to hell he's the guy for us now....because it is a terrible time and climate to be gambling the program with this type of thing.
Batgirl...I don't think the USC fanbase has been nearly impatient enough. Demanding some level of excellence is not too much to ask given the layout, surroundings, conference affiliation, support, etc, etc (all the great things that Carolina offers). I think we should be and should HAVE been aggressively going after SOS types in their prime...not SOSs at the end of his career. I love SOS...and am appreciative. Dan Mullens are out there. It doesn't have to be U. Meyer or Saban. But....we need to demand the surest bet we can get.
Not everyone laughed. Many knew he would be a great coach given his approach, relationship building ways and conference he was in. Didn't hurt that he got the reigns during the time FSU, VT had program changing HCs and staffs turning completely over.... in addition to the ACC just being generally overrated and under-performing. The SEC is never that, unfortunately.
They had one below average year....otherwise look at his secondaries over the years.
It’s pretty obvious you’re an idiot. I am a lifelong Gamecock fan, have been over 50 years.
He went to VT to help his dad the last few years. As soon as Beamer left we started OUR downward trend because Junior was a terrible recruiting coordinator.
Right, having a positive outlook on our HC is drinking KoolAid, maybe I should jump on the trash the AD and University at every opportunity to prove how serious a fan I am...
Or, you know, just try some critical thinking when it comes to the decisions and overall abilities of the people in charge instead trying to convince us that everything is hunky dory after the latest coaching search debacle. Especially when many of said people are the same ones that have gotten us to this point to begin with.
VT was going to “nosedive” whether Shane was there or not.
As for you stating he was in line for the job, someone determining he wasn’t ready, and not making a big enough contribution....do you have links for those assertions? Or are they your opinion?
First, I think it takes anybody here 5-6 years to make this program even competitive.
I agree with Ward's excellent post early in this thread for the most part. I like Beamer. I'm in it for the long haul with him. But as as red flag guy, I think there are two things about him that concern me.
If it takes awhile to get this going as assumed, the infectious, hyper energy, talky style will wear thin. I hope he both matures a little....becomes a little more like dad there, knowing when to tamp that back and manage it, and knowing how to manage this fanbase in times like these, and in tougher times to come.
My second concern has to do with the changing landscape of college football. His timing is tough. Recruiting in the name and likeness age will be brutal. And, selling great kids will depend on a lot more than a good pitch. I honestly believe we are headed into a deeper have/have not cycle in college football. Because of that, he will have to win what he can with what he can get.
That leads me to another great post in this thread by Kawalski, citing his father's experience. I suspect, oddly, that's the same path to eventual success here.
Can we wait?
I agree with Ward's excellent post early in this thread for the most part. I like Beamer. I'm in it for the long haul with him. But as as red flag guy, I think there are two things about him that concern me.
If it takes awhile to get this going as assumed, the infectious, hyper energy, talky style will wear thin. I hope he both matures a little....becomes a little more like dad there, knowing when to tamp that back and manage it, and knowing how to manage this fanbase in times like these, and in tougher times to come.
My second concern has to do with the changing landscape of college football. His timing is tough. Recruiting in the name and likeness age will be brutal. And, selling great kids will depend on a lot more than a good pitch. I honestly believe we are headed into a deeper have/have not cycle in college football. Because of that, he will have to win what he can with what he can get.
That leads me to another great post in this thread by Kawalski, citing his father's experience. I suspect, oddly, that's the same path to eventual success here.
Can we wait?
No no....not my opinion. As I'm sure you know these things are not written down.....but as a sain individual who knows plenty of VT alums, supporters and assistant coaches near to the situation...that is what happened. At one point it was being passed around that Foster was going to continue on as DC for Shane if things went well....because Bud is very tied to the community in a lot of ways .....
Even though that was talked about for 2-3 years around 2011-2013 since it wasn't written down by Frank. I guess it didn't matter. Maybe Frank was bringing on Shane to just waste his time with a dead end job?
Last edited:
agree with all this. I've alluded previously to what I think your most important point made ...which is the changing landscape of college football/ haves/have nots.
I think it's very clear that is the direction, which made this hire so pivotal. I have no idea why people think giving this guy 5-6 years is any different than 100 other guys who have an actual track record to get some type of judgement from. Either way...great post - I too am pulling for Shane big time.
If anyone thinks the turnaround from what Muschamp did here is going to be a one or two year thing you are setting yourself up for disappointment. While I don’t think there is a huge lack of talent at every position there was a huge lack of teaching and coaching and that is going to take time. Muschamp essentially recruited at the same rank level as Spurrier but they never consistently had guys develop or found those gems like the prior staff was able to.
I do think this staff has a lot of “teachers” on it but I don’t know how the players will react. Some may take heed and grow but others may not.
I do think this staff has a lot of “teachers” on it but I don’t know how the players will react. Some may take heed and grow but others may not.
Right. Trash the university = Good. Support the hire = Bad. The coaching search this time was fine. The Muschamp hire was the debacle. Maybe Napier interviewed poorly, or had unreasonable demands.
That’s a million dollar question isn’t it. I think Friday will be telling and if it works in their favor could open other doors.
i just hope folks won’t be pining for 30 point losses if the margins become larger. Tomorrow is yet to come. Is Beamer the guy?
if the losses mount the former players could go away. It could get lonely. . Wingchun cock might be the only one left.
The thread title asked thoughts on Beamer so far, pro and con.
I like the guy.
Kind of hard to find cons right now, the man hasn't coached a game.
I like the guy.
Kind of hard to find cons right now, the man hasn't coached a game.
So, you don’t have a link. Not surprising.
You’re not the only one who knows connected VT people.
Shane wasn’t going to take over for Frank, because he didn’t want to. Tough enough taking over from a HOF Coach, even tougher when it’s your Dad. Bud was the de facto choice, but he was happy being a DC.
Truth be told, Shane probably never would’ve coached that stretch at VT if Sr hadn’t decided to replace him as RC with Jr. Which, by the way, was the beginning of the end for our success. Essentially all it did was give Frank the chance to have the family together and the grandkids close at the end of his career.
This is what worries me. We are already writing off the first two years with zero expectations for Beamer.
Shouldn't there be an expectation he gives us a reason to believe he deserves more time during that period?
I’m not saying to write them off. My point is simply that things may get worse before they get better.
If we are losing by 50 and the recruiting rankings are in the 70s obviously things aren’t looking good at a turnaround. If we don’t lose any games we shouldn’t and recruiting is back in the top 20 then a 5-6 record year 2 might not be in the end of the world.
With the exception of maybe the last sentence (though highly doubtful), none of that is true.
The problem with this and many of your other posts regarding our situation here is that you speak in absolutes and view everything in black and white, i.e. everything the administration does is correct and we all have to support it. And if we don't, then we are just haters that are just trashing the university and its sports programs.
It's entirely possible to love our alma mater and want the best for our sports programs while at the same time recognizing that our leadership and many of its processes and decisions made are deeply flawed.
Life exists in the grey area. You should check it out some time.
Yeah that’s fair. I think the recruiting rankings is going to be far more important than the W-L record next year.
Whoa whoa whoa. Do YOU have a link for this? Because the last I heard, it was the other way around. I also remember reading that we lost Jay Graham in part because he wanted the RC position -- after Beamer left on his own -- but Spurrier gave it to numbnuts instead.
Not true. I certainly don’t approve of BOT meddling which has been going on a long time. I don’t agree with several things Tanner has done, but I never posted like someone on this forum it would have been better for Tanner to never have coached here. That’s absolute. What I do post is my belief in giving Beamer a chance before declaring him a disaster. There are some posters who ONLY post negative things and I typically respond with a positive post. Being positive is just my nature. I do get tired of being called a Tater because I like the Beamer hire. Was just accused of that earlier in this thread.
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.
Choosing to be positive is fine. But you don't stop there. You blast everyone that has doubts and doesn't feel as positive as you do based on the reasons I listed above.
And you know what? This administration has given us a lot of reasons to be doubtful and jaded over the past several years. So you'll just have to forgive those of us who take a "Believe it when I see it" stance on things.
No I don’t. As soon as I joined this forum and posted I liked the Beamer hire I was labeled a troll, a tater, a paid poster. So when someone else posts extreme statements I respond in kind. I don’t trust the administration TBH, the BOT has always mingled and Fd things up ever since I can remember. In spite of that, I do think the Beamer hire will turn out to be a good one. I also think the Kingston hire will as well. I didn’t like the Muschamp hire but hoped for the best.
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.
I agree. We should know by year 3 where this is headed. We should see marked improvement by then. I would add one other criteria to what you listed - BE COMPETITIVE. Even with a mediocre team a good coach should field a team that is somewhat competitive. They may not win many but they should compete and not get blown off the field and get embarrassed.
Yeah, if after 5 or 6 years his teams aren't substantially better, they probably never will be. If all his recruits stay their 4 years, that means after year 6 he will have graduated his entire first 2 years of recruits and everybody on the team from Seniors on down will be players he brought in. There is no reason not to have marked improvement by then. Since there are a lot of people who think this was a questionable hire to begin with I don't think there will be much patience beyond that time frame.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
5 Players Who Saw Their Stock Rise During The Spring: OFFENSE
- Latest: ShuckinAndFvckin
-