re: Shane Beamer goes off on Press about OC Hiring

quote:

---

I like Beamer and think he is just what South Carolina needed.

---

I agree. A young guy with fire making some waves and getting the damn job done.

quote:

---

The Spurs Up Show BRINGS it. Chris doesn't pull any punches.

---

no offense Lonnie, Chris sucks for many reasons.


as for the press conference, it was needed. If our new OC goes out and puts up points, its something we look back on as a huge win.

if the OC doesnt, it could get messy

I believe the USC fans here were saying worse things about the hire than the media, but I always enjoy a good rant against the machine.

Lotta words there that don't mean much of anything. He could end up being a fantastic OC. I mean it could click all of the sudden. However...

Six years as an NFL OC. Average offensive rank out of 32 teams was 28. If people want to question that, they should.

Now, I realize I don't have much room to talk because our OC currently is Bill O'Brien.

quote:

---

Six years as an NFL OC. Average offensive rank out of 32 teams was 28. If people want to question that, they should.

---

Really, it’s appropriate for media to scrutinize and critique the hire. It’s their job.

It’s also appropriate for Shane to defend his hire. Ultimately, it falls on him as the coach. And if you want to help facilitate success, you have to demonstrate trust and confidence in the people you hire even if you end up wrong

quote:

---

It’s also appropriate for Shane to defend his hire.

---

Sure, but in that manner? I don't know.

I would think trust was demonstrated when you went out and paid a guy that was not in high demand $1 million per year to be your OC.

Just seems like he's setting himself up more than anything.

quote:

---

Really, it’s appropriate for media to scrutinize and critique the hire. It’s their job.

---

I agree. But Beamer’s point was the lack of depth in scrutinizing the hire. Beamer all but said you looked up this guy’s Wikipedia page and started writing your articles without any follow through on what his former colleagues, players, or bosses thought of his work. If they had, Beamer heavily implies their articles and perceptions of the guy would’ve probably been at least somewhat different and less negative.

Basically he called the media lazy.

quote:

---

I agree. But Beamer’s point was the lack of depth in scrutinizing the hire. Beamer all but said you looked up this guy’s Wikipedia page and started writing your articles without any follow through on what his former colleagues, players, or bosses thought of his work. If they had, Beamer heavily implies their articles and perceptions of the guy would’ve probably been way different.

---

But the complaints by the media about the guy are largely rooted in facts. This guy had almost zero success as a coordinator based on the numbers. Beamer's defense of him was almost entirely subjective - "I talked to so-and-so and they said he was good." That's fine and all, but the guy does have a track record of results you can look at, too. Being a nice guy or people liking you doesn't make one bit of difference.

quote:

---

But the complaints by the media about the guy are largely rooted in facts. This guy had almost zero success as a coordinator based on the numbers. Beamer's defense of him was almost entirely subjective - "I talked to so-and-so and they said he was good." That's fine and all, but the guy does have a track record of results you can look at, too. Being a nice guy or people liking you doesn't make one bit of difference.

---

Again, I don’t think Beamer was in anyway implying that the OC’s record should just be excluded from news reporting. That’s not the point he was making at all. I think Beamer just wants more depth and context put into the reporting.

That can include the shite teams he was having to OC for or asking those that personally know his work what they think of him and how he coaches.

I’m not even saying I like the hire, but I get what Beamer is saying. There’s more to what makes a coach a good coach than what you can glean from a quick Wikipedia scan.

quote:

---

Six years as an NFL OC. Average offensive rank out of 32 teams was 28. If people want to question that, they should.

---

I listened to the entire presser, not a 2 min sound bite. What Loggains said in his part was that scheme and strategy used to start in the NFL and work their way down to College and High School football. He said now, it's the opposite. That new offense and defensive schemes start at the high school level and work their way UP thru the college and pro game (he gave a few examples of pro teams that I can't remember because I'm typing this while I'm in a zoom mtg). The both spent a significant amount of time talking about the differences in the Pro and College game and specifically how much better the DB's are the NFL. They also talked alot about the difference in the rosters in college vs the NFL. Beamer also said this, and it hit home. One can spins stats however they want to, positive and negative. He also said, what you can't spin as someone's fit as personality, their approach to coaching and how they related to people. He said that for what they are trying to build, that the later is much more important than the former. Culture 1st, X & O's are secondary. (This is my aside, just look at TA&M this year as exhibit A.)

When asked about his offense strategy he said something that I really liked. Loggains said that he couldn't really say right now. He said that he needed to evaluate his players to find their strengths and weaknesses. Then you build the offense around your players abilities. He then backtracked and stated his concept is that you have to stress a defense in some way (and there are multiple ways to do that). You utilizing your players strengths in ways to exploit the defense's weaknesses.

It was enough to put me in the wait and see category. As SC fans, we haven't had a truly dynamic offense since MAYBE 2012?