I developed an armchair psychoanalyst's opinion about Beckman as time went on. The fact that he mentioned his "being around coaching" his whole life in virtually every single interview he ever gave was telling to me. Most people took that as an expression of how passionate he was about coaching, but I think it had other undertones. I believe he was a guy who was not exceptionally gifted at coaching or (not trying to be pejorative here) super intelligent, but he studied other coaches and taught himself to look and sound like one, at least if you spoke to him superficially. But underneath the veneer, I question how well he really grasped the profession conceptually. He did a lot of things because "that's what coaches do" but, when you looked more deeply, he didn't seem to have a strong understanding of the purpose behind much of it. It was always like, Coaches come up with motivational slogans, so I will too (even if they make no sense); coaches play up the animosity with their closest rival, so I will too (even if nobody cares); coaches facilitate a tough culture, so I will too (even if I'm pressuring guys to play injured, which is a bad idea). And so on. To me, it explains both his cartoonishness and also many of the darker aspects of his failure here.
The lingering mystery is why Thomas failed to see this back at the interview stage. Even in Beckman's introductory presser, his shortcomings largely manifested themselves. Not just his difficulty speaking, but just how small-program oriented Beckman was.
Anyway, it's water under the bridge now but worth mentioning just to illustrate once again how far we've come in ten months. You can question whether Lovie can bring himself up to speed on the recruiting game or whether his laid-back style will work in the college game, but nobody questions his intellect or the depth of his coaching insight. Nor is there any question that Whitman would make the same mistake Thomas did in failing to see the emperor's new clothes. It truly is the dawn of a new day.