What do you think? Did you expect this after the loss?
LINK Stock up after the loss: "OC Luke Getsy. Getsy's game plan kept his rookie quarterback on schedule and looking efficient, and it gave the Bears a chance -- despite Bagent's four turnovers -- with a healthy balance of run and pass calls. The Bears' 156 rushing yards marked the second most the Saints gave up this season."
I know. But in recent weeks I've been wondering if part of the problem (one of many problems on offense) is the fact that Justin Fields is not the QB for this particular offense scheme. Don't get me wrong, I do understand that coaches need to adjust their scheme to the deficiencies of their QB. You shouldn't expect a young QB to be able to do things that just are not in his wheelhouse to do.
But if a D2 rookie QB can do these things as well as he is, just imagine what a really GOOD version of Bagent would be able to do in a Getsy offense.
Bagent is not a starter quality QB and never will be. And he's a green-as-a-gourd rookie to boot. Yet even he is doing some good things in this scheme that Fields has struggled with. I'm not dissing Fields. I think he is a great physical talent. In the right scheme I believe he could be a good starter. I believe that.
But he doesn't seem to be a fit for what Getsy seems to want here on his offense. And I totally get it, that we have all kinds of O problems besides Fields. But still, I do wonder what a solid pocket-passing QB, working behind a solid OL, with better WRs (complimenting D.J.) could do here. The Bears brought in a rookie OC in Getsy... a first time coordinator who was used to working with a guy who DID excel in this scheme (Aaron Rodgers). He is tasked with a running QB who just does not seem a fit here. Getsy will probably mature as a coordinator (if not here then on a future team). He will probably get better over time as he learns the OC gig. But here as a rookie OC with bad player talent around Fields - a QB not really a match for the scheme - this was destined for failure. And of course an argument could be made (a valid one) that Getsy should have abandoned his offense and run an offense that allowed our QB to be a running back kind of guy. I don't know... LOL, the things that make my head hurt when I think about it all. LOL. :-)
I know. But in recent weeks I've been wondering if part of the problem (one of many problems on offense) is the fact that Justin Fields is not the QB for this particular offense scheme. Don't get me wrong, I do understand that coaches need to adjust their scheme to the deficiencies of their QB. You shouldn't expect a young QB to be able to do things that just are not in his wheelhouse to do.
But if a D2 rookie QB can do these things as well as he is, just imagine what a really GOOD version of Bagent would be able to do in a Getsy offense.
Bagent is not a starter quality QB and never will be. And he's a green-as-a-gourd rookie to boot. Yet even he is going some good things in this scheme that Fields has struggled with. I'm not dissing Fields. I think he is a great physical talent. In the right scheme I believe he could be a good starter. I believe that.
But he doesn't seem to be a fit for what Getsy seems to want here on his offense. And I totally get it, that we have all kinds of O problems besides Fields. But still, I do wonder what a solid pocket-passing QB, working behind a solid OL, with better WRs (complimenting D.J.) could do here. The Bears brought in a rookie OC in Getsy... a first time coordinator who was used to working with a guy who DID excel in this scheme (Aaron Rodgers). He is tasked with a running QB who just does not seem a fit here. Getsy will probably mature as a coordinator (if not here then on a future team). He will probably get better over time as he learns the OC gig. But here as a rookie OC with bad player talent around Fields - a QB not really a match for the scheme - this was destined for failure. And of course an argument could be made (a valid one) that Getsy should have abandoned his offense and run an offense that allowed our QB to be a running back kind of guy. I don't know... LOL, the things that make my head hurt when I think about it all. LOL. :-)
I guess my rebuttal would be that Getsy knew who the QB here was when he interviewed for and accepted the job. He should have anticipated that some tweaks to his ideal system would probably be required. And, at times, it seems like he does make tweaks, calls plays that line up with the QB's skill set (whether Fields or Bagent) and has success for one game. Then, the next game, he goes away from what worked and we're right back to bad football. He just doesn't seem capable of consistently putting together a good game plan from week to week.
And I think the fact that he's a "rookie" OC is an overused excuse. A player is allowed to be a rookie for one year, then growth and improvement is demanded, and rightfully so. I don't think a coach should be allowed to be a rookie for his entire tenure in a new position. He gets one year to figure things out, then we need to demand growth and improvement. He hasn't (to me anyways) shown any real growth or improvement in his game planning or play calling.
I know. But in recent weeks I've been wondering if part of the problem (one of many problems on offense) is the fact that Justin Fields is not the QB for this particular offense scheme. Don't get me wrong, I do understand that coaches need to adjust their scheme to the deficiencies of their QB. You shouldn't expect a young QB to be able to do things that just are not in his wheelhouse to do.
But if a D2 rookie QB can do these things as well as he is, just imagine what a really GOOD version of Bagent would be able to do in a Getsy offense.
Bagent is not a starter quality QB and never will be. And he's a green-as-a-gourd rookie to boot. Yet even he is going some good things in this scheme that Fields has struggled with. I'm not dissing Fields. I think he is a great physical talent. In the right scheme I believe he could be a good starter. I believe that.
But he doesn't seem to be a fit for what Getsy seems to want here on his offense. And I totally get it, that we have all kinds of O problems besides Fields. But still, I do wonder what a solid pocket-passing QB, working behind a solid OL, with better WRs (complimenting D.J.) could do here. The Bears brought in a rookie OC in Getsy... a first time coordinator who was used to working with a guy who DID excel in this scheme (Aaron Rodgers). He is tasked with a running QB who just does not seem a fit here. Getsy will probably mature as a coordinator (if not here then on a future team). He will probably get better over time as he learns the OC gig. But here as a rookie OC with bad player talent around Fields - a QB not really a match for the scheme - this was destined for failure. And of course an argument could be made (a valid one) that Getsy should have abandoned his offense and run an offense that allowed our QB to be a running back kind of guy. I don't know... LOL, the things that make my head hurt when I think about it all. LOL. :-)
I guess my rebuttal would be that Getsy knew who the QB here was when he interviewed for and accepted the job. He should have anticipated that some tweaks to his ideal system would probably be required. And, at times, it seems like he does make tweaks, calls plays that line up with the QB's skill set (whether Fields or Bagent) and has success for one game. Then, the next game, he goes away from what worked and we're right back to bad football. He just doesn't seem capable of consistently putting together a good game plan from week to week.
And I think the fact that he's a "rookie" OC is an overused excuse. A player is allowed to be a rookie for one year, then growth and improvement is demanded, and rightfully so. I don't think a coach should be allowed to be a rookie for his entire tenure in a new position. He gets one year to figure things out, then we need to demand growth and improvement. He hasn't (to me anyways) shown any real growth or improvement in his game planning or play calling.
I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle here. I totally agree Getsy has made the mistakes that we talk about here all the time on the messageboard. That's totally on Getsy. At the same time I believe he has not been given enough talent to work with. It's a bit of the same question I have with Fields. Fields has made a lot of mistakes too. But I believe he has not been given the talent he needs to really develop here. I think Getsy took the job of OC believing that Fields could be a decent pocket passer that would fit his offense. But with the supporting roster talent, it just never happened. I am not excusing Fields or Getsy. I guess I'm thinking there is blame to place with BOTH of those two guys, and also with Poles, Eberflus and for sure some of the poor players on offense (how is Velus Jones even on this roster still?) - just a lot of contributing factors here. It's like peeling an onion with layer after layer of problems.
I guess my rebuttal would be that Getsy knew who the QB here was when he interviewed for and accepted the job. He should have anticipated that some tweaks to his ideal system would probably be required. And, at times, it seems like he does make tweaks, calls plays that line up with the QB's skill set (whether Fields or Bagent) and has success for one game. Then, the next game, he goes away from what worked and we're right back to bad football. He just doesn't seem capable of consistently putting together a good game plan from week to week.
And I think the fact that he's a "rookie" OC is an overused excuse. A player is allowed to be a rookie for one year, then growth and improvement is demanded, and rightfully so. I don't think a coach should be allowed to be a rookie for his entire tenure in a new position. He gets one year to figure things out, then we need to demand growth and improvement. He hasn't (to me anyways) shown any real growth or improvement in his game planning or play calling.
It's like peeling an onion with layer after layer of problems.
Post by bearsfaninaz on Nov 7, 2023 16:57:00 GMT -6
Yes someone please hire him as a HC. No way anyone can look at the second half of damn near every game and say he made adjustments to the opposing Ds adjustments lol.