Raiders to hire Luke Getsy as OC

[NCOUGHMAN]

5 hours ago, RaidersForever said:

     I was thinking the same thing. Once bitten, twice shy. It's good to learn from past mistakes, but it's also good not to allow the pendulum to swing too far in the other direction.

Meh or have a oc confident in himself to bet on himself. Kliff was in it for the $

[NCOUGHMAN]

Not liking how people like hondo talking about getsy averaged 29pts per game vs sec

Vs

ken 7

flor 6

aub 23

lsu 3

tex a&m 28

bama 0

ark 52

ole miss 35

that’s what like 19 per game

had to turn it off after that

 

 

 

 

 

[Raiderlife24]

2 hours ago, Bitty 2.0 said:

Has anyone else heard that Adams vouched for Getsy.

I haven’t heard the raiders vouch for him. Has the team announced it yet, feels like same thing with kliff. I’m sure he will be oc but I haven’t seen anything official or did I miss it? 

[Tank4Drake]

4 hours ago, Raiderlife24 said:

I haven’t heard the raiders vouch for him. Has the team announced it yet, feels like same thing with kliff. I’m sure he will be oc but I haven’t seen anything official or did I miss it? 

Can Adams opinion honestly be trusted? Dude thought it was wise to leave Rodgers and a well-coached team for Carr and McDaniels. 

[ronjon1990]

12 hours ago, NCOUGHMAN said:

Not liking how people like hondo talking about getsy averaged 29pts per game vs sec

Hondo, for one, is a Raiders brand shill that is an unserious person doing unserious work. 

His takes are consistently the worst In a land where kumbaya is now thought to bring Superbowls and glory. Everything the Raiders ultimately do anymore, he just throws weight behind 100% for the clicks. 

Hondo is garbage and not a single person on the face of the earth should take him as anything more than a bad SNL skit regarding Mark's decision making. 

[Nightmare]

1 hour ago, ronjon1990 said:

Hondo, for one, is a Raiders brand shill that is an unserious person doing unserious work. 

His takes are consistently the worst In a land where kumbaya is now thought to bring Superbowls and glory. Everything the Raiders ultimately do anymore, he just throws weight behind 100% for the clicks. 

Hondo is garbage and not a single person on the face of the earth should take him as anything more than a bad SNL skit regarding Mark's decision making. 

I had to unfollow him on Twitter because he's completely insufferable.

You don't actually get any news or serious insider info with Hondo. You get one of three types of tweet:
- Him giving his "thoughts" on what the Raiders are doing rather than actual journalism
- Posting a link for each individual player on the roster or draft prospect as if he's written about them specifically (when really it's just a link to SI that goes nowhere)
- Quote tweeting (rather than just replying like a normal person) saying "thank you" to every single person who compliments him on socials

There's no way to put it other than that he's really, really annoying.

[RaidersAreOne]

What I was mentioning earlier:

 

[BackinBlack]

8 hours ago, Tank4Drake said:

Can Adams opinion honestly be trusted? Dude thought it was wise to leave Rodgers and a well-coached team for Carr and McDaniels. 

Adams had his what 2nd best year in his career with that duo (just personal stats obviously)
to act like he just lost it all here is misguided. 

seems if anything he knew GB was about to move on from rodgers... and looking at my notes... thats exactly what they did. 

[Jeremy408]

1 hour ago, RaidersAreOne said:

What I was mentioning earlier:

 

Its possible but you dont hire someone based on possibility; you hire based on probability imo

Edited February 6 by Jeremy408

[ronjon1990]

1 hour ago, RaidersAreOne said:

What I was mentioning earlier:

 

So.......he has no spine and just takes orders regardless of the ship sinking? This is the guy we're giving total control of our offense to?

God, can we stop hiring cowards? 

[Jeremy408]

1 minute ago, ronjon1990 said:

So.......he has no spine and just takes orders regardless of the ship sinking? This is the guy we're giving total control of our offense to?

God, can we stop hiring cowards? 

I mean.. to be fair to him, when you have a boss you do with the boss says. Its that simple. I just don't know why he would want to take the bears(emphasis on the bears)Job. 

[ronjon1990]

1 minute ago, Jeremy408 said:

I mean.. to be fair to him, when you have a boss you do with the boss says. Its that simple. I just don't know why he would want to take the bears(emphasis on the bears)Job. 

I mean, yes and no. 

I take direction from my superiors in DC, sure. I also have a spine and of something is blatantly wrong or contrary to the mission/law, I have full agency to disregard those directions and let the process play out as it may. Professional integrity is a thing. 

Getsy taking orders from his boss- a defensive mind- on running the offense is as bad as Patrick Graham apparently allowing Josh McDaniels to dictate how the defense should operate- and we all saw the results (and it's why I refuse to throw major support or adulation towards Graham.....he's either incompetent and the success was due to AP, or he's a wet paper sack pushover with little integrity). 

My beef stems from the simple question- if AP or his seemingly endless supply of defense-oriented mentors tell Getsy we're going to run a Wing-T Triple Option with Wishbone elements whilst lining up our OTs and OGs out wide and putting Brian Hoyer at RB, is he just going to say "Sure thing, boss!"? I was intrigued but overall lukewarm to Kingsbury, but at least we can nearly  say with certainty that know he would take command and responsibility for the offense's scheme and structure from top to bottom. Getsy, apparently, is a yes man willing to tank out and lose his job to please his superiors at all costs, sensible or not. 

Idk, maybe it's just me, but I'm getting really tired of failed coaches and coordinators using the "it wasn't actually my fault, I was just following orders" crutch to excuse their poor performances. 9 out 10 times, they still fail and largely due to their inability to take ownership of poor results and actually adjust. Much like McDaniels, I expect the excuses to be "self reflection and better execution" instead of "What we tried didn't work and we're going to make changes to find something that does". 

I don't mean to be facetious or adversarial here, but can you name someone who has recently used the "not my fault" excuse and gone elsewhere to find success, thus proving themselves? I ask, because I can't without conjecture (think: Reich in Carolina....maybe Bryce Young sucks and David Tepper is a total buffoon, but Reich hasn't reappeared elsewhere to prove he's not to blame, either). 

[bucksavage1]

Can anyone name a Successful QB/Coach in Chicago the last 30 seasons?

[RaisinBran]

On 2/5/2024 at 8:42 AM, ronjon1990 said:

I think this sort of speaks to why some people are highly puzzled by the hire. How is it any different than Bo Hardigree last year? 

Seems we hired a new OC with the same or worse results who had a more physically gifted QB to work with. 

We all know AOC is limited. We saw it. It wasn't like he was drafted with oodles of upside potential from a physical standpoint. 

Bo at least made some attempts to tailor the offense to AOC's limited strengths, whereas Getsy seems to have been hell bent on square pegging a round hole in Chicago. I think Fields is just a bust and not a good QB, but he has a ton of talent as a runner that Getsy didn't seem.to want to design the offense for. 

I mean, I can understand why Getsy wouldn't want to tailor the offense for Fields- it's not a long term, sustainable system in the making. But....point remains he didn't. We had someone who did- albeit to pretty middling-to-poor results. 

I guess the million dollar question is what benefit does Getsy bring that Bo wouldn't have?

Bo at least tried to tailor to strenghts. Bo has familiarity with the roster. Bo had a more limited QB to work with. Bo would offer some level of continuity. 

Getsy's resume isn't so out of this world to warrant him over Bo, imo. It's not like we went out and got a maestro OC. We got a guy who is practically a lateral move from a guy nobody wanted around long term. He doesn't appear to bring any bonuses to the table, but he represents a regression in terms of familiarity, continuity, and possibly tailoring the offense to suit our strengths. 

I expected a clear upgrade from Bo Hardigree, at the very least. If we indeed upgraded, right now the evidence shows we have done so to the most minimal degree possible. That, I think, it what has people irked by it. 

I don't think it's fair to say the playbook was severely limited by AOC since he was thrown in there just like Bo was. The situation is completely different. The only real thing AOC lacks is mobility (or the ability to move around at all lol). He can still operate a ton of different plays and throws an average deep ball. If Bo and AOC had a full offseason we would've been able to do the comparison you are making.

Fields is kind of the opposite of AOC, he is mobile, can't make quick reads, which forces the OC to call plays that require getting the ball out quick. He throws a decent deep ball when he knows where he is going with it pre-snap. He has been the starter for a couple years now and there aren't any good excuses at this point as to why the playbook would be so limited. I see some Field's supporters say the OL was trash which prevented a bunch of plays being called too. 

We really just have to wait and see how next year goes. It does feel like a roll of the dice in terms of whether this is a lateral move or not, I'll give you that. 

[Jeremy408]

18 minutes ago, ronjon1990 said:

I mean, yes and no. 

I take direction from my superiors in DC, sure. I also have a spine and of something is blatantly wrong or contrary to the mission/law, I have full agency to disregard those directions and let the process play out as it may. Professional integrity is a thing. 

Getsy taking orders from his boss- a defensive mind- on running the offense is as bad as Patrick Graham apparently allowing Josh McDaniels to dictate how the defense should operate- and we all saw the results (and it's why I refuse to throw major support or adulation towards Graham.....he's either incompetent and the success was due to AP, or he's a wet paper sack pushover with little integrity). 

My beef stems from the simple question- if AP or his seemingly endless supply of defense-oriented mentors tell Getsy we're going to run a Wing-T Triple Option with Wishbone elements whilst lining up our OTs and OGs out wide and putting Brian Hoyer at RB, is he just going to say "Sure thing, boss!"? I was intrigued but overall lukewarm to Kingsbury, but at least we can nearly  say with certainty that know he would take command and responsibility for the offense's scheme and structure from top to bottom. Getsy, apparently, is a yes man willing to tank out and lose his job to please his superiors at all costs, sensible or not. 

Idk, maybe it's just me, but I'm getting really tired of failed coaches and coordinators using the "it wasn't actually my fault, I was just following orders" crutch to excuse their poor performances. 9 out 10 times, they still fail and largely due to their inability to take ownership of poor results and actually adjust. Much like McDaniels, I expect the excuses to be "self reflection and better execution" instead of "What we tried didn't work and we're going to make changes to find something that does". 

I don't mean to be facetious or adversarial here, but can you name someone who has recently used the "not my fault" excuse and gone elsewhere to find success, thus proving themselves? I ask, because I can't without conjecture (think: Reich in Carolina....maybe Bryce Young sucks and David Tepper is a total buffoon, but Reich hasn't reappeared elsewhere to prove he's not to blame, either). 

1. What was he supposed to do? ignore him & just calls what he wants?

2. I completely agree with this. Im a results guy(within reason) which is why i didnt like the mcdaniels hire. My thing will always be can we expect improvement. The answer is no(although their offense was better than ours statistically in every category). Is it possible for there to be improvement because there could be more to luke getsy than what we saw in Chicago? The answer is yes. If I was a betting man, I would bet on the former; not the latter. 

3.Yea but thats also because Reich is a retread. So it was his last chance anyway. 

Edited February 6 by Jeremy408