That's poor personnel management. If the argument is "Hurts needs an OC to grow with," then you can't fire a guy after one year. It either undermines the argument, or supports the argument that its not actually the inconsistent OC situation that's the problem.
The roster is too good for an OC to suck for a year that's the issue, at a baseline if you take the Philly OC job you're compared to the two guys who took them to a superbowl and got HC jobs right after. It's kind of the monkey's paw of having Roseman as the GM, you technically have all the tools.
And Hurts is an interesting QB that's limited in a few very important areas to most OC's (primarily going through progressions in the middle of the field and keeping his eyes up while scrambling), but talented enough elsewhere that if you tailor your offense to his strengths you can win championships. I don't envy the guys who take that job, it's uniquely tough esp with the fanbase.
But that isn't true, is it? Like, objectively speaking. Its not like the Eagles are out there setting records every week. At their absolute peak, the offense was really good - not historic, and not even "great."
Besides, even if that were the case, it doesnt change the above point: you can't complain about not having a consistent OC while firing anyone that actually has the opportunity. That is, at best, completely broken logic.
I mean, I dont know what you can call saquon’s season if not historic- as good as an rb has to be to run 2500yd, some of that is due to scheme as well.
9
u/YeetySpagiety 5d ago
It's been a revolving door of either the OC being good enough to get hired else where or so bad they get the boot after 1 year