ADVERTISEMENT

Bears

Fun Fact: John Fox is the only coach in the history of the Bears with previous HC experience.
 
One thing the new GM is walking into is a less than ideal draft situation this year due to Ryan Pace trading away his picks. They only have five picks in the following rounds 2, 3, 5, 5 & 6. Next year they will have one pick in all 7 rounds.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: kkhawk and Wassup13
Fun Fact: John Fox is the only coach in the history of the Bears with previous HC experience.
True and untrue. Marc Trestman was a Pro Football Head Coach in the Canadian Football League before being hired by the Bears. NFL head coaching experience?? Uhhh, no!
 
True and untrue. Marc Trestman was a Pro Football Head Coach in the Canadian Football League before being hired by the Bears. NFL head coaching experience?? Uhhh, no!
It just illustrates the difference in ownership/organizational acumen and perhaps just luck...the last 3 Steeler head coaches were coordinators without a HC stint on their resume.
 
It just illustrates the difference in ownership/organizational acumen and perhaps just luck...the last 3 Steeler head coaches were coordinators without a HC stint on their resume.
It's mindblowing to me, that I'm getting way too close to being 50, and the Steelers have had a head coach search twice in my lifetime. There are 53? year olds that can say the same thing.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: corey90 and stl705
True and untrue. Marc Trestman was a Pro Football Head Coach in the Canadian Football League before being hired by the Bears. NFL head coaching experience?? Uhhh, no!
I thought that the NFL part was assumed, but yes, Trestman was a CFL HC.
 
Although I agree it is difficult to know if you have hired a good manager until they have been in the position for a while, I also disagree with portions of your comments above.

The last 30 years of my career were spent in management. I have been interviewed by individuals, panels, and screened by professional employment consulting firms. Yet, far more of my time was spent as the interviewer, often as a member of a hiring panel. This background is only presented to suggest I have experience in this area of discussion.

I watched the entire press conference of George McCaskey. He may or may not have good judgment in terms of evaluating prospective candidates, but he clearly understands the hiring process and displayed good management characteristics himself. He did in fact indicate to Matt Nagy that the questioned posed about who to start at quarterback was inappropriate. On the other hand, to fire a person on the basis of a single question that they asked would display incredibly poor management. The hiring panel the Bears will be using in this process covers all the important bases. The NFL has made it clear that staff diversity is important to the league. The Bears have hired a diversity manager and she is part of the hiring panel. That base is covered. Former Bears players as well as the press and fans have suggested player opinions should be considered in the process. One member of the hiring panel is said to have very strong ties to and relationships with the players in the locker-room. That base is covered. It has been said a "football person" needs to have a significant role in the hiring process. Bill Polian is on the panel to fill that role and I suspect he will have considerably more influence on the final decision than most members of the panel. That base is covered. Whomever the Bears hire for both the coaching position and the general manager position, contracts will need to be negotiated and finalized for both those positions. Ted Phillips may not be a good evaluator of personnel, but he has done a stellar job with respect to contracts and other legal matters and is on the panel solely to fill that role. So that base, too, is covered. All the bases have been covered and yet, with five members, the panel is not so large that it becomes cumbersome. I respectfully submit that those who suggest George McCaskey is a poor manager who does not understand the hiring process, do not themselves understand the hiring process.

Understanding the hiring process is not the same thing as having good hiring judgment. Understanding good management is not the same thing as having good management judgment. McCaskey understands this as well. He was asked several times why Bears fans should trust the Bears (or him) that they will make the correct decision this time. His answer each time was, in essence, that they shouldn't. He indicated an understanding that success in professional sports is driven by wins and losses. He acknowledged that by that standard the Bears have not been successful enough. He knows the success of these two decisions (GM and coach) will be measured in the future and there is nothing he can say or do in the present that will reassure fans. That is simply the way things are, and George McCaskey displayed that he is realistic enough to know that and accept that.

He is also realistic enough to understand that ideally the General Manager should be hired first. He said that at the press conference. And yet, while it is important to have underlying principles and to let them guide one's decisions, a person should never allow themselves to become a prisoner of those principles and blindly follow them irrespective of circumstances. Allowing some flexibility in the decision making process is simply a reflection of good judgment. That is why McCaskey stated during the press conference that they might hire the coach first if circumstances dictated that was the correct thing to do. I don't personally see a prospective coaching candidate out there that is so good the Bears should hire him before hiring the general manager, but I do understand the thought process.

Finally, I will close by addressing your statement that "...if their experience looks great on paper that's all you have to go by." I could not disagree more. That is why one does interviews. Among other things, during the interview process you try to determine those values that the candidate holds dearly and how the candidate thinks. While it is true the resume has to meet certain minimum criteria, it is the intrinsic characteristics of the person that will determine whether or not they will be a difference maker for your organization. Both a generic example and a specific example may prove useful. Generically, if you are interviewing a candidate that frequently uses phrases like "my department", or "my people", or "my budget" or "my vehicle fleet", beware. They are likely self-centered and will cause more problems than they solve. Similarly, if they are all about "I" did this and "I" did that rather than attributing successes to the contributions of others as well, you are probably interviewing a poor candidate.

My specific example of not trusting a resume is admittedly somewhat speculative since I've never met the person. I am speaking of Ed Orgeron. The man won a national title at LSU. What can look better than that on a resume (at least for a college coach)? I suspect anyone who has a 30-minute conversation with the man would know better than to hire him as a college head football coach. The national title was clearly the result of the players and, more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, the two coordinators he had on staff at the time. That is why the wins dried up as soon as the coordinators left. They have had great success at their new jobs; Ed did not have continued success at LSU and he was dismissed.

Like all of you I wish the Bears success in this hiring process. It would be fun to see them in the playoffs again very soon.
I agree with a portion of what you say but disagree with some other things you say. I have been involved in the hiring process for 40 years along with managing staff from entry level team leads up to COO positions. My career has been mostly Operations. The bottom line Nagy coached the Bears 3 years and he asked a question about how he should do his job. He wants to get his assistant coaches opinion fine. You don’t ask the owner? We differ on this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander32
I thought that the NFL part was assumed, but yes, Trestman was a CFL HC.
Just giving you crap. :) I didn't bother to check, but I think Trestman, after leaving the Bears, went to the Ravens as an OC. Then right back to the CFL where he won another championship. Not sure what that means, but....
 
Just giving you crap. :) I didn't bother to check, but I think Trestman, after leaving the Bears, went to the Ravens as an OC. Then right back to the CFL where he won another championship. Not sure what that means, but....
It means he's a great coach for an inferior product of football.

I think in baseball he would be called a AAAA player. Somewhere in between the level of an MLB and AAA player.
 
Harbaugh rah rah? I wouldn’t consider him rah rah at all. I think he’s a lot similar to Bill Belichick.

Wait, what???

Are we talking about the same Jim Harbaugh? Do you have him confused with John Harbaugh?
 
Wait, what???

Are we talking about the same Jim Harbaugh? Do you have him confused with John Harbaugh?
No

He’s very unique but would not consider him “rah rah”.

Satellite camps, spring ball in Rome, taking his shirt off at practice, sleeping on a recruits floor….all very different but wouldn’t say they are rah rah.

Phil Jackson would be another comparison. Very outside the box but not rah rah.


What’s rah rah about Harbaugh?
 
Maybe splitting hairs here, but George Halas stopped coaching and came back later, so not entirely accurate.
Yeah, that's a little different. I mean...he owned the team. So I am sure he used his experience to hire himself again. Maybe he gave himself a bigger paycheck since he came in the second time with experience. But Halas coached. Then stopped...then came back...and stopped...and came back...and stopped...then came back...and then stopped. Geez, talk about a head-spinner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mchsalumni
What's rah rah about Harbaugh?

I think the whole, "who's got it better than us?" qualifies as rah rah for me. Im not necessarily against rah rah or disagree that he's different. But I do have to say its a bit rah rah.
 
You would think. The Packers are $44m over the cap next season. Can’t sign him and Adams and have much left on the roster. Could see him in Denver or Vegas
He has 1 year left on deal, I know he wants an extension but he is signed for next season. If they gave him an extension they could easily figure out the 2022 cap hit. Beyond that who knows.

now whether he wants to go back to GB is another question.
 
Last edited:
Is Matt LaFleur of today in similar situation to Tampa Bay era Tony Dungy...does GB need a "Point B to Point C" change at Head Coach?
Funny how that works. You have consistent losing seasons and it’s time for a new coach. You have consistent winning seasons but is time for a new coach because you can’t advance in the playoffs? Dammed if you do and damned if you don’t. Winning it all ain’t that easy right? 36 years ago…
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Alexander32
Funny how that works. You have consistent losing seasons and it’s time for a new coach. You have consistent winning seasons but is time for a new coach because you can’t advance in the playoffs? Dammed if you do and damned if you don’t. Winning it all ain’t that easy right? 36 years ago…
Packer special teams god awful all year. He either coached it or allowed it to happen
 
I don’t disagree. It’s just strange questioning a coach’s future when they’re winning. Tough business to be in.
This game a was a lot more than their poor special teams. Rodgers only targeted Jones and Adams. 1 target to Lazard none to any other wide out. When GB was at their best Rodgers spread it around and Lazard was huge for them the last month of the season.

Rodgers wasn’t terrible by any means but in the second half he engineered and offense that totaled 53 yards.
 
GB has had HOF QBs for 30 straight years(give or take a few injury years) and 2 SB Champions….kinda nuts if you think about it.
If only HOF QB equated to Super Bowl champion. Ask Dan Marino. And the Bears certainly didn’t win because of McMahon. I think too much emphasis is put on the QB. It’s all about total package and the planets being aligned.
 
If only HOF QB equated to Super Bowl champion. Ask Dan Marino. And the Bears certainly didn’t win because of McMahon. I think too much emphasis is put on the QB. It’s all about total package and the planets being aligned.
Never said HOF QB=Champion but it’s very interesting to see that up in GB.
 
If only HOF QB equated to Super Bowl champion. Ask Dan Marino. And the Bears certainly didn’t win because of McMahon. I think too much emphasis is put on the QB. It’s all about total package and the planets being aligned.
You may be right, too much emphasis being put on the QB. But the overwhelming, overwhelming number of Super Bowls won, have been won by HOF and future HOF QBs. The chances of a team even getting to the SB is decreased significantly if the QB is average.
 
  • Like
Reactions: corey90 and Gene K.
What a weekend of NFL playoff football. By far the best weekend of games ever. I watched all four and gave up on none of them, although the Rams Bucs game had me close to changing the channel.

But one thing that really bothers me is the stubbornness of the NFL to keep the silly OT rule. You lose the coin flip you can lose the game and not even touch the ball on offense. And in the BUF, KC game it was pretty obvious KC would win the game after winning the coin toss. It got to the point where neither defense could stop neither offense. I think BUF deserved a chance to at least answer KC's TD.

In no other of the four major sports does this kind of silliness occur. We all know if a basketball game goes to OT an extra period is started and the clock runs all the way down before a winner emerges. Both teams will get the ball with a chance to score. In baseball, extra innings gives both teams a chance to bat. In hockey, the first goal wins, but both teams have the chance to possess the puck.

Why does the NFL continue this nonsense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: corey90
What a weekend of NFL playoff football. By far the best weekend of games ever. I watched all four and gave up on none of them, although the Rams Bucs game had me close to changing the channel.

But one thing that really bothers me is the stubbornness of the NFL to keep the silly OT rule. You lose the coin flip you can lose the game and not even touch the ball on offense. And in the BUF, KC game it was pretty obvious KC would win the game after winning the coin toss. It got to the point where neither defense could stop neither offense. I think BUF deserved a chance to at least answer KC's TD.

In no other of the four major sports does this kind of silliness occur. We all know if a basketball game goes to OT an extra period is started and the clock runs all the way down before a winner emerges. Both teams will get the ball with a chance to score. In baseball, extra innings gives both teams a chance to bat. In hockey, the first goal wins, but both teams have the chance to possess the puck.

Why does the NFL continue this nonsense?
Yeah that does suck. It becomes reliant on a flip of the coin. Weak, especially since all of these players busted their asses for an entire game to end a season that way.
 
I think the hold up to allowing teams a chance to match the score has been that they don't want the games going too long because of injuries/entertainment.

My solution(for use in the postseason only) would be to allow both teams a possession, but require they go for two if they score a td. Two point tries are very close to a 50/50 coin toss, but its decided by skill rather than luck. If they are still tied, next score of any kind wins.
 
It's professional sports. They get paid to stop the other team. Buffalo knew the rules going into the game.

I really hope those of you who want to see OT changed to both teams getting the ball are not the ones who rail against 10 year olds getting participation trophies, or 4-5 teams making the IHSA Playoffs. Because that inconsistency would be embarrassing.
 
85 Bears would have enjoyed losing the OT coin flip.

Did anyone see Trubisky yesterday??
 
It's professional sports. They get paid to stop the other team. Buffalo knew the rules going into the game.

I really hope those of you who want to see OT changed to both teams getting the ball are not the ones who rail against 10 year olds getting participation trophies, or 4-5 teams making the IHSA Playoffs. Because that inconsistency would be embarrassing.
I’m saying why change the rules for the postseason? Give the teams that earned their way there a chance. I’m sure Bears fans would have a different opinion if they lost that way in the playoffs. Whenever that is LOL.
 
It's professional sports. They get paid to stop the other team. Buffalo knew the rules going into the game.

I really hope those of you who want to see OT changed to both teams getting the ball are not the ones who rail against 10 year olds getting participation trophies, or 4-5 teams making the IHSA Playoffs. Because that inconsistency would be embarrassing.
I admit that my first reaction was the same as your post. Buffalo lost because they had a defensive collapse in the final 13 seconds of regular time and then again in OT.

That said, from purely an entertainment perspective, I am intrigued by the idea of allowing both teams to possess the ball at least once no matter what during OT. That game was so fun to watch, I didn't want it to end.
 
I admit that my first reaction was the same as your post. Buffalo lost because they had a defensive collapse in the final 13 seconds of regular time and then again in OT.

That said, from purely an entertainment perspective, I am intrigued by the idea of allowing both teams to possess the ball at least once no matter what during OT. That game was so fun to watch, I didn't want it to end.
Mahomes is like a cat with 9 lives…
 
  • Like
Reactions: corey90
What a weekend of NFL playoff football. By far the best weekend of games ever. I watched all four and gave up on none of them, although the Rams Bucs game had me close to changing the channel.

But one thing that really bothers me is the stubbornness of the NFL to keep the silly OT rule. You lose the coin flip you can lose the game and not even touch the ball on offense. And in the BUF, KC game it was pretty obvious KC would win the game after winning the coin toss. It got to the point where neither defense could stop neither offense. I think BUF deserved a chance to at least answer KC's TD.

In no other of the four major sports does this kind of silliness occur. We all know if a basketball game goes to OT an extra period is started and the clock runs all the way down before a winner emerges. Both teams will get the ball with a chance to score. In baseball, extra innings gives both teams a chance to bat. In hockey, the first goal wins, but both teams have the chance to possess the puck.

Why does the NFL continue this nonsense?
That was the best football weekend ever and I didn’t even have a team in the playoffs. It’s amazing that everyone of the teams have a great QBs . I think the weakest QB is Jimmy G. I mean their is some really good young guns. Mahomes, Allen, Burrow. Fun to watch these guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: markmacaluso
This was a great - and completely wild - nfl playoff weekend.

Joe Burrow was sacked 9 times and won. Only 1 other qb was sacked 8+ in w playoff game and won (mcnabb).

Jimmy G has thrown for 300 yards total amd 0 TDs in 2 games.. and won both!

Mahomes - simply put the escapability he showed yesterday was something I’ve never seen in my life. He knew every step, every twirl, every move to make to effortlessly shake away the opposing pass rush.

Not to mention the show allen and mahomes put on. Very fun for fans… and some great defense too!
 
  • Like
Reactions: corey90
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT