Re: Bears Offseason Thread

[Banedon]

Seriously. He's as good as we're going to get, and it would probably be viewed as an acceptable hire by most in Chicago.

 

Sign him up.

 

Not happening today guys...Adams' funeral is today.

[jersey cubs fan]

Seriously. He's as good as we're going to get, and it would probably be viewed as an acceptable hire by most in Chicago.

 

Sign him up.

 

Not happening today guys...Adams' funeral is today.

 

I didn't even consider that, when I was trying to think if it made sense for them not to make that decision soon if they were going to make it. I could see it by tomorrow, but if it goes into early next week, that would be weird, unless they aren't hiring him.

[Soul]

I posted the funeral details, then completely forgot about it.

 

DOH.

[Hall7810]

Seriously. He's as good as we're going to get, and it would probably be viewed as an acceptable hire by most in Chicago.

 

Sign him up.

 

By Dan Pompei

 

Scratch another candidate off the list of potential Bears offensive coordinators. A source close to the situation said Rob Chudzinski, who interviewed with the team Thursday, will not be coming to Chicago.

[jersey cubs fan]

I forget, does the NFL have some sort of de facto media blackout for deals during super bowl week, the way MLB tries to do with the World Series? I don't think they do. I feel like jobs are in discussion throughout this period. This is really becoming a disappointment. There's nobody of note on the defensive side of the ball, and every mildly interesting name on offense gets crossed off by the minute. Are guys getting staying away because of demands Lovie is putting on them for what type of offense he wants run? It's looking more and more like this is going to end up being Marinelli getting the DC job and Martz getting OC. I hope they find some relatively young blood in the NFL coaching ranks to work alongside Martz, if he is in fact the guy.

[Soul]

I thought Angelo "vetoed" Martz? Or was that just media crap?

[jersey cubs fan]

I thought Angelo "vetoed" Martz? Or was that just media crap?

 

I didn't see that story.

[Hall7810]

Tidbit from Peter King's MMQB:

b. It's amazing how few people with existing jobs want to work under Lovie Smith in Chicago. That always says as much about how tenuous a head coach's job security is as anything else.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's pretty clear to anyone with a functioning brain that Lovie is as lame a duck as one could find, and few people will willingly step into such a situation.

[Soul]

I thought Angelo "vetoed" Martz? Or was that just media crap?

 

I didn't see that story.

 

I heard it on the Score last week. Now, I find an article that says Angelo reportedly only asked that other candidates be looked at first.

 

http://chi.scout.com/a.z?s=25&p=9&c=2&cid=940758&nid=4208314&fhn=1

 

So it was probably a classic Score over-reach. I think it's time to call Martz and get him in here.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's pretty clear to anyone with a functioning brain that Lovie is as lame a duck as one could find, and few people will willingly step into such a situation.

 

The problem is they need that person to be somebody who could conceivably take over the Lovie if he's canned next year. But since Lovie has the authority to hire the OC, he's not going to be all that excited about bringing in his replacement. The OC hire should be Angelo's call. Lovie doesn't know offense. He doesn't know how to hire coaches. His staff throughout his time in Chicago has been guys with very limited NFL experience, with the exception of Marinelli last year. And that was just him hiring a friend. Angelo is the one who traded for Cutler. Angelo is the one who should be telling Lovie who his OC is going to be.

 

 

Or, as I said from the start, Lovie should be gone already.

[Soul]

TC this year is going to be like a ghost town compared to last year.

[Sammy Sofa]

It's pretty clear to anyone with a functioning brain that Lovie is as lame a duck as one could find, and few people will willingly step into such a situation.

 

The problem is they need that person to be somebody who could conceivably take over the Lovie if he's canned next year. But since Lovie has the authority to hire the OC, he's not going to be all that excited about bringing in his replacement. The OC hire should be Angelo's call. Lovie doesn't know offense. He doesn't know how to hire coaches. His staff throughout his time in Chicago has been guys with very limited NFL experience, with the exception of Marinelli last year. And that was just him hiring a friend. Angelo is the one who traded for Cutler. Angelo is the one who should be telling Lovie who his OC is going to be.

 

 

Or, as I said from the start, Lovie should be gone already.

 

Lovie being gone is really the only thing that makes sense. Bringing in someone who is likely just going to take over after Lovie is gone just potentially makes it even more of a mess and a crappy situation people will still steer clear of until the dust settles. The way the Bears are approaching it now is just halfassed and will accomplish little so long as they refuse to do what needs to be done and fire Lovie.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Sammy Sofa

[Banedon]

I thought Angelo "vetoed" Martz? Or was that just media crap?

 

I didn't see that story.

 

I heard it on the Score last week. Now, I find an article that says Angelo reportedly only asked that other candidates be looked at first.

 

http://chi.scout.com/a.z?s=25&p=9&c=2&cid=940758&nid=4208314&fhn=1

 

So it was probably a classic Score over-reach. I think it's time to call Martz and get him in here.

 

It was Terry Boers that said it, and although they reported it on the "Score Updates" that Angelo "vetoed" Martz, the way Boers had actually put it was just that he wanted to look at other candidates first...but they may end up coming back to Martz.

 

I gotta tell ya, I think Angelo wanted to can Lovie. I think his statement about money not being a factor was true...for him. Unfortunately I think it was a factor for the McCaskeys.

[jersey cubs fan]

Lovie being gone is really the only thing that makes sense. Bringing in someone who is likely just going to take over after Lovie is gone just potentially makes it even more of a mess and a crappy situation people will still steer clear of until the dust settles. The way the Bears are approachig it now is just halfassed and will accomplish little so long as they refuse to do what needs to be done and fire Lovie.

 

I'm not sure if it's half-assed, or not half-assed enough. I think the Bears are actually going 100% in the "this is Lovie's team and he can make all decisions" department, when they really shouldn't be. Everybody is calling him a lame duck, but the Bears have done nothing to indicate he is. He's got 2 years left on his deal, and if a good OC comes in and the team does well in 2010, he will be back in 2011. This isn't a situation where Lovie is as good as gone. It probably won't take much for him to keep his job. They've been extremely patient with all their head coaches since Ditka took over. This isn't a team that fires a guy for failing to make the playoffs, they fire guys for sustained losing and 10 loss seasons.

 

I think this is much more about people not wanting to be Lovie's offensive coordinator, rather than not wanting to go into an unstable situation. No coaching situation is stable. Head coaches are on the hot seat in their first season, some coordinators don't even make it throug their first preseason with the team. Lovie has all the power in this situation, but he shouldn't have it. His defense has been allowed to flounder in the bottom half of the league for three years, but it's the offense that has taken the fall.

[Soul]

I thought Angelo "vetoed" Martz? Or was that just media crap?

 

I didn't see that story.

 

I heard it on the Score last week. Now, I find an article that says Angelo reportedly only asked that other candidates be looked at first.

 

http://chi.scout.com/a.z?s=25&p=9&c=2&cid=940758&nid=4208314&fhn=1

 

So it was probably a classic Score over-reach. I think it's time to call Martz and get him in here.

 

It was Terry Boers that said it, and although they reported it on the "Score Updates" that Angelo "vetoed" Martz, the way Boers had actually put it was just that he wanted to look at other candidates first...but they may end up coming back to Martz.

 

I gotta tell ya, I think Angelo wanted to can Lovie. I think his statement about money not being a factor was true...for him. Unfortunately I think it was a factor for the McCaskeys.

 

That could be.

[Sammy Sofa]

Lovie being gone is really the only thing that makes sense. Bringing in someone who is likely just going to take over after Lovie is gone just potentially makes it even more of a mess and a crappy situation people will still steer clear of until the dust settles. The way the Bears are approachig it now is just halfassed and will accomplish little so long as they refuse to do what needs to be done and fire Lovie.

 

I'm not sure if it's half-assed, or not half-assed enough. I think the Bears are actually going 100% in the "this is Lovie's team and he can make all decisions" department, when they really shouldn't be. Everybody is calling him a lame duck, but the Bears have done nothing to indicate he is. He's got 2 years left on his deal, and if a good OC comes in and the team does well in 2010, he will be back in 2011. This isn't a situation where Lovie is as good as gone. It probably won't take much for him to keep his job. They've been extremely patient with all their head coaches since Ditka took over. This isn't a team that fires a guy for failing to make the playoffs, they fire guys for sustained losing and 10 loss seasons.

 

I think this is much more about people not wanting to be Lovie's offensive coordinator, rather than not wanting to go into an unstable situation. No coaching situation is stable. Head coaches are on the hot seat in their first season, some coordinators don't even make it throug their first preseason with the team. Lovie has all the power in this situation, but he shouldn't have it. His defense has been allowed to flounder in the bottom half of the league for three years, but it's the offense that has taken the fall.

 

I think the difference between the usual hot seat and something like this is that with a "normal" first year after a regime change you arguably have more power to effectively control your own destiny. Yeah, if everything goes wrong you're potentially screwed, but if it works out it's also all on you. This is this weird nebulous situation where it's very likely everyone is moved out in 2 years regardless of individual result.

[jersey cubs fan]

I think the difference between the usual hot seat and something like this is that with a "normal" first year after a regime change you arguably have more power to effectively control your own destiny. Yeah, if everything goes wrong you're potentially screwed, but if it works out it's also all on you. This is this weird nebulous situation where it's very likely everyone is moved out in 2 years regardless of individual result.

 

If the Bears win 10 games next year, they will all be back, and if they are successful the next year they will all have the option to return. There's no reason to expect that regardless of outcome it's a lame duck situation. And it is in the Bears interest for whomever takes over the offense to have a real opportunity to stick around longterm. They do not want to waste Cutler's best years going from coach to coach.

[Sammy Sofa]

I don't know, I think you probably just have more confidence in how the Bears will handle this than I do (and maybe more than a lot of the people offered the jobs).

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't know, I think you probably just have more confidence in how the Bears will handle this than I do (and maybe more than a lot of the people offered the jobs).

 

I don't have any confidence in how they will handle it. I expect them to screw it up. But if they get the right guy in here and do well, there's really no reason to expect them to fire everybody next year, thus paying all of their contracts and finding a whole new regime to take over. If anything, their "cheap" reputation should give people confidence that the Bears aren't going to make such a financially risky move. What I think is going on is people are displaying a lack of confidence in Lovie leading this team to a winning season in 2010, and my guess is part of that is the so called autonomy they are offering the OC isn't really there.

Edited January 25, 2010 by jersey cubs fan

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh, I don't think they're even planning on firing Lovie after next year. I think they fully intend to just ride his contract out.

[jersey cubs fan]

Oh, I don't think they're even planning on firing Lovie after next year. I think they fully intend to just ride his contract out.

 

So if you don't think they are planning on firing him in a year why do you think he's a lame duck and that this is why nobody wants to come here? The question seems to be stability, and the only question of stability is whether or not it's realistic for them to keep their job past next season. I can't imagine any NFL coach thinking he couldn't do a good enough job to help the Bears play better next year and thus everybody keep their jobs. I do think they don't like what they hear from Lovie about what he expects them to do -ie. get off the bus running the ball, and let my defense determine our fate.

[Banedon]

I don't know, I think you probably just have more confidence in how the Bears will handle this than I do (and maybe more than a lot of the people offered the jobs).

 

Have they actually offered anyone the job? Or have they interviewed them and heard them say "sorry guys, I'm gonna take this other job."

[Soul]

It seems clear from the way candidates are staying away that the general feeling is Lovie is toast.

 

I'm sure if he pulls off a minor miracle and wins 10 games he'll be brought back. I'd be floored if that happens. It's probably not in the best long term interest of the organization, either.

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't know, I think you probably just have more confidence in how the Bears will handle this than I do (and maybe more than a lot of the people offered the jobs).

 

Have they actually offered anyone the job? Or have they interviewed them and heard them say "sorry guys, I'm gonna take this other job."

 

It's hard to say, but I feel as if they haven't actually gotten down to offers yet. There was talk that money didn't play a role in the Bates decision, but Bates simply followed his boss to a guaranteed position before getting into the interview process where he was guaranteed nothing with the Bears. It seems like they want to interview lots of guys before making an offer, and guys are taking guarantees from elsewhere instead of waiting and hoping. In general, if they want a guy, reports of offers and imminent signings come out the day they interview and they often aren't allowed to fly home.