Chicago Bears Offseason 2012

[RynoRules]

Unless the ownership is utterly out of touch and the President is just trying to save his arse.

[Soul]

If they went with Ruskell, I hope they do it short term so they can line up the termination of the head coach and GM contracts. Then they can make big changes all at once.

 

What's the point of that though? Why not do it all now when you had the chance with 1/2 of that equation already gone? And I actually like Lovie. I don't want him fired, but there's no reason to intentionally hire a short-term GM.

 

It might give them time to evaluate Ruskell, and might also give them a buffer if they aren't really liking the other candidates who are potentially available right now.

 

That's just a guess, of course.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm trying really hard not to be utterly despondent over the inevitable farce that will be this offseason. Really hard.

[cubbyvirus00]

I'm trying really hard not to be utterly despondent over the inevitable farce that will be this offseason. Really hard.

 

All the have to do is just follow the trendy names and hire one of them. Anybody but Ruskell...

[jersey cubs fan]

I would be ecstatic with anybody but Ruskell plus adding Bates or something similar, and I think that's a very low bar that might not even be met.

[Soul]

The few reports I read made it sound like Ruskell is just another consideration at this point, so I'll wait before being upset about it.

[RynoRules]

I'm trying really hard not to be utterly despondent over the inevitable farce that will be this offseason. Really hard.

 

I honestly like Lovie and admire his professionalism, but how do we go from consistently mediocre to top-notch without changing the approach and culture, particularly on offense? I know that (as of now) we don't have the personnel for this, but would it kill us to hire a 3-4 D-coordinator and a head coach who belives in that system? How about an O-coordinator from the Walsh/Holmgren/Reid coaching tree?

 

This is ultimately McCaskey's fault, IMO. If he genuinely wanted a dynamic team like the one to the north that has been kicking his arse for 20-plus years he would have stepped outside his comfort zone and grabbed McKenzie, who was clearly ripe for the taking. Now the best case scenario might be the guy from the Falcolns ("meh" draft record) and Mike Tice is this year's version of Professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts.

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm trying really hard not to be utterly despondent over the inevitable farce that will be this offseason. Really hard.

 

I honestly like Lovie and admire his professionalism, but how do we go from consistently mediocre to top-notch without changing the approach and culture, particularly on offense? I know that (as of now) we don't have the personnel for this, but would it kill us to hire a 3-4 D-coordinator? How about an O-coordinator from the Walsh/Holmgren/Reid coaching tree?

 

This is ultimately McCaskey's fault, IMO. If he genuinely wanted a dynamic team like the one to the north that has been kicking his arse for 20-plus years he would have stepped outside his comfort zone and grabbed McKenzie, who was clearly ripe for the taking. Now the best case scenario might be the guy from the Falcolns ("meh" draft record) and Mike Tice is this year's version of Professor of Defense Against the Dark Arts.

 

The difference between what this team is and what this team could be hardly has any correlation to switching to a 3-4. That isn't any type of brilliant scheme. The difference is OC and general offensive philosophy. I think that Lovie has come around on the the idea of needing a real passing game. He's never going to want an Andy Reid style throw on every play offense. But if he ever gets competent offensive personel I could see him being more than happy to have Jay throw as much as needs be.

[rawaction]

I honestly like Lovie and admire his professionalism, but how do we go from consistently mediocre to top-notch without changing the approach and culture, particularly on offense? I know that (as of now) we don't have the personnel for this, but would it kill us to hire a 3-4 D-coordinator? How about an O-coordinator from the Walsh/Holmgren/Reid coaching tree?

 

It could kill us to hire a 3-4 coordinator, considering all the personnel says 4-3. Teams that have made that change have invested heavily in the conversion (Packers- Raji and Matthews; Texans- JJ Watt and others). The Bears are already heavily invested in the 4-3 with the money paid to Urlacher, Briggs and Peppers, and they can't really afford to switch at this point.

[RynoRules]

I honestly like Lovie and admire his professionalism, but how do we go from consistently mediocre to top-notch without changing the approach and culture, particularly on offense? I know that (as of now) we don't have the personnel for this, but would it kill us to hire a 3-4 D-coordinator? How about an O-coordinator from the Walsh/Holmgren/Reid coaching tree?

 

It could kill us to hire a 3-4 coordinator, considering all the personnel says 4-3. Teams that have made that change have invested heavily in the conversion (Packers- Raji and Matthews; Texans- JJ Watt and others). The Bears are already heavily invested in the 4-3 with the money paid to Urlacher, Briggs and Peppers, and they can't really afford to switch at this point.

 

I agree - that is what I said above in bold.

 

My point was that I do not believe the Bears as an organization have evolved at the rate that some of the more dynamic and succesful teams have. I was using the 3-4 and West Coast offense as examples of largely successfull, non-traditional schemes that have been used to great effect in other places. Obviously they don't work everywhere, but there's no reason (again, other than current personnel) that they couldn't work here.

[jersey cubs fan]

I honestly like Lovie and admire his professionalism, but how do we go from consistently mediocre to top-notch without changing the approach and culture, particularly on offense? I know that (as of now) we don't have the personnel for this, but would it kill us to hire a 3-4 D-coordinator? How about an O-coordinator from the Walsh/Holmgren/Reid coaching tree?

 

It could kill us to hire a 3-4 coordinator, considering all the personnel says 4-3. Teams that have made that change have invested heavily in the conversion (Packers- Raji and Matthews; Texans- JJ Watt and others). The Bears are already heavily invested in the 4-3 with the money paid to Urlacher, Briggs and Peppers, and they can't really afford to switch at this point.

 

I agree - that is what I said above in bold.

 

My point was that I do not believe the Bears as an organization have evolved at the rate that some of the more dynamic and succesful teams have. I was using the 3-4 and West Coast offense as examples of largely successfull, non-traditional schemes that have been used to great effect in other places. Obviously they don't work everywhere, but there's no reason (again, other than current personnel) that they couldn't work here.

 

The 3-4 has been around a very long time. It is not new and innovative.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Not that it really means anything, but I've been annoyed by 3-4 defenses ever since I was a little kid.

[RynoRules]

I honestly like Lovie and admire his professionalism, but how do we go from consistently mediocre to top-notch without changing the approach and culture, particularly on offense? I know that (as of now) we don't have the personnel for this, but would it kill us to hire a 3-4 D-coordinator? How about an O-coordinator from the Walsh/Holmgren/Reid coaching tree?

 

It could kill us to hire a 3-4 coordinator, considering all the personnel says 4-3. Teams that have made that change have invested heavily in the conversion (Packers- Raji and Matthews; Texans- JJ Watt and others). The Bears are already heavily invested in the 4-3 with the money paid to Urlacher, Briggs and Peppers, and they can't really afford to switch at this point.

 

I agree - that is what I said above in bold.

 

My point was that I do not believe the Bears as an organization have evolved at the rate that some of the more dynamic and succesful teams have. I was using the 3-4 and West Coast offense as examples of largely successfull, non-traditional schemes that have been used to great effect in other places. Obviously they don't work everywhere, but there's no reason (again, other than current personnel) that they couldn't work here.

 

The 3-4 has been around a very long time. It is not new and innovative.

 

Well, in that sense neither is the West Coast offense. My point is that the Bears tend to be stubborn in changing their systems and (for the most part) stay with fairly conservative ones. I realize the Cover 2 is different from the 4-3 that Tobin ran back in the 80's after Ryan left, but it isn't exactly an about-face in terms of dialing-up creative blitzes (in fact Rivera was sent packing in part because he blitzed too much for the Bears liking).

 

The Bears have tended to be relatively vanilla on both offense and defense over the years. I could get into the details later, but if you are old enough to have been watching them for the last 30 years you likely get my drift.

[Pushfrog98]

I honestly like Lovie and admire his professionalism, but how do we go from consistently mediocre to top-notch without changing the approach and culture, particularly on offense? I know that (as of now) we don't have the personnel for this, but would it kill us to hire a 3-4 D-coordinator? How about an O-coordinator from the Walsh/Holmgren/Reid coaching tree?

 

It could kill us to hire a 3-4 coordinator, considering all the personnel says 4-3. Teams that have made that change have invested heavily in the conversion (Packers- Raji and Matthews; Texans- JJ Watt and others). The Bears are already heavily invested in the 4-3 with the money paid to Urlacher, Briggs and Peppers, and they can't really afford to switch at this point.

 

I agree - that is what I said above in bold.

 

My point was that I do not believe the Bears as an organization have evolved at the rate that some of the more dynamic and succesful teams have. I was using the 3-4 and West Coast offense as examples of largely successfull, non-traditional schemes that have been used to great effect in other places. Obviously they don't work everywhere, but there's no reason (again, other than current personnel) that they couldn't work here.

 

The 3-4 has been around a very long time. It is not new and innovative.

 

Well, in that sense neither is the West Coast offense. My point is that the Bears tend to be stubborn in changing their systems and (for the most part) stay with fairly conservative ones. I realize the Cover 2 is different from the 4-3 that Tobin ran back in the 80's after Ryan left, but it isn't exactly an about-face in terms of dialing-up creative blitzes (in fact Rivera was sent packing in part because he blitzed too much for the Bears liking).

 

The Bears have tended to be relatively vanilla on both offense and defense over the years. I could get into the details later, but if you are old enough to have been watching them for the last 30 years you likely get my drift.

I understand what you're saying. That has been a point of frustration for me as well. The Packers didn't have the personnel for a 3-4 Defense, but in the span of about 2 years, they did.

 

The THEME isn't whats important here, it's that the Bears seem resistant to any kind of change and tend to get left behind when other teams make those changes.

[RynoRules]

Not that it really means anything, but I've been annoyed by 3-4 defenses ever since I was a little kid.

 

I think guys like Dick LeBeau (notwithstanding last night's unfortunate result; his body of work is far greater than one loss) and Bill Belichick can scheme a 3-4 to beat just about any offense. You can put a ton of pressure on offenses when the O-Line has to do a lot of thinking about where the blitz is coming from.

[jersey cubs fan]

Not that it really means anything, but I've been annoyed by 3-4 defenses ever since I was a little kid.

 

I think guys like Dick LeBeau (notwithstanding last night's unfortunate result; his body of work is far greater than one loss) and Bill Belichick can scheme a 3-4 to beat just about any offense. You can put a ton of pressure on offenses when the O-Line has to do a lot of thinking about where the blitz is coming from.

 

Belichik's stopped being able to scheme to shut down offenses a few years ago.

[jersey cubs fan]

Switching to the 3-4 isn't going to do a damn thing to improve the team and isn't in any way similar to what the real problem is, a lack of sound offensive scheming both in terms of personel acquisition and in-game strategy.

[RynoRules]

Switching to the 3-4 isn't going to do a damn thing to improve the team and isn't in any way similar to what the real problem is, a lack of sound offensive scheming both in terms of personel acquisition and in-game strategy.

 

I didn't argue that switching to the 3-4 is a "magic bullett". My point is that ownership appears to resist modernizing the football operations / change with the times in spite of the fact that it is unquestionably in a position (financially) to do so.

 

Edit: In other words it isn't part of the culture.

[jersey cubs fan]

Troy Aikman inexplicably continues to be a go to guy for opinions on teams he knows nothing about.

While I generally agree with his sentiment I do find this commentary odd.

 

"I really like Mike Tice a lot. I have enormous respect for him as an offensive line coach and then his years there (as head coach) in Minnesota," Aikman said. "I’ve just not seen offensive linemen come in and be coordinators and be very effective. We’ll see how it works out, but this is a passing league. Mike Tice wants to run the ball.

 

"Can you win? Yeah, you can win. But if I were a quarterback, I’d want to be playing for somebody who understands the passing game about as well as anyone else around the league.”

 

Tice was a college QB and a tight end in the NFL, he wasn't an offensive lineman.

[RynoRules]

Troy Aikman inexplicably continues to be a go to guy for opinions on teams he knows nothing about.

While I generally agree with his sentiment I do find this commentary odd.

 

"I really like Mike Tice a lot. I have enormous respect for him as an offensive line coach and then his years there (as head coach) in Minnesota," Aikman said. "I’ve just not seen offensive linemen come in and be coordinators and be very effective. We’ll see how it works out, but this is a passing league. Mike Tice wants to run the ball.

 

"Can you win? Yeah, you can win. But if I were a quarterback, I’d want to be playing for somebody who understands the passing game about as well as anyone else around the league.”

 

Tice was a college QB and a tight end in the NFL, he wasn't an offensive lineman.

 

In fairness he doesn't look much like a QB. He looks like Biff from "Back to the Future".

[minnesotacubsfan]

Switching to the 3-4 isn't going to do a damn thing to improve the team and isn't in any way similar to what the real problem is, a lack of sound offensive scheming both in terms of personel acquisition and in-game strategy.

agreed.

[El Duderino]

Troy Aikman inexplicably continues to be a go to guy for opinions on teams he knows nothing about.

While I generally agree with his sentiment I do find this commentary odd.

 

"I really like Mike Tice a lot. I have enormous respect for him as an offensive line coach and then his years there (as head coach) in Minnesota," Aikman said. "I’ve just not seen offensive linemen come in and be coordinators and be very effective. We’ll see how it works out, but this is a passing league. Mike Tice wants to run the ball.

 

"Can you win? Yeah, you can win. But if I were a quarterback, I’d want to be playing for somebody who understands the passing game about as well as anyone else around the league.”

 

Tice was a college QB and a tight end in the NFL, he wasn't an offensive lineman.

 

In fairness he doesn't look much like a QB. He looks like Biff from "Back to the Future".

 

Which Biff?

[minnesotacubsfan]

Ryno is saying Tice looks like a human portable toilet

[Banedon]

ZachZaidman Zach Zaidman

I was told the Ruskell talk is overblown

 

ZachZaidman Zach Zaidman

Has not been eliminated as candidate, but not primary focus RT @MussoPini23: @ZachZaidman please tell me Bears aren't considering Ruskell

 

ZachZaidman Zach Zaidman

Right now, #Bears focusing on GM candidates outside the organization. There is currently no frontrunner.

[RynoRules]

Dickerson on Bears' offseason needs: Article

 

I agree with his order of battle for the most part, but I don't get why the focus is solely on veterans. Maybe he just doesn't know enough about the draft, but the Bears are picking in a range where there should be at least one if not two good WR options available. Pair that pick with a veteran (Vincent Jackson please) and you've effectively given the entire offense a much-needed facelift.