Chicago Bears Offseason 2012

[minnesotacubsfan]

not to mention half of the scouting world had a 1st rd pick slated for Grossman. he wasnt a reach

[rawaction]

F this. Such a typical Bears hire. Let's not get the younger, dynamic guy from an org that clearly knows how to draft impact players. Let's get a guy who will make the "safe" and "traditional" picks.

 

What makes you come to this conclusion?

 

I will say that based on the teams he's been involved with its rather underwhelming but we don't know enough about him to assume what kind of draft picks he makes. The Chiefs have actually made quite a few good picks the last couple of seasons.

 

He worked for Ruskell, who worked for Angelo. It's a lateral move. Status quo. It makes the Angelo firing pointless if Emery is the hire.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Angelo=Ruskell=Emery

 

I want new blood. but considering Lovie is still around, I could see the Bears doing this, which is really disappointing

[rawaction]

I'm hoping Ross really wowed them in the interview and he comes out of nowhere to win the job ala Mike Tomlin about 5 years ago in Pittsburgh.

[UMFan83]

F this. Such a typical Bears hire. Let's not get the younger, dynamic guy from an org that clearly knows how to draft impact players. Let's get a guy who will make the "safe" and "traditional" picks.

 

What makes you come to this conclusion?

 

I will say that based on the teams he's been involved with its rather underwhelming but we don't know enough about him to assume what kind of draft picks he makes. The Chiefs have actually made quite a few good picks the last couple of seasons.

 

He worked for Ruskell, who worked for Angelo. It's a lateral move. Status quo. It makes the Angelo firing pointless if Emery is the hire.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean they are the same person. Would you consider Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy to be the same type of head coaches?

 

I dunno I just don't want to draw any conclusions without knowing anything about them other than who they worked under in the past.

[jersey cubs fan]

F this. Such a typical Bears hire. Let's not get the younger, dynamic guy from an org that clearly knows how to draft impact players. Let's get a guy who will make the "safe" and "traditional" picks.

 

What makes you come to this conclusion?

 

I will say that based on the teams he's been involved with its rather underwhelming but we don't know enough about him to assume what kind of draft picks he makes. The Chiefs have actually made quite a few good picks the last couple of seasons.

 

He worked for Ruskell, who worked for Angelo. It's a lateral move. Status quo. It makes the Angelo firing pointless if Emery is the hire.

 

That doesn't necessarily mean they are the same person. Would you consider Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy to be the same type of head coaches?

 

I dunno I just don't want to draw any conclusions without knowing anything about them other than who they worked under in the past.

I'm yes, they are absolutely the same type of coach.

 

Emery would be a terribly uninspirational hire.

[Magnetic Curses]

Would you consider Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy to be the same type of head coaches?

 

yes.

[Magnetic Curses]

i wouldn't be devastated with emery, but let's get ross all the same.

[rawaction]

Lovie and Dungy are damn near identical as coaches. Neither is a rah-rah guy. Players coaches. Loyal to a fault. Lovie has taken Dungy's influenced and mirrored it as a coach. They are obviously not the same person, but are the same type of coach. I'm pretty sure anyone that has ever had anything to do with Angelo will be similar to Angelo. Hopefully, worst case is a better version of the same type of GM. But best case should be a young, bold, bright, up-and-comer with great football acumen.

[UMFan83]

I don't know if thats completely true. Dungy to me has always seemed like a much much better in game coach and it was a big part of what made him successful.

[minnesotacubsfan]

no he wasnt, he had Peyton friggen Manning, Dwight Freeney, and Bob Sanders

[davell]

Yeah, I agree, Peyton made Dungy "look" like a good in game coach. To me, him and Lovie are pretty much equal.

[CubColtPacer]

I don't know if thats completely true. Dungy to me has always seemed like a much much better in game coach and it was a big part of what made him successful.

 

Dungy was criticized by many for not being a good game coach. They derided his philosophy of "do what we do" and refusal to make adjustments especially in playoff games when other teams were throwing in new wrinkles. I'm not sure I completely buy it, but it's out there. I don't remember Dungy being criticized for timeout/challenge issues like Lovie is though.

[rawaction]

I don't know if thats completely true. Dungy to me has always seemed like a much much better in game coach and it was a big part of what made him successful.

 

Dungy was criticized by many for not being a good game coach. They derided his philosophy of "do what we do" and refusal to make adjustments especially in playoff games when other teams were throwing in new wrinkles. I'm not sure I completely buy it, but it's out there. I don't remember Dungy being criticized for timeout/challenge issues like Lovie is though.

 

The timeout and challenge issues aren't that big of a deal. The timeouts being used early hasn't cost the Bears a game. The challenges only cost the Bears the Redskins game last year, and they still ended up with a home game for a chance to go to the Superbowl. Sure it's pretty bad to watch and see early timeouts each half and bad challenges, but that's way down on the list of the things coaches need to be able to do well.

 

But anyway, those criticisms of Dungy are dead on. Both are big, "what you see is what you get" coaches. They aren't guys who are going to make in-game changes in game plan and philosophy. Both are strong believers in their philosophies and aren't big on changing it on the fly. Week-to-week, both can make and have made changes, but during the course of a game, not so much.

[RynoRules]

I don't know if thats completely true. Dungy to me has always seemed like a much much better in game coach and it was a big part of what made him successful.

 

Dungy was criticized by many for not being a good game coach. They derided his philosophy of "do what we do" and refusal to make adjustments especially in playoff games when other teams were throwing in new wrinkles. I'm not sure I completely buy it, but it's out there. I don't remember Dungy being criticized for timeout/challenge issues like Lovie is though.

 

The timeout and challenge issues aren't that big of a deal. The timeouts being used early hasn't cost the Bears a game. The challenges only cost the Bears the Redskins game last year, and they still ended up with a home game for a chance to go to the Superbowl. Sure it's pretty bad to watch and see early timeouts each half and bad challenges, but that's way down on the list of the things coaches need to be able to do well.

 

 

We've been fortunate that the timeouts haven't cost us. Truth is that we haven't been in very many games where we needed them with 2 minutes left in a half.

 

I like Lovie overall, but I agree that he has pretty vanilla philosophy, which, IMO, was magnified by Anegelo's vanilla appraoch to talent evaluation and retention.

[jersey cubs fan]

The timeout and challenge issues aren't that big of a deal. The timeouts being used early hasn't cost the Bears a game. The challenges only cost the Bears the Redskins game last year, and they still ended up with a home game for a chance to go to the Superbowl. Sure it's pretty bad to watch and see early timeouts each half and bad challenges, but that's way down on the list of the things coaches need to be able to do well.

 

I disagree. They hurt and they are symptomatic of a coaching staff that game plans poorly.

[Soul]

I don't know if thats completely true. Dungy to me has always seemed like a much much better in game coach and it was a big part of what made him successful.

 

Dungy was criticized by many for not being a good game coach. They derided his philosophy of "do what we do" and refusal to make adjustments especially in playoff games when other teams were throwing in new wrinkles. I'm not sure I completely buy it, but it's out there. I don't remember Dungy being criticized for timeout/challenge issues like Lovie is though.

 

The timeout and challenge issues aren't that big of a deal. The timeouts being used early hasn't cost the Bears a game. The challenges only cost the Bears the Redskins game last year, and they still ended up with a home game for a chance to go to the Superbowl. Sure it's pretty bad to watch and see early timeouts each half and bad challenges, but that's way down on the list of the things coaches need to be able to do well.

 

 

We've been fortunate that the timeouts haven't cost us. Truth is that we haven't been in very many games where we needed them with 2 minutes left in a half.

 

I like Lovie overall, but I agree that he has pretty vanilla philosophy, which, IMO, was magnified by Anegelo's vanilla appraoch to talent evaluation and retention.

 

It resulted in some decent seasons. Improvements can be made -- and need to be made -- but Lovie's "system" could be worse. It could be Jauron's.

[Theo]

So, Jay knocked his fiance up..smh.

[jersey cubs fan]

That's supposed to be... a bad thing?

[rawaction]

I don't think Lovie's system being "vanilla" is a bad thing. For the most part, he's been successful with it. He's definitely been successful with it given the level of talent he has had to deal with on the offensive side of the ball.

 

I also don't think the Bears have been "vanilla" in talent evaluation. They've had vanilla results, but the Bears have actually been one of the handful of teams that uses their own scouts exclusively and they've had their share of successes from getting players late in the draft (Knox, Webb to some extent, Chris Harris), small school talents (Knox, Manning, Tillman), players they've developed with position changes (Melton, Louis), and even other teams castoffs who they get to fit in their scheme (Jennings, Okoye).

[RynoRules]

I don't know if thats completely true. Dungy to me has always seemed like a much much better in game coach and it was a big part of what made him successful.

 

Dungy was criticized by many for not being a good game coach. They derided his philosophy of "do what we do" and refusal to make adjustments especially in playoff games when other teams were throwing in new wrinkles. I'm not sure I completely buy it, but it's out there. I don't remember Dungy being criticized for timeout/challenge issues like Lovie is though.

 

The timeout and challenge issues aren't that big of a deal. The timeouts being used early hasn't cost the Bears a game. The challenges only cost the Bears the Redskins game last year, and they still ended up with a home game for a chance to go to the Superbowl. Sure it's pretty bad to watch and see early timeouts each half and bad challenges, but that's way down on the list of the things coaches need to be able to do well.

 

 

We've been fortunate that the timeouts haven't cost us. Truth is that we haven't been in very many games where we needed them with 2 minutes left in a half.

 

I like Lovie overall, but I agree that he has pretty vanilla philosophy, which, IMO, was magnified by Anegelo's vanilla appraoch to talent evaluation and retention.

 

It resulted in some decent seasons. Improvements can be made -- and need to be made -- but Lovie's "system" could be worse. It could be Jauron's.

 

I don't think Phillips should be setting his goals around a philosophy of "It could be worse...". I agree it would be worse if we had Marty Mornhinweg, Joe Bugel, or Chris Palmer, but why do we have to settle for the middle ground above those guys? Same deal with the GM.

[Theo]

That's supposed to be... a bad thing?

Well, (glancing at the calender), he's going to have a agitated, pregnant, hormonal lady, right at the time the Bears are away at training camp. Don't think he thought this one through. [-X

[jersey cubs fan]

that's stupid

[RynoRules]

I don't think Lovie's system being "vanilla" is a bad thing. For the most part, he's been successful with it. He's definitely been successful with it given the level of talent he has had to deal with on the offensive side of the ball.

 

I also don't think the Bears have been "vanilla" in talent evaluation. They've had vanilla results, but the Bears have actually been one of the handful of teams that uses their own scouts exclusively and they've had their share of successes from getting players late in the draft (Knox, Webb to some extent, Chris Harris), small school talents (Knox, Manning, Tillman), players they've developed with position changes (Melton, Louis), and even other teams castoffs who they get to fit in their scheme (Jennings, Okoye).

 

 

All of those guys - with the possible exception of Tillman - are vanilla players rather than play-making / game-changing talents. The number of game-changing playmakers Jerry and Lovie have brought here can be calculated on one hand.

[rawaction]

I don't think Lovie's system being "vanilla" is a bad thing. For the most part, he's been successful with it. He's definitely been successful with it given the level of talent he has had to deal with on the offensive side of the ball.

 

I also don't think the Bears have been "vanilla" in talent evaluation. They've had vanilla results, but the Bears have actually been one of the handful of teams that uses their own scouts exclusively and they've had their share of successes from getting players late in the draft (Knox, Webb to some extent, Chris Harris), small school talents (Knox, Manning, Tillman), players they've developed with position changes (Melton, Louis), and even other teams castoffs who they get to fit in their scheme (Jennings, Okoye).

 

 

All of those guys - with the possible exception of Tillman - are vanilla players rather than play-making / game-changing talents. The number of game-changing playmakers Jerry and Lovie have brought here can be calculated on one hand.

 

That's the reason why the results have been vanilla, as I said. All those guys, other than Tillman and Manning were drafted in the 4th round or later. The Bears haven't had the quantity or quality in their early round picks due to trading down and just plain failure to draft well.

 

If you draft the way the Bears have from the 4th round and on, diamonds in the rough, and other teams' castoffs and combine that with even normal early round success, then you have a very talented team. The Bears seem to have the hard part right. That's why this GM search is so important.