rawaction

Take Cutler out of the equation. I think Shanahan is the only established Super Bowl winning head coach on the market with a history of winning in multiple locations. He's won with multiple quarterbacks, including mediocre kids, stars on the decline and journeymen veterans. That resume is the best one on the market. Now add the fact that he has a history with Cutler and there are multiple good reasons to consider him the best option for the next 3-4 years. He is old, but he's practically the same age that Coughlin was when he won his first SB and younger than he was when he won his second. He's also younger than Pete Carroll and Bill Belichick. I am taking Cutler out of the equation, that's why I don't want Shanahan. That resume is great. He's a HoF coach. But I guess I don't want an established coach that established himself for the most part 10-15 years ago. I wouldn't hire Coughlin if he were on the market. And I'd only hire Carroll and Belichick because they are winning now, and Belichick has an amazing coaching tree. Shanahan's been away for a year and only had a winning record 1 time in his previous 6 seasons as coach. 48-64 since 2006, and that's with a 10-win season mixed in.

If the Bears do move on from Cutler in a couple years, and Shanahan is the head coach. He will have failed and he will probably not be the guy to make the next selection. Presumably, an entrenched GM would then get the chance to start fresh at that time. You avoid throwing away the future by not trading anymore future draft picks, whether that is for current veterans or even moving up in the draft. They can hire a GM and Shanahan, try and win the next couple years without levering the future and while still turning over the roster with younger players. I'm not necessarily saying he has to be the guy, but there is nobody currently out there who is a better bet to win the next few years and no obvious better choices. There's a bunch of lottery tickets out there with the same resumes as a million previous failed head coaches. But a GM is starting fresh now. What's the point of firing Emery if this new GM will be starting fresh (again) in 2 years? They can hire a GM, keep Cutler, and try to win the next couple years, while still turning over the roster, with a coach other than Shanahan. This shouldn't be a Cubs like situation. You get your Maddon now if you feel he's out there. You don't waste a couple years with Dale Swuem, while you get the roster together.

Scientific? Who said it was? Logical? Bears said next coach/GM will determine if Cutler is back. Obviously they don't feel he's the longterm answer if there's even a question now. Why hire a guy to make the best of 2 years in the grand scheme of things? Because in the grand scheme of the NFL the only thing that matters is the next couple years. You can't determine where this team will be 8-10 years from now this offseason. You get the most out of what you have and then replace as needed. I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean you throw away the future for the next couple years. If the Bears are thinking about getting rid of Jay at all before his career ends (and they are), then the next coach will pick the QB after him. I don't want Shanahan picking that QB if he's not going to be here to coach him. And I don't think he will be here becuase he'll be 65-66 when that QB is ready to play. So your argument comes down to the fact that you think Shannahan is not replaceable and that's why we shouldn't hire him.... No. My argument comes down to Shanahan being old, and his sole reason for candidicacy is he had success with Cutler 7-8 years ago as far as I can tell.

Scientific? Who said it was? Logical? Bears said next coach/GM will determine if Cutler is back. Obviously they don't feel he's the longterm answer if there's even a question now. Why hire a guy to make the best of 2 years in the grand scheme of things? Because in the grand scheme of the NFL the only thing that matters is the next couple years. You can't determine where this team will be 8-10 years from now this offseason. You get the most out of what you have and then replace as needed. I can agree with that. But that doesn't mean you throw away the future for the next couple years. If the Bears are thinking about getting rid of Jay at all before his career ends (and they are), then the next coach will pick the QB after him. I don't want Shanahan picking that QB if he's not going to be here to coach him. And I don't think he will be here becuase he'll be 65-66 when that QB is ready to play.

It's become pretty commonplace to hate on Jameis Winston. But he's a pretty good college QB. Regardless of the close games, he's only lost 1 time. Regardless of the INTs, he effectively runs a pro style offense. Is a huge pocket passer with great pocket prescence and decent mobility. He does have the long throwing motion, but I think that can be corrected (and like was mentioned is Leftwich esque). But he still is one of the best college QBs I've ever seen at anticipating where his WRs are going to go. He throws WRs open and places it well enough that they can run after the catch. Far from a finished product, but obviously a lot to work with there. As for the off-field stuff, I think those are legit concerns, but I'm not overly worried. I do think he needs to sit a year or 2 though. Reminds me of Steve McNair, and sitting did him a ton of good.

Scientific? Who said it was? Logical? Bears said next coach/GM will determine if Cutler is back. Obviously they don't feel he's the longterm answer if there's even a question now. Why hire a guy to make the best of 2 years in the grand scheme of things?

Very few teams can pull off the system that's so good anyone can step in and play QB and they still win. To make that work requires a really good O line- something the Bears haven't had during the Cutler era. If you're paying your QB superstar money, you have to live or die with what he gives you. Unless you go the great defense/ lousy offense route but that is no longer a winning formula in today's NFL. First, most teams either don't go thru QBs very often or have flat out bad QBs. So, they don't have to cater an offense to anyone else playing the position. Secondly, nobody is saying you go great D, lousy O. With Cutler around, you aren't likely to be terrible offensively, because he's not a terrible QB. That's not at all what I'm saying. Basically, the Bears shouldn't turn down a defensive coach because of Cutler. They also shouldn't prefer a coach because of Cutler, the way they clearly did with Trestman. And I'm not even saying they should plan on getting rid of Cutler, but it's obvious that they are. If not this offseason, then next, or the one after that. Shanahan's biggest asset to getting the Bears job is that he coached Cutler in his only probowl and 4000 yard season. Why does that asset matter when the team has all but said they don't know if they are even going to have Cutler next year? What else does Shanahan have to offer? If the Bears decide to trade Cutler tomorrow or cut Cutler after 2015, would people still want Shanahan? If the answer is NO, like I suspect, then he shouldn't be hired.

Per your second paragraph, I agree. Solidifying the O would've benefited anyone, Neckbeard or Jay. If you look up thread, I chastised Raw for claiming it was dedicated to Cutler. It WOULD have benefitted any QB, I never said it was 100% dedicated to Cutler. But the Bears had any QB for 50 years and didn't give him anything. Granted those were GMs other than Emery. But the Bears don't sign Pace right after trading for Jay if Orton was still the QB that year. The Bears probably don't hire Emery if he didn't completely vow to get Jay all the help in the world. They probably don't spend as much money as they did on the OL and use a 1st round pick on OL if Jay is not the QB. Of course, part of that is because they would have used those resources to find a QB. It's what a team is supposed to do, but the Bears never did until they got the QB. And it's one thing to get weapons, OL, and offensive coaches, but it's another to go thru Turner, Martz, Tice, and Kromer. Not to mention, the fact that he was involved in the interviews of head coaches that eventually led to the hiring of Trestman. Again, it's what teams with good QBs do and should do. But the fact that they aren't good enough doing that with Cutler means they should probably stop. Ideally, whoever the next coach is will bring in an OC who makes Cutler better and the Bears win tons of games, Cutler plays out this contract and finishes out his careeer as a Bear with multiple Superbowl titles. But that has almost 0 chance of happening with Shanahan due to his age. That's why I've said I'd be fine with even Kubiak. Because he can still be a decent coach with someone other than Jay at QB (Shanny could too, but he isn't likely to outlast Jay if things go well due to age). I don't want 2 years of decent success. I want sustained success over a long period of time. I think you should stop. A Shanahan hire would likely mean more for Forte than for Cutler, anyway. Any team with an above average QB is going to try to win with that QB. If you dont understand, or if you willfully ignore your personnel, then you are bad at building football teams. You have fully bought in to the meatballery. When that happened, I'm unsure. But you have joined the ranks of the football stupid and adopted an unnecessary hatred for Cutler because of how many times the cameras show him sitting down on the sidelines and not smiling or attempting to inspire his team by giving a Leninistic speech on the true value of labor. LOL. Yes, I [expletive] hate Cutler because he doesn't smile. That's my agenda here. Also, they shouldn't do anything to help 30 year old Forte either. And for the 80th time, I never said they shouldn't try to win with Jay. My only point has been, they shouldn't hire (another) coach simply for the purpose of winning with Jay. The next coach should be hired to win period with or without Jay. If you try to win with Jay...what happens without Jay? For the first time, the team is looking at a near future without Cutler. I've clearly been on record of saying they shouldn't trade, cut or bench Cutler. But it's also just as clear they are thinking (or have done) all of those. If they are saying the next coach/GM will decide Cutler's future....then why would they hire a coach who's fate is going to be almost 100% tied to Cutler's?

Per your second paragraph, I agree. Solidifying the O would've benefited anyone, Neckbeard or Jay. If you look up thread, I chastised Raw for claiming it was dedicated to Cutler. It WOULD have benefitted any QB, I never said it was 100% dedicated to Cutler. But the Bears had any QB for 50 years and didn't give him anything. Granted those were GMs other than Emery. But the Bears don't sign Pace right after trading for Jay if Orton was still the QB that year. The Bears probably don't hire Emery if he didn't completely vow to get Jay all the help in the world. They probably don't spend as much money as they did on the OL and use a 1st round pick on OL if Jay is not the QB. Of course, part of that is because they would have used those resources to find a QB. It's what a team is supposed to do, but the Bears never did until they got the QB. And it's one thing to get weapons, OL, and offensive coaches, but it's another to go thru Turner, Martz, Tice, and Kromer. Not to mention, the fact that he was involved in the interviews of head coaches that eventually led to the hiring of Trestman. Again, it's what teams with good QBs do and should do. But the fact that they aren't good enough doing that with Cutler means they should probably stop. Ideally, whoever the next coach is will bring in an OC who makes Cutler better and the Bears win tons of games, Cutler plays out this contract and finishes out his careeer as a Bear with multiple Superbowl titles. But that has almost 0 chance of happening with Shanahan due to his age. That's why I've said I'd be fine with even Kubiak. Because he can still be a decent coach with someone other than Jay at QB (Shanny could too, but he isn't likely to outlast Jay if things go well due to age). I don't want 2 years of decent success. I want sustained success over a long period of time.

Hard to disagree with a any of what goony wrote. Yeah, the only thing I'd probably include is that it wouldn't have mattered who the QB was in Chicago at the time, they needed to go out and get more depth on the OLine and they needed better play calling and they needed better offensive players. They didn't need to do these things just to satisfy Jay Cutler, they needed to do these things because that's what teams that want to go to the playoffs go out and do for their team. So u think they would have gone thru 4 OCs and a successful head coach if Kyle Orton was the QB this whole time?

They hired Martz because they were trying to create a wide open fast paced scoring offense match Jay's talents. They fired him because Cutler got sacked a lot. They fired Lovie in order to bring in an offensive minded coach. Didn't say those were the primary reasons. But every move made in the last 5 years has been to get the most out of Cutler. Trying to get the most out of Cutler was the absolute right idea. But it didn't work. Time to stop basing moves on him. And the sole reason for hiring Shanahan would be to recreate the success they had in Denver for a couple years.

I never said I wanted to get rid of Cutler. But the Bears have done a ton to make Cutler as good as he could be. Whether they've been the right moves or not, the signed Orlando Pace. They traded for Marshall. They traded up for Jeffery. They hired Martz, then fired Martz because of Jay. They fired Lovie because of Cutler. They invested heavily in the OL and offense for Cutler. They hired a supposed QB whisperer because of Cutler. And they ditched McCown for Cutler. Now they should have done all that and more for their franchise QB, and a legit one at that. But despite all of that, Cutler led the league in turnovers and didn't score enough points to win games. Obviously, not even close to all his fault, but it is what it is. Now they need to prepare for life after Cutler and hope that it ends well and further down the road than expected. Shanahan would be a coach to try to get one last corner turned by Cutler instead of getting the best guy for the job, IMO.

Winston better leave before he goes into next draft with a year off. No way he makes it thru another year of college without a long term suspension.

That's the argument for trading Cutler now and moving on, I think. If you view the new coach as the next long term direction, and Cutler has his own shelf life, why not start over entirely ASAP? The answer to your question is because quarterbacks don't grow on trees. You could trade him tomorrow and never come close to competent QB play for 10 years, enough to cycle through 2-3 more administrations. Cutler gives you the best chance to be competitive next year and going forward until you find (probably draft and develop) his replacement. I agree with this. 2016 could be the year to grab a first or second rd QB. If all goes well you transition in 17/18. I don't see 2015 as the year we grab our next QB. Yep, everyone is so ready to get rid of Cutler. Have they watched the past 50 years of Bears QBs and seen about 10-15 other teams' QB situations? The roster isn't in a place to rebuild right now ($22MM guaranteed to Cutler, $12MM guaranteed to Allen, brand new extension to Marshall, last years of decent Forte) and with any competent coaching system, it has 7 to 11 win talent. Look, Cutler is never going to be the NFL MVP and the Bears probably won't win a SB with him, but unless you're ready to roll the dice on drafting a QB at #7 AND eat $22MM or figure out a trade of Cutler (and in turn, cut or trade Marshall most likely unless you want to deal with that situation), you try to make this work for the next year or two. If it works and you make the playoffs, you continue to build through the draft and FA. If not, you completely blow it up after 2016 and hope the next 2 years worth of drafts (15 and 16) were good enough to be the basis for a complete rebuild. That's what I'm saying. You make it work WITH him not BECAUSE of him. The Bears up until last week were trying to win because of Cutler. They've tried getting the best out of him, and it hasn't been good enough. I don't want to say they need to try to win in spite of Cutler, but they don't need to build the franchise around him and that mostly includes making a coaching decision with him in mind first and foremost (the way Trestman was and the way Martz was hired and fired).

That's the argument for trading Cutler now and moving on, I think. If you view the new coach as the next long term direction, and Cutler has his own shelf life, why not start over entirely ASAP? The answer to your question is because quarterbacks don't grow on trees. You could trade him tomorrow and never come close to competent QB play for 10 years, enough to cycle through 2-3 more administrations. Cutler gives you the best chance to be competitive next year and going forward until you find (probably draft and develop) his replacement. Yes, this.

What is wrong with Mike Shanahan? People say he did nothing without Elway, but most of his time in Denver was without Elway. The Broncos were barely average in the years before he got there. He won 11 games with Brian Griese and 10+ three years in a row with Jake Plummer (including one 13 win season). He got a pro bowl season out of Cutler and Washington's only playoff appearance in a decade. He's not going to be your coach for the next 10 years, but I think you can do a lot worse than him. And we're basically looking for an unknown guy to match what he has done. He's not awful, but not great either. I would be fine with the hire. He's a professional guy who won't have most of the locker room shenanigans that Trestman allowed. At the worst, he's your coach the next 2 years and if he can't get anything done with Cutler, they are both gone and you start over without both of them. For reference, Shanahan without Elway is 123-121 and 1-5 in the playoffs. Lovie Smith as a Bear was 81-63 and 3-3 in the playoffs. Still can't believe the McCaskeys let Emery fire him (even though I can't say it wasn't the right time to move on). I think at best, he's the coach for 2-4 years. I don't want a coach that's potentially only going to be around for 2 years. And the best chance at continuity to the next coach is his A-hole son. I also think the Bears need to stop catering to Cutler and get the best possible coach for the team and its future. I know people have hope that Cutler is going to turn it around and put the team on his back to multiple playoff appearances and contending seasons, but the Bears should be planning as if that isn't going to happen, because it likely isn't, especially since he might not even be on the team next year. And if he is, he'll have to be really good to be on the team after 2015.

Oh and F Shanahan. Don't understand why the interest.

He was at his worst when he had pneumonia and got better as he recovered. Yeah, I thought Allen was fine the from about the time Houston went out to the end of the season when Young went out. I wouldn't cut him, just make sure he doesn't get more than 60% of the snaps.

Christian Jones played DE at FSU his senior year (after playing MLB and WLB), and his impact went down. I think he could be a rush LB in a 3-4, but "perfect" is far from accurate. I think he makes sense as the SAM outside backer, in either scheme. He's athletic enough the blitz but isn't your every down pass rusher. Yeah, that's basically what I meant. But I'd rather have him inside in a 3-4. He can certainly blitz from there. He's basically a clone of his Seminole predecessor, Lawrence Timmons.

Christian Jones played DE at FSU his senior year (after playing MLB and WLB), and his impact went down. I think he could be a rush LB in a 3-4, but "perfect" is far from accurate.

F it. I want to be inspired. Also I find it odd that a team known for its ex players leading great teams, the Bears have shown no interest in their former 80s players. In the last 10 years, Singletary, Rivera, Harbaugh, Frazier have all gotten their first jobs with no interest from the Bears. You could even throw in Jeff Fisher's re-hire and Rex Ryan. Not that I necessarily wanted those guys, but you'd think the way the Bears like familiarity and the glory days they'd have shown more interest in one of those guys.

Angelo didn't work out, Emery was a disaster...I know lets hire a guy that has spend almost his entire career working for those two. No. The Bears were good when Ballard was here.

Great job by Eisen using all Stu's catch phrases while calling the Colts/Bengals highlights.

I thought coaches that were currently employed couldn't interview until the season ended anyway (with the exception of those having a bye this week)? They can do whatever they want. A lot don't, citing gameplan stuff....but they can.

Their last playoff win they beat the Houston Oilers. Then lost to the LA Raiders in the game Bo Jackson lost his hip.