rawaction

continuity with good coaches help, but Trestman is not a good coach and the staff is terrible. I think Cutler's time is all but done here, Marshall isn't going to be around very long and there is no reason to keep Trestman for continuity purposes. Lovie wasn't a good coach either. He was just very good at what he did (defense). If Trestman can get the offense to play like it did last year and most of last week, then he has value. For some non-elite QBs that have some OC/HC stability and some success, Eli Manning has 2 rings out of his stability, Romo/Garrett haven't won a bunch but have always had a great offense (and Garrett is a terrible coach), Dalton/Lewis, Big Ben/Tomlin. I just think it's more likely to have success with the Trestman/Cutler combo in the forseeable future than it is to start all over again with a new coach and/or QB.

I question how good a D coordinator we can even get. It's a risky proposition for a coach coming into what could be a one year job. You're likely taking a chance on someone with less than top notch credentials. Unlike the HC job which would probably be highly sought after, the DC job isn't as enticing, even relative to it obviously being a lesser position. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yeah, that's an issue. But I'm proposing Trestman for the long-term, or at least as long as the Bears are "stuck" with Cutler, which is 2 more years at least to avoid cap hell, and if all goes well, obviously he and Trestman are here for the duration of Cutler's career. I think the bigger issue is that Trestman has no ties to any prospective good DCs. DCs usually get hired by coaches they've coached with or known for years. Either that or they are promoted position coaches on the same team. Plus, because Trestman and Emery are older, I think they will be more apt to go after another older guy instead of a young up-and-comer. I'm willing to give Trestman 1 more year because of last year's record breaking season and this year's stats which look good other than points. But if they are even thinking about getting rid of Cutler, then everybody probably needs to go then. I don't know why you keep Trestman and give him a lesser QB when he couldn't win with Cutler. I don't know why you keep Emery if he couldn't hire a coach to win games with his franchise QB.

Yep, that's me! An irrational flip-flopper. My 12 years posting on this message board has proven exactly this.

I've thought a lot about this, but I think Trestman has to stay as the coach of this team. There's just too much fluctuation when teams change coaches, playbooks, and potentially QBs. And there is so much value in HC-or-OC/QB stability. Brady/Belichick, Payton/Brees, McCarthy/Rodgers, Manning/Manning. It helps having a great QB, but Brees showed what can happen without your coach that orchestrated most of your success. I don't think the Bears are trading Cutler, so they are (for a lack of a better word) "stuck" with him. I think you stick with Trestman as the Bears are just 1 year removed from being a near offensive juggernaut, and Cutler is on pace to have his best year of his career, despite the turnovers being too high and points too low. I think you gotta stick with Cutler/Trestman combo and hope it all comes together next year (if it doesn't in the last 6 games) with a revamped defensive scheme. Of course, this is the Bears so they will just promote Pasqualoni instead of hiring a legit D coordinator.

Have no idea who that is but a couple of Cubs people like Julie DiCaro re tweeted it Edit: apparently it's a Syracuse newspaper 6/144 looks like a steal if he accepts that. I'd have to imagine it's the Cubs. Have the other teams met with him in person?

I'd be worried about Dupree's ability to play 4-3 DE, just like I'm not sure Vic Beasley and Shane Ray can. Obviously all three are more athletic than Shea McClellin but I'm pretty nervous about tweeners who are better fits in a 3-4. I like Dupree in a 4-3 more than those other 2. Big fan of his upside, probably moreso than the other 2. But I think that's a little high for him. I'd definitely take Shaq Thompson over him.

I know who Butkus, Sayers, etc. are and I don't really give a [expletive] about them. I'd give you a blank stare too if you started talking about Bears players from 40 years ago for some reason. Greg Lloyd played throughout the 90s. He's not talking about dudes from 40 years ago. Whoops. I saw Greene and mistook Blitzburgh Steelers for the Steel Curtain in my head. It's early (not to say I had heard of most of those guys otehr than Woodson and Greene). When I first moved to Pittsburgh, I was mistaken for LeVon Kirkland a lot. I'm a big dude, but nowhere near that big. He was like a 280lb inside LB.

No, it's not. Letting a team that is already better than you get significantly better for minimal cost isn't what I'd call good strategy. Especially when that same piece fits your own team really well. It's also not a strategy. It's not like when they were talking LaStella/Vizcaino the Braves were like, "hey we got this deal in the works to make the Cards better....want to stop it?". You don't LET a team get better. They get better because they have a GM doing the same thing your GM is doing, trying to get better. The Cubs don't even really match up all that well to what the Cards gave up.

Exactly. I will admit to being fairweather with all but the Bears. I haven't paid much attention to the Cubs the last few years. Didn't much when I was in college until 1998. I didn't pay much attention to the Bulls between Pippen and Rose as I posted previously. And in hockey, I actually took up rooting for another team (Avalanche) when the Blackhawks were a disaster after the Chelios/Roenick years. I think with the longer seasons it's easier to tune out. You can miss a month of games, come back watch the team and not have missed much. Football is completely different, plus it's much harder to root for individual players/accomplishments in football than it is for those other sports.

I can understand someone being a fair weather fan to Packers/Pats/Ravens/Colts/Steelers and then just jump ship right before they start sucking. Bears in the past 14 years don't have that kind of track record. Fair weather fans also aren't gonna go to the Jags/Raiders/Bucs/Lions/Bills either. Like you said, they been consistently close to .500 for a lot of those years. They're not bad enough for fair weather fans to abandon them because their worst was 7-9 (which isn't even that bad) in the past 10 year and not consistently good enough to attract them. 2005/2006 was the last time they won 9 or more games in back to back seasons then you have to go back to 94/95 for the next time they did that. One way I can see it is if you're not really a fan of NFL so you don't watch it much and you're from around Chicago or your family are Bears fan so you'll watch them when they're good and don't care when they're bad because you're not a fan of pro football anyway. Maybe it's just where I'm at. I don't hear things like "Oh I'm a Bears fan this year because they're good! or Bears suck so I'm a ____ fan now". Then all the Colts fans around here didn't jump ship when they went 2-14 in 2011 or went with Peyton and became Broncos fans. The Bulls were a great bandwagon case. 6 rings, contenders for several years. Then went to absolutely nothing. Most Bulls fans I know would not give the team the time of day between Pippen and Derrick Rose.

Be interesting to see how the Bears handle a pair of 6'5" WRs. I guess they see them everyday in practice, and with all the practice tape Trestman and Co. have been watching, the Bears should dominate. Mike Evans has been like the best player in football (non-QB division) for 2-3 weeks.

Montero looks real good now after Martin's contract. That's a pretty good team with those 4.

No, it's not.

I don't get what that means. It would seemingly be very easy to be a fair weather Bears fans. I think he means, that how is he still a fan if he's just fairweather? The Bears have had more bad seasons than they've had good seasons. AKA where is the "fair" weather part that makes him a fan to begin with. They haven't had many great seasons, but they've won more than most over the past decade. They've been in a Super Bowl, another conference championship and despite only one other playoff appearance, they were in playoff contention very late almost every season. They haven't finished more than 1 game under .500 since 2004. That seems like an opportunity to have lots of fans get excited about things looking good and then abandoning them at their worst. I didn't say it made sense.

I don't get what that means. It would seemingly be very easy to be a fair weather Bears fans. I think he means, that how is he still a fan if he's just fairweather? The Bears have had more bad seasons than they've had good seasons. AKA where is the "fair" weather part that makes him a fan to begin with.

Just wait till the Cards sign Hanley.

Like 5 posts later I said

Because I'm a glutton for punishment...... Path to the playoffs for the Bears: - Beat Detroit twice - Beat New Orleans - Beat Dallas - Green Bay beats Detroit in Week 17 - Philly sweeps Dallas - Either SF or Seattle sweep the 2 games Bears actually could lose vs. NO and still get in if NO wins the division and all the other things happen. They could lose to Dallas, but it would be helpful if Dallas then swept the Eagles. And they don't actually need ALL these to happen. Could get the final WC spot by virtue of beating Detroit and SF head-to-head or with a better conference record than Seattle. Seattle has Arizona and SF twice, plus Philly and the Rams, who apparently only beats the best teams in the league. Detroit has NE this week and ends with GB, in addition to the Bears twice. SF has Seattle twice and Arizona once.

Logan Watkins with less defense and better OBP, I think? He better learn how to play some other positions.

GMAFB. Not just worse, but much worse? 82 QB rating to 86. Cutler has only been under 82 in a Tice or Ron Turner offense. Cutler isn't the best qb to not win a Super Bowl. It's not some tragedy that cutler doesn't have a ring. Yeah I don't know why I said that. .....oh wait, I didn't and in fact said the opposite.

GMAFB. Not just worse, but much worse? 82 QB rating to 86. Cutler has only been under 82 in a Tice or Ron Turner offense.

Have they even hit 28 once this year? Yes. Once. San Francisco in Week 2. They did score 27 twice, once with a defensive score.

Yeah. Don't get it.

Cutler 300 yards passing, 3 TDs, only 1 real turnover Jeffery huge game 135 yards, TD Marshall big game, 2 TDs Forte 100+ rushing, 50+ receiving 21 points scored Last year, that's the formula for a 40-point game

So uh, since the Packers beat the Bears twice, Im rooting for them to beat the Eagles because the wildcard is probably going to be easier than the division. None of this matters though.