jersey cubs fan

He's the guy whose name keeps coming up, potentially as a QB coach under another OC. He's never been an NFL OC, and has only been a college OC for one year (so Pete Carrol would probably cry about him leaving eligibility on the table). If you are trying to find the next Sean Payton, this might be the guy. But I would really hope he brings guys with real NFL coaching experience with him.

Not specifically, but I remember his name coming up back when he was a truly horrible baseball player. That wasn't that long ago, and that is what scares me most about him. Guys who suck in their late 20's scare the bejesus out of me from a longevity standpoint.

I wonder if Steve Mariucci's name has ever come up.

I've been thinking about this for a while, but with the coaching decisions coming out, it's becoming clearer. The Gaines Adams trade guaranteed Jerry, Lovie and Rod would return in 2010. It was probably going to happen that way anyway, but that was the nail in the coffin. He became expandable in Tampa when they started to depart from the Tampa 2 defense. The Bears traded a 2010 #2 for him, eliminating their precense on the first day of the draft and essentially forcing whoever the coaches were in 2010 to get the most out of him. Had they made a change, the defensive gameplan probably changes, and somebody like Adams becomes worthless. The new regime would not have any day 1 draft picks to make an early impact, and with much of the free agent money likely going to the offensive line, they'd have a whole bunch of Lovie guys, 4-3 Tampa 2 style defenders and would be extremely limited in what they could do to overhaul the defense. The defensive coaches are going to remain stable, and so is the personnel, with any and all meaningful changes likely coming on offense.

Excuses were eliminated when Rivera was canned, then again when he took control from Babich, and when they traded for a franchise QB. There are literally no excuses for Lovie and there haven't been any all season long. 7-9, 9-7, 7-9 say all they need to say. Lovie should have been given one post SB road bump season, and then forced to put up or shut up in 2008, let alone 2009, and now 2010.

It's what I thought was going to happen though, and with Lovie still here, one of a very few options. They weren't going to stray too far from the model. If they are giving Lovie one last chance, it's one of the cleanest ways to do it. You could bring in a new guy who runs the 3-4 but you are going to make Lovie pointless. The one good thing is a defense that surrenders yards and some points could still work if the offense does its job. They have to be an above average offense, and unless they get some signficant improvement there, they will fail, and these guys will all be gone. I'm no more disappointed in Rod being DC as I am in Lovie returning. That was the key.

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/01/bears-fire-offensive-coordinator-ron-turner.html First "official" report that the Bears are canning Turner, also moving Marinelli to DC and potentially hiring his old DLine coach to take his job.

Briggs was not awful. He did not step up enough in a way that he should have, or at least in a way he claimed he could have when he was talking contract and wanting to be "the man". But he was still a good player. Harris was his usual occasional burst of power player.

I feel like Lovie has done worse. This was the most talented team in the NFC in 2006, that was due largely to Jerry. After the Super Bowl, Lovie got increased personnel powers including being able to get rid of a succesful DC for no good reason, and the team has gone downhill ever since. There are all sorts of guys who have gone elsewhere and done better. And this team has been horrible at developing players. The defense has very specific niche demands for players at each position, and is inflexible in dealing with different skill sets. Jay Cutler is a damn good quarterback, they traded a clearly inferior quarterback for him, yet the Broncos ended up a game better than the Bears when all was said and done. That's coaching. It's not just Lovie on his own. But Lovie shaped this staff, and Lovie was the one who insisted on starting his tenure here with a bunch of "teachers" ie, guys with no pro coaching experience and all college coaches. The one guy they brought in with pro experience was in the 2nd year, and it was Turner, whose only pro experience is leading mediocre Bears offenses. Lovie is a guy who generally gets the most out of his team (although they laid down on numerous occassions this year), but he's a horrible gameday coach, whether it be clock management, or more important strategy and adjustments in game. In baseball, the only thing that matters is player ability. It's a bunch of one on one matchups determined by the players ability and chance, and there is no real strategy (traditionalists don't know what they are talking about). Football is largely determined by coaching strategy. You need the talent, but talent is worthless if used inproperly. This team is clearly no longer the most talented in the NFC, but it's talented, and much more talented than the bottom barrel teams. They have enough talent to contend and win divisions, but they haven't been for three years. Jerry has flaws and I wouldn't mind seeing him replaced, but most importantly, Lovie's staff needs to be overhauled.

4 of top 12 yards per carry teams made playoffs, 10 of 12 yards per attempted pass teams made playoffs. It cannot be overemphasized how much more important the passing game is from the running game. Mike Martz might not be the right guy for this job, or there may be a dozen better options, and I'd be fine with any of them. But there's just very little support for eliminating Martz based on a perception that he doesn't emphasize the run enough or get enough out of it. This team needs to be a threat through the air, and if Martz can help make that happen, he can be a solid acquisition. They also need to go away from the stupid 1 running back attack and figure out a way to get 2-3 guys involved in carrying the ball. But the primary focus has to be on the passing game.

Indy, San Diego, Houston and Arizona didn't keep teams honest with the running game and they were 4 of the top 11 scoring teams in the league. New England and Minnesota averaged just 4.1 ypc. This is a pass first league. You have to pass. The Bears have to pass. They need an OC who can help develop Cutler and take advantage of their one strength. I really don't see any strong justification for eliminating Martz based on your perception that he can't do anything with the running game. The running game just isn't that important, and with a Forte led attack, it's not going to be good regardless. Martz has shown he can exploit a good pass catching RB, and that's Forte's only strength. The focus should be on who can do the most with the QB and passing game, not who can get the biggest YPC out of Forte. The passing game will determine this team's future.

Maybe they'll keep everyone on board. :banghead: At this point the most likely scenario is they are working with Lovie to figure out how to get a new OC and DC while keeping him. That takes time. If they were going to fire him they could/should and probably would have done it already. Cutler is probably going to deal with a 4th OC in 4 years (if they play in 2011) unless they get a guy who can be bumped to head coach, or less likely, retained as OC once Lovie is canned next year. The best option is cleaning house and going with a fresh Cutler friendly staff right now. But that's not happening.

I don't see them having him coach out his contract. They will either can him or extend him, but they won't lame duck him. I'd love to get the next Payton, but there's no way to guarantee we don't go through a situation where the next OC is only here for a year or two. And it's not like Martz has never used the RB. He sure figured out how to make it work in STL, at least until Faulk started to age. And was he that run averse in SF? I'm not sure I'm buying your complains about how we know Cutler can make big plays and rack up yards. Sure, we know that, why not have a coach that can figure out how to turn that into points and success? If there is a better candidate than Martz I'd take him in a heartbeat, I just don't see how Martz is a bad option, or who that better guy obviously is.

Maybe the anti team should be opening day starters, as in guys somebody thought was an acceptable starter for the year, like Chris Stynes.

Maybe not totally free, but Seattle gave the Cubs some money along with Silva. That money basically helped Hendry sign Byrd so you can put some of that money in towards that 3yrs/15 mil contract. They gave them money because the Cubs gave them a useful player and got back a useless bum, and it doesn't offset the waste of spending on the transaction in the first place.

Who is the finesse back? Forte sure isn't. If it was at all serious that's practically reckless endangerment. More likely it was just normal wear and tear and we're just hearing excuses now. He probably got caught from behind because he's not that good of a RB and isn't the least bit fast.

That is some silly math. They didn't get Byrd for free, essentially, virtually, existentially, or anything else.

Wow. I like Bell, but we need a guy that can take over if Forte is hurt, cuz that's crazy. Not to mention completely ridiculous if the least bit true. Aside from this story, the Bears were probably in a position where they needed a 2nd or 3rd round RB anyway, to add to the pathetic production there. Of course, considering they need a couple first round lineman and a safety as well, that's a lot of needs.

Byrd has been about a 3 WAR player the last 3 years, and Bradley provided 1 WAR in RF last year. UZR has Fukudome as about 3 wins better defensively in RF v. CF. Regress both of those to 2 WAR and consider they're replacing Bradley, and the move still makes them 3 wins better for 5 million a year. That's an extremely efficient use of resources, even if Byrd disappoints or Fukudome's 2008 defense was fluky. Marlon Byrd is more than just his last three years and Milton Bradley is more than just his 2009.

Chone has him at .281/.345/.448 (4 RAA). That's probably your best guess. So basically... He's gonna have the same OPS roughly as Fukudome last year with a tad better defense at CF. Who wouldn't take that? I'm in the same boat as most posters here. I like the $ per year, just wished it was 2 years instead of 3, but at worst he'll be a very good 4th OF at the end of his contract. Side Note: This is also my very first post. It's about time I join NSBB. But Fukudome's OPS was OBP heavy, making it more valuable. Essentially it's the same team as last year, just spending an extra few million to replace Bradley with Byrd and losing Harden. They need to make actual improvements to the team, not just find ways to spend more while getting the same results.

It might be a questionable selection, but the week before the playoffs start is hardly too early to start listing who you think the favorites are going into the playoffs.

Choi was good.

I don't get what is boring about it. It's a new game. Some of the games involved 2 teams playing with purpose, some involved one team with much more purpose than the other, and some involved 2 teams playing for next to nothing. I think you are likely to see some different outcomes this week. It is very difficult to beat a good NFL team twice. It's a new game, but it's the same teams. I don't get what you don't get about it. Sameness is boring. Different-ness is less boring. Same team but completely different context for all the games involved. Teams play division rivals twice a year, and only one of these matchups is a three timer. I really don't think it's boring at all. It's playoff football, that is glorious. And how can a baseball fan complain about teams playing each other more than once in playoff season? Dallas/Philly is always good for side stories, Arizona/GB should be a great pass happy matchup. The Jets game might be boring but that has a lot more to do with the fact that they are a boring team than that they are playing the same team this week.

I don't get what is boring about it. It's a new game. Some of the games involved 2 teams playing with purpose, some involved one team with much more purpose than the other, and some involved 2 teams playing for next to nothing. I think you are likely to see some different outcomes this week. It is very difficult to beat a good NFL team twice.

Okay, for the sake of argument, I could see picking up a guy like Kovalchuk and dumping longer term contracts like Sharp and Versteeg. But that only works if you assume the Hawks will have no interest in signing him beyond this year. But I'm torned, you make this trade and you are literally putting ALL OF THE EGGS into one basketballand going for it this year. But if you don't win it this yr, then you take a step or two back beginning next yr. I think this team is good enough as is to win the Cup and honestly at some point you can add more talent and get dimishing returns on it. Only so many people can be on the ice and score at once. I would agree that it gives us more depth though, and Kovalchuk is obviously a terrific player. But since the Hawks are good enough as currently constructed to win this year, I'd prefer any move they make have to do with sustaining long term success. Whatever happens, the Blackhawks will be without some of their non-star players next year. They simply have to move some of those guys to make the cap work. There's no getting around it. So the question is do you deal those guys for draft picks or for a star who can help now? The Blackhawks are still loaded with young talent. I really don't think they'd be putting all their eggs in this year's basket (the best players are still signed longterm) but they'd obviously be emphasizing this year more. There's no telling what kind of picks you can get for those guys, if you aren't getting 1sts and 2nds, why not get in on something like this?