I'm sure he will. I didn't think that I said he wouldn't. All I'm trying to say is that I could see players beginning to question him a little quicker than usual. Could even lead to him being replaced sooner than one would originally think. You said barring a complete collapse... I think that's on the table right now. Detroit looked good. Vikings looked good - better than I thought. GB will put it together in all likelihood. Beyond that it's SF, CAR, ATL, NE, NO. All of those could be losses. Let's say they go 2-4 in division, with another 5 losses outside. 7-9 in his second season isn't going to satisfy many people. It's a game worse than year 1. Another game like BUF and we're talking 6-10. What do you think anyway? I'm just curious. IIRC you were one who said Trestman might have more trouble if the team struggled. I've thought from the beginning that Trestman's touchy feely ways were something that could lose a team in a hurry, and given the parity in the NFL it wouldn't take much to knock a should be contender into a dumpster fire. He did more with the offense than I expected in week 1 and that sort of thing can allow him to keep his job a bit longer. However, I thought they were running the risk of completely losing the defensive veterans (already happened) and there are not enough young-uns to step-in. I still think Trestman is going to be walking a tight rope. Lovie got the most out of his guys almost everyday and the worst he ever did after his first year was 7-9, in part because he got the most out of guys and never lost the room. He commanded respect and at the very least he had a stable defense that kept them in almost every game. Of course it didn't do much more than that. I think Trestman's Bears are a little more susceptible to the disaster seasons and those can lead to quick turnover of coaching staffs, including the head coach.