raw

Yeah, he's been gone from Atlanta for a year. I'm not sure what he's learned in a few months in Dallas that is going to make him a much better HC than he was in 2020....and he needs to be a much better HC than he was in 2020.

Lot of fans of Caldwell on Twitter. I don't understand. Sure he won relatively speaking in Indy and Detroit. But did nothing in the postseason. I also wouldn't care if he won rings every year he coached. Dude will be 70 when Justin Fields' rookie deal is over. He couldn't even be an OC last year because of health issues. There's a very real chance he doesn't even make it 3 years. The Bears should not be considering a scenario where it's actually likely that Fields will have 3 different head coaches before he potentially signs his 2nd contract. Hopefully, they hire a GM and he puts an end to all this horsefeathers.

Too bad the Bears didn't do the right thing last year and fire Nagy. My favorite defensive coach was out there and with Bears ties. Brandon Staley is more inspiring than most of these defensive names. I do like Eberflus though. WTF do I know though, just get it right.

So with a continuation in the game last night, the Chiefs have to kick the FG to tie the game, but then kick off to the Bills in normal continuation. Or are you saying they have a choice to not tie at the end of regulation, but instead could run out the time in the continuation period and potentially win on a walk off TD? Is that basically having a 65 minute game instead of 60? No, KC still would have to score in 13 seconds to force the tie. But then yea, game continues from last spot. In that case the spot is the kickoff. The theory behind it is that the halftime KO already gave each team equal chances to gain the possession edge at one of the halves. After that point, any possession edge is only time based which is game flow dependent and reliant on strategy and execution. But we don't have to guarantee equal possession because that's not football. As it played out theres no valid reason for KC to get back to back possession, its 100% luck. "That's not football" is the argument I have seen a bunch since yesterday. But you can't have sudden death and then give only 1 team the opportunity for the kill. It's like 1 team getting penalty kicks, penalty shots, a chance to score a basket, a chance to bat. That's the difference between regulation, it's not sudden death. You have a clear ending to regulation. You don't have a clear ending to OT. It's not even true sudden death. It's sudden death, if you do this (score a TD). And it gets magnified when you have one of the best offensive teams in the history of the sport. I get it, and you can't have 1 offs, but seems disingenous to say, "welp, should have stopped them" when nobody is very good at stopping them. Same if the shoe was on the other foot and Buffalo got the ball.

So with a continuation in the game last night, the Chiefs have to kick the FG to tie the game, but then kick off to the Bills in normal continuation. Or are you saying they have a choice to not tie at the end of regulation, but instead could run out the time in the continuation period and potentially win on a walk off TD? Is that basically having a 65 minute game instead of 60?

Eh? It's not the worst thing in the world, yet. If they don't have one until the super bowl, that's a problem. But there's nothing wrong with waiting until this week. There is if Daboll gets hired while Geo is pondering what salad to have at his next GM interview. He's had time, in fact this year he's had more time then in past What if.....I know, long shot.....but what if there is more than 1 good candidate?

I think the latter. It's one reason that I like the wide net approach. You can almost crowdsource HC candidates by what the GM candidates say and vice versa for the GM. That's not a literal statement, but the Bears could be making a simple Venn diagram of who everyone likes and who everyone is concerned about. The other thing is you get to hear 10 GM candidates tell you what is wrong with your team and how to fix it. There must be some level of common answers that are irrefutable even to non-football guys like George. Seems weird to go into GM hires and be like, "hey how do you feel about these guys we've interviewed?" I'm sure it happens, but I feel like most guys would be like, "IDK dude, I've never worked with Leslie Frazier". I could see not getting a huge ringing endorsement from Schoen and basing it off that, but most of these candidate's opinions wouldn't matter until the meet guys themselves in an interview setting.

Allen was the better QB. Mahomes had the better weapons. I'd be inconsolable if I was a Bills player. The season shouldn't end without you getting a chance in a tie game. Literally every other sport gives both teams a chance.

These games are as amazing as last week's were terrible Guaranteed 4 walkoffs

Rush Lambeau Marjorie Taylor Greene Bay BreitBart Starr Brett FAvRe Right

Yeah this is the ideal situation for me as well. I would say Khan and another guy they've interviewed, but I don't wanna lose Champ Kelly if that's the case.

Bulls not only win that game at full strength, they probably win if they have even just Lonzo....even if he had a bad shooting night like everyone else but Matt Thomas, his defense and finishing probably makes a 4-point difference easy. I might even say having 1 of DJJ or Javonte wins this game. Tyler Cook was -9 in 26 minutes more than he should be playing.

Lot on Twitter about Flores and NYG. Sounds like a 2-man race there between Flores and Daboll. Lot of people matched Flores to the Giants job yesterday, before Schoen was hired obviously, but I'm guessing Schoen isn't in the dark about their interest. So maybe both sides think something could work there. The assumption is that Daboll and Schoen will naturally work together, but I do wonder if Schoen accepted the job with the condition of going after Flores or if they just asked him to give both guys a fair shot. Like was said, not necessarily Jones vs. Fields decision. Could be Fields vs. Watson or Fields vs. potential to draft your own QB and with a pair of top 7 picks this year + less pressure to win right away.

Bears Twitter won't freak out about that hire at all, I'm sure.

I could squint and see them really liking Ayo as the offense off the bench (along with Vuc as a second string killer if they pick up a big), and hoping they can get by with Zach/Ayo/some veteran FA signing at the point until March. But as I type that I realize we don't know much about Zach's timeline. Though as I type that I realize that if Zach is out for an extended period of time our expectations are probably significantly lowered anyways. Probably just stay the course for the time being, the minutes will be a great opportunity for Coby and Ayo, see where we're at in a couple weeks. They expect Zach to play Wednesday at this point. Still think we should take a smaller swing. Like PJ Washington, maybe Ibaka. Hell grab Milsap if possible. We are in the driver's seat. We can keep a HCA spot without going for Grant, for example. And Coby still has plenty of development to come. Even if he's just a shooter, his splits have been elite lately. 55/45/92 for a month is ridiculous. Yeah, I'd get Millsap for sure if they can make that happen. I was kind of wanting a big splash move, but now I think that can wait a year. This team jelled pretty quickly, next season they could be even better together, and with Pat Williams fully healthy. Also, Vooch would be an expiring and have more trade value than he does now if he's still being weird.

I think George is using the interviews as much for learning about the game as he is learning about the candidates. I think they were dead set on interviewing a ton of candidates, and especially multiple minority candidates. I do not think that a bunch of interviews means Harbaugh is unrealistic. I do think the 10/100m contract to hire him is the bigger obstacle. That's probably a pretty fair assessment.

I skeptical of all these "hot" rumors. I agree on Caldwell, dude just had to turn down OC in Miami because of health issues, I'm not even sure he wants to be a HC. Maybe with a loaded staff where he doesn't have to run the O and has a strong DC who is a defacto assistant HC on that side of the ball. But I'd hate that hire almost as much as I'd hate Frazier. Caldwell will be 70 when Fields' rookie deal is over. Just screams to me that this organization doesn't understand what it has in Fields. FWIW, I also don't buy Harbaugh in Chicago. I don't think you interview 16-17 GMs and a dozen HC candidates if you are going to go after Harbaugh. And if they were going after Harbaugh, I'd think there'd be more smoke there. As much as he's "meh" to me, he's not a guy you evaluate against competition. If there's serious mutual interest there, you get the Rooney Rule out of the way and hire him after 2-3 interviews. And he'd basically pick his GM so all those interviews would be moot. Maybe a Harbaugh possibility came about late in the process, but they're still adding guys as recently as this week.

Yeah that's the range he should be in. I think he's a solid CB who stepped up this year but some Bills fans don't love him. He's the type of non big spending move I'd like. He can start in 2022, stabilize CB2. Hope Graham, Vildor or potentially a draft pick develops and you get your 3rd CB/nickel. If they outplay him by the end of the year, he's not a super expensive depth piece. Win/win. Sent from my SM-A115AZ using Tapatalk

Ah yeah, I forgot Leno re-signed. But I think I disagree with most of this. I think the splashy WR needs to come thru the draft. This draft, like most other drafts in recent years, is loaded at WR. We've seen WRs go from draft pick to all-pro level in a year or two. Jefferson, Deebo, Calvin Ridley, Chase, Waddle. Granted, most of those guys are 1st round guys, but Deebo was a 2nd rounder. As was AJ Brown. Ridley and Jefferson mid-to-late 1, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that a WR in that similar vein is there in the early 2nd. The Bears just drafted a 1000 yard WR in the 5th. They can certainly find a decent in the early 2nd. Like I said, add a WR just for legitimacy. Someone you know can put up numbers if your rookie isn't a stud right away. Doesn't have to be special, just a step or 2 up from a Goodwin/Byrd type. And doesn't have to be expensive or long-term. Also as for TE, I think people only want a U-TE because they are used to the Nagy offense where he told us he needed 2 TEs. But the Bears #2 TE had 23 targets and 14 catches. That's not anything they need to make a splash for. Sure it would be nice to have Njoku or something as a pass catching TE, especially with uncertainty at WR. But it's definitely not a must, especially when Kmet is still going to get the majority of the snaps. If Daboll gets the job, the Bills TE2 had 1/2 the production of Jimmy Graham. Again, not a must for an elite offense. Lastly, I personally hate spending big money on FA CBs. I don't want to spend double digit millions on a guy that doesn't completely shut down his guy, with a caveat that I'm fine keeping your own guys like they did with Fuller and probably will with Johnson. I feel like CB is typically the biggest overpaid position in free agency. Like I'm sure the Jags aren't ecstatic about 13M per for Shaq Griffin and 0 INTs this year. He's marginally better than a CB that would cost half of that per year.

HOO HOO HOO! I didn't even realize IU and Purdue played tonight. And the Hoosiers beat #4 for their first win over a good team in at least 4 years.

Yeah, I've been putting some stuff together. I think the Bears re-sign Daniels. I'd really like to see him in a different offense that doesn't feature a bunch of shotgun snaps on pure passing downs with 5 man blocking schemes with no chips from RB or TE. I think we could see guys perform better across the board simply with a scheme change. And if you want to improve on Daniels, you're likely getting older (he's the youngest FA in the league) and just as expensive. Cheaper guys may not be as good. The big money guys (Scherff) aren't going to be attainable (also cancels out comp for ARob if you spend that much). ARob for sure in the 3/4 range. The goal should be to keep that pick. So, you aren't going to be able to sign anyone in that price range (12-18Mil AAV). I don't know if Graham will even play next year, but assuming guys like Dalton, Ifedi, and Hicks get signed early enough, that allows 3 UFAs you're able to sign in the 4-10M AAV range. I'm 50/50 on Nichols. Probably lose Hicks and cut Goldman, so losing all 3 starters from a deep DL would hurt a bunch. Then there's still Edwards who is an ass that probably should be cut as well. So, you're choosing between Nichols and a FA of a similar tier, likely also at DL since now you'd need talent there. And like Daniels, Nichols is one of the younger guys in a weak DL class. I'd also look heavy at the cap casualties. One guy that comes to mind is Brandin Cooks, who I'm pretty sure the Texans won't pay. Not sure if they'll cut him or trade him though. If they do cut him, a guy like him would be a no-brainer IMO. IF they trade him, probably won't be for more than a 5th or 6th, and I'd do that if it's a 2023 pick. I do love Christian Kirk, but I'd rather bring in a guy for 1-2 year (Will Fuller, DJ Chark) rather than signing a non-#1 option to a multi-year deal. Draft a top WR, sign a compliment. But don't pay a compliment long-term money. Other than that, short term deals. Lottery tickets. I think that's part of the appeal of a defensive HC. He'd know guys that fit in the scheme, and the D is where the Bears really need most of their depth. They really only need 3 starters on offense. 2 WRs and 1 OL (if they keep Daniels). They can draft 2 of those with the first 2 picks. On D, they need starters at ILB, SS, CB, maybe nickel, DL (maybe 2 spots) and depth at DL, LB, and safety. A defensive guy like Eberflus, Flores, or god forbid, even Frazier could find some nice depth pieces for cheap from their experience. Ideally I'd like to leave draft as wide open as possible and not be in a position to force anything. But if forced, I'd splurge on offense in FA then use those first two picks on D. Maybe trade down and pick up another top 100 pick. Feel like I've seen good things written about CB, DL, and LB in the draft. If they do go with a defensive head coach it's looks like it's likely to be a Tampa-2 tree guy (or other 4-3 coach). So the DL problem is shifted a little, but then you need another off ball LB instead. They're not gonna find a Tommie Harris like talent at 3T, but they only have one good LB now. With as much nickel is played the SAM spot wouldn't be too bad to fill, maybe Attachou could fill that even? Smith could arguable by Mike or Will, but maybe depends on the other guy, which is a huge question mark. Thought about the 4-3 switch too. I think Mack and Quinn work really well as 4-3 DEs, and Quinn basically plays that role even in a 3-4 (hand in dirt, never drops in coverage). The DL and LB rooms need a major makeover anyway. In a 4-3, you probably only need to be 4-5 deep instead of 5-6 deep in a 3-4. I also think Nichols could be a solid 3-tech, so even more reason to keep him. Edwards seems like an ideal 3T as well, but he's played there for other teams and wasn't very good. LB would need a bunch of bodies though. You'd have Roquan, who I'd probably move to WILL LB. But you'd need a SAM and a guy in the middle, though with 75% nickel, 1 of them doesn't have to be anything special. As for spending, like I said, I don't think they need much on offense in terms of bodies. If they re-sign Daniels, they only really need 1 lineman. They aren't going to re-sign Daniels and sign another big FA OL. They could cut Whitehair, but then they are replacing him or starting Mustipher again, neither is ideal. The big money positions on offense are QB, LT, and WR. They COULD spend on a LT and move one of Jenkins/Borom to guard. But there's only 2 top tier OTs on the market. Those guys will cost 18-20Mil/year. The 2nd tier of OT is led by guys like Charles Leno, like he literally may be the 3rd best LT on the market. If you're getting a Leno level player (8-12M/year), you might as well keep your young guys at tackle and spend that much on a guard, which should give you a notch below elite level OG play instead of run-of-the-mill OT play. They could spend big at WR, but I really don't see a new GM throwing out a big time contract for the top guys. Plus, the Bears are already young on offense. QB, LT, RT, TE, WR1/2 is a young core. I don't see the point of adding a bunch of veterans to this group that needs to be developing together. And it's not like offense switches guys out every few plays. Don't ignore defense by any means. But offense should be trying to add long-term pieces. Defense, you can turn over every year minus your core guys (Smith, Johnson, Trevis Gipson, and for now Mack and Jackson) and just keep adding short term pieces to fill out the team.

Yeah, I've been putting some stuff together. I think the Bears re-sign Daniels. I'd really like to see him in a different offense that doesn't feature a bunch of shotgun snaps on pure passing downs with 5 man blocking schemes with no chips from RB or TE. I think we could see guys perform better across the board simply with a scheme change. And if you want to improve on Daniels, you're likely getting older (he's the youngest FA in the league) and just as expensive. Cheaper guys may not be as good. The big money guys (Scherff) aren't going to be attainable (also cancels out comp for ARob if you spend that much). ARob for sure in the 3/4 range. The goal should be to keep that pick. So, you aren't going to be able to sign anyone in that price range (12-18Mil AAV). I don't know if Graham will even play next year, but assuming guys like Dalton, Ifedi, and Hicks get signed early enough, that allows 3 UFAs you're able to sign in the 4-10M AAV range. I'm 50/50 on Nichols. Probably lose Hicks and cut Goldman, so losing all 3 starters from a deep DL would hurt a bunch. Then there's still Edwards who is an ass that probably should be cut as well. So, you're choosing between Nichols and a FA of a similar tier, likely also at DL since now you'd need talent there. And like Daniels, Nichols is one of the younger guys in a weak DL class. I'd also look heavy at the cap casualties. One guy that comes to mind is Brandin Cooks, who I'm pretty sure the Texans won't pay. Not sure if they'll cut him or trade him though. If they do cut him, a guy like him would be a no-brainer IMO. IF they trade him, probably won't be for more than a 5th or 6th, and I'd do that if it's a 2023 pick. I do love Christian Kirk, but I'd rather bring in a guy for 1-2 year (Will Fuller, DJ Chark) rather than signing a non-#1 option to a multi-year deal. Draft a top WR, sign a compliment. But don't pay a compliment long-term money. Other than that, short term deals. Lottery tickets. I think that's part of the appeal of a defensive HC. He'd know guys that fit in the scheme, and the D is where the Bears really need most of their depth. They really only need 3 starters on offense. 2 WRs and 1 OL (if they keep Daniels). They can draft 2 of those with the first 2 picks. On D, they need starters at ILB, SS, CB, maybe nickel, DL (maybe 2 spots) and depth at DL, LB, and safety. A defensive guy like Eberflus, Flores, or god forbid, even Frazier could find some nice depth pieces for cheap from their experience.

do you mean Daboll or Harbaugh? Daboll. Ben Allbright (Broncos guy) has suggested that Daboll was the favorite to be the next Bears coach since the summer.

I fully believe the Bears HC job is the best one in the sport available right now, but the Raiders are right there. And if you're a guy like Harbaugh, no matter how much he loves Chicago and is a Cubs fan, I think the Vegas job is probably the better option. You get warm weather, a fancy new stadium, likely will be able to pick his GM and have significant roster control (Bears have never given this to a HC and said to not like this structure). I'm warming a bit to Harbaugh, but still don't love him. But I keep coming back to Daboll (also not my top choice, but may be the top of who they've interviewed). There's been rumors connecting him to the Bears job before Nagy's seat ever got too warm.

Yeah I think he's a solid enough candidate who's just a weird fit for the Bears right now. Being older isn't by itself bad. Having been meh his last go around isn't by itself bad. Ditto being a defense first guy. But all three together makes him not really fit into where the Bears are in their cycle. Ironically he'd probably be a very good fit for a team like the Vikings. You both summed it up perfectly. With Frazier, you're likely not getting a coach that will sign a 2nd contract even if he is great. This isn't an Arians, Carroll, Reid type situation where you have an old guy who was solid at a previous stop and has continuously led teams and potentially improved in areas of weakness. And I don't think he has enough of a "tree" like those guys where you're either developing his successor or have sought after coaches underneath him.