raw

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.

63 and bad at coaching, yeah sign me up for that!

So is Pat coming back? I hadn't heard definitively either way since it was initially thought he'd be lost for the season.

Yeah, I'm not worried about trading Fields at all. There were numerous reports about people in the building feeling he was special and had that "it" factor. I think that's why there was indecision that was reported with retaining Pace. There's just no way the organization is going to let prospective GMs get rid of a high-character special talent like Fields. Anyone who doesn't love him should not be considered. Not for not loving him, but because their qualifications should be seriously questioned considering the guys they interviewed are from organizations that have Baker Mayfield, traded a 1st for Carson Wentz, kept running Big Ben's corpse out there, and have Taysom Hill as QB1 (among other questionable things) at QB.

Yeah, there's really nothing that points to Frazier being a "top" candidate. Just someone they really want to give an interview to.

Well, the Nets, Bucks and Sixers all lost yesterday as well.

Kwesi Adofo-Mensah (w/ Niners) and Ed Dodds (w/ Raiders) have worked in the same organization as Harbaugh in the past. Jeff Ireland also a match. They parted ways with Mike Mayock earlier today.......which you know because you posted it in the other thread.

With the sheer number of minority candidates the Bears brought in, I'd be kinda disappointed if they end up with Dodds and Daboll (2 white guys), even though Dodds is my top GM choice and Daboll is the hot candidate. Daboll has been linked to the Bears all season (by Ben Allbright) and Dodds is considered the star GM candidate. But hiring both seems kind of predetermined and makes the whole process look like it was for show.

Also Rick Smith. Thanks, I'll add him to the list. And Ran Carthon. And Omar Khan.

The bears are the best open coaching location Daboll will interview and makes all the horsefeathering sense Raw remains cautious I'm teasing, I'm back to the guy who I felt the best about at the beginning of all of this. I think the question now is, will McCaskey agree? This could end beautifully I think the cautiousness comes from the Nagy experience. Offensive coordinator. Unsure about his leadership ability. Unsure about his ability to call plays with all the other duties as a first time head coach. Unsure about his ability to delegate without meddling. But the difference is that Daboll isn't running his version of his HCs offense. Daboll didn't only call plays for 6 games and maybe a playoff game. He's been running his offense for several years and has extensive experience under different regimes. He also has developed a QB and developed an offense perfectly geared toward said QB along the way. I'd say I've gone from more cautious to now more optimistic after last night. Not that 1 game really should matter that much (because what happens with a dud next week), but this was a perfect game against a top 5 defense. But like defensive coaches where so much depends on the OC hire, so much with Daboll depends on who he surrounds himself with if he can't continue to do all he does in additional to running the entire team.

Bears Twitter all about Daboll right now. Always been cautiously optimistic with him. Can't lie Fields would be a great fit for what he was running today, but Fields doesn't quite have Allen's arm. Sent from my SM-A115AZ using Tapatalk

I seem to remember a game where it sure looked like Foles said horsefeathers it and just started running his own offense through pre-snap calls. Or maybe it was the time they were driving in the hurry up and Nagy called timeout and completely upended the momentum. The guy was a terrible coach. Yeah, I see this more as him being a terrible coach, not a terrible person. I'm sure this stuff happens in an NFL lockerroom. Guys get frustrated and called out. Standing Mitch up is BS, but I have no problem calling him out. Sounds like he called out other players too. I wouldn't say team chemistry or willingness to play for Nagy was an issue.

Seems to matchup with what Nick Foles has been saying for 2 years, on or off the sidelines. Also, think Dalton and Fields have definitely expressed some level of frustration with things clearly not working on offense.

Somebody else wrote he signed a 5 year contract with only 2 years guaranteed and it was assumed by many it would be one and done. If he knew going in it would be 1-and-done, then cool whatever from his end of it. Still shitty for the Texans to make him a token hire, if there was literally nothing he could do to keep the job.

Ideally, he wouldn't deal with Fields too much. Hire a good OC and let them run the offense and stay out of the way/lead the rest of the team. that's exactly what I'm referring to, WHO would be the OC? In some cases, that becomes a harder question to answer than HC, particularity in Flores case Post above yours is exactly who I was thinking. Pep Hamilton. Sounds like they may be a package deal. Houston doesn't want to lose Pep though.

Dammit. Tango - le

To your point, Mike Tomlin is literally the only black HC in the whole league right now. Brian Flores will probably get another HC job, but that's such a bad look. The 2020 Texans went 4-12 with Deshaun Watson, the fact that Culley went 4-13 without him is a legitimate accomplishment. Exactly, and it's not like he had any benefits of what could have been a loaded draft class with the #3 picked earned from 2020 because they traded all their picks away. I know it takes 2 to tangle. Culley probably knew what he was getting into, and part of me can't blame him. It's a lifelong dream probably to be an NFL HC. And he got the chance right before retirement. But that doesn't make it right.

The Culley firing actually legitimately pisses me off. Knew it was going to happen too. He clearly wasn't the most qualified for the job, as he kinda came out of nowhere. But I'm sure it was a lifelong dream to be an NFL HC, and he definitely did as good of a job there in Houston as anyone could have with a horsefeathers roster. Very clear to me when he was hired that it was done to try to prove the organization isn't racist w/ it's racist owner and at the time this lawyer dude was being accused of being racially motivated to take down Watson for wanting to leave (I don't believe this FWIW). Was very clearly a "see we hired a black coach!" move, and they gave him one of the bottom 2 rosters in the league, but didn't have the benefit of actual draft picks like the Lions. Then they fire him after 1 season that I would call very respectable, which included developing a potential QB of the future. This is the [expletive] people talk about with the NFLs "diversity". Black coaches typically get horsefeathers jobs, short leashes and few second chances (at 66 he's done being a HC).

Ideally, he wouldn't deal with Fields too much. Hire a good OC and let them run the offense and stay out of the way/lead the rest of the team.