WrigleyField 22

Also it could be a pretty light year for openings. Definitely Chicago and Oakland. Probably Minnesota. Maybe New York Giants? Who else?

Seems to be the typical sort of list you see every offseason.

Yes believe it or not Yep from worst defenses in Bears history to a 10/95 contract in about 7 years. What a turnaround. Makes me think Nagy could be signing a 150M contract in a decade if he wants to try out the college route.

Fwiw, it was a decent listen. A little less specific about the Bears centric issues and they weave in and out of Brandon's personal business and leadership. Maybe the most interesting part is Marc says he felt in hindsight he wish he made the hard decision to cut bait with some of the old guard who were never gonna buy in to a different leadership way from Lovie. (he also admits he doesn't think Lovie should have even been fired, maybe a lesson for coaches who may walk into a tough situation like that). He spent a lot of time with guys like Martellus and others and getting their buy in and they did, but it was too much culture shock to many others, particularly the D. Looking at the defensive roster from 12 to 13: Idonije was gone. Urlacher was gone. Peppers was around in 2013, but he never came across as a malcontent. Tillman was there, by all accounts he's a wonderful person, don't see him making a big stink. That leaves Lance Briggs and Tim Jennings. I can definitely see Briggs, in particular, not buying in and it was kind of his team in 2013. Plus, I know from things Urlacher has said in the past, it wasn't a great situation once Cutler got there. I think the vets on defense saw the writing on the wall that the long goal was to make this an offensive driven team and Lovie wasn't long for the HC position (he actually lasted longer than they thought he would) and that meant their status on the team would be in jeopardy. Throw in Urlacher was allowed to walk after 2012 and they probably felt justified in their prophecy. It probably didn't help that Trestman was such a slug of a personality, but guys like Briggs and Urlacher would have only bought in if you brought in a Hall of Fame level communicator/sellsman at that point, and even then it would have been only when they felt like it. In hindsight, if they were going to field 2 of the worst defenses in franchise history, they would have been better off cutting/trading all those guys with Lovie. Yea it was a series of bad moves from the forced Lovie-Emery marriage for a year. Emery pissing of Urlacher, and then not resetting hard on the D. Not saying no coach could have navigated it, but it wasn't an easy spot and Marc certainly wasn't gonna be the guy. But even down to his DC hire of Tucker, who has subsequently done well at the college level and giving them a relatively younger/hunger roster is a kind of interesting what if.

Trestman is a lawyer? wow Not just a pretty face.

I guess he did a podcast with Marshall recently and they addresseed some of those things though and I guess are more normal now. Basically Marshall felt he would have done better with the now younger generation of players. And that Bears team, especially its leaders were older, so even in about 7 years there's a pretty big generational gap between that Bears team and maybe a young team in 2018, perhaps with a young QB in need of molding too. In true hot take form, I haven't actually gotten around to pod yet, but it sounded interesting though; https://www.law.miami.edu/about/leadership-gameplan-podcast Fwiw, it was a decent listen. A little less specific about the Bears centric issues and they weave in and out of Brandon's personal business and leadership. Maybe the most interesting part is Marc says he felt in hindsight he wish he made the hard decision to cut bait with some of the old guard who were never gonna buy in to a different leadership way from Lovie. (he also admits he doesn't think Lovie should have even been fired, maybe a lesson for coaches who may walk into a tough situation like that). He spent a lot of time with guys like Martellus and others and getting their buy in and they did, but it was too much culture shock to many others, particularly the D.

I guess he did a podcast with Marshall recently and they addresseed some of those things though and I guess are more normal now. Basically Marshall felt he would have done better with the now younger generation of players. And that Bears team, especially its leaders were older, so even in about 7 years there's a pretty big generational gap between that Bears team and maybe a young team in 2018, perhaps with a young QB in need of molding too. In true hot take form, I haven't actually gotten around to pod yet, but it sounded interesting though; https://www.law.miami.edu/about/leadership-gameplan-podcast

Hi they weren't really above average in 2014 #16 in DVOA, iirc Okay but they were really good in 13, so I'm counting it. Best two year stretch of Bears offense sinse the late 80s. My hottest of Bears takes I've lately developed might actually be that in a different situation Trestman is at least an average coach. But that Bears situaition in many ways was destined to fail.

Hi

I can't blame a man for having second thoughts about moving to Indy Chicago is home to head coaches who once spurred middling market jobs offers after accepting. It's why they call us the Second City, because we give second chances.

I like McDaniels enough I think but I'll be skepitical if he gets too much power.

*Sigh* They're gonna be pulling Noah out of retirement soon at this stage

Yeah, go for the Deadspin/Defector or even Grantland/The Ringer-style mix of sports and pop culture; cool tangents and deep dives and lists/rankings and horsefeathers for both worlds. Stay away from being too sports-centric a la the dinosaur that is AM radio, and DEFINITELY stay away from the nightmare that is Barstool. Barstool Pizza Reviews but with Thick Onion Gravies instead.

I guess they have some sort of hardship exemption and have signed Stanley Johnston.

I have my god sons baptism Sunday so this should be the perfect opportunity to miss this beat down, and the NFL doesn't have the decency to flex it out so I'll probably end up watching it anyways? Ugh.

Got a 7-10 Bears into the playoffs with a wildcard match up against the Packers. http://espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs/machine/_/factor/wins/results/401326535~1~401326552~1~401326564~2~401326570~1~401326593~1~401326549~2~401326585~2~401326575~2~401326524~3~401326529~1~401326556~2~401326580~2

A recurring segment call horsefeathers the Ricketts where you trash the Ricketts family.

A Nagy win followed by his immediate firing anyways would give me all the feels lol.

Does anyone mentally struggle with Dosunmu's name even now a couple months into the season? I have a (perhaps over simplified) expectation that Nigerian names are usually pretty phonetic and my brain keeps wanting to throw an N in there somehow.

Funny because I still see the occasional person pimp him as a short list candidate for the Bears job. Maybe not anymore.

Do they have a VP person or is GM their top role? Titles aside if it's a true head role, it wouldn't be parallel. That said, NBA teams have I believe total freedom to block their internal staff from being hired even if it's a perceived upgrade, and even if the top role. As I recall from the Karnisovas hiring process a couple teams blocked their guys for interviewing for the role, even though it was clearly a promotion and clearly was the #1 FO role in Chicago. This differs from the NFL for instance where teams can't block a guy from getting a "head of personnel" rol (most often being GM title).

He probably just thinks Tigers are hella cool

I think I had mentioned before, but yea I think the PS call-ups really alleviate some of that need. Since you can't dress the entire 53 man anyways, it just costs extra money for a pretty low benefit. It's kind of hard to remember, but it used to be going on the IR meant you were out for the year. It's gradually been relaxed to a very loose injury provision that it is now, but maybe managing it judicially and saving cap space is a good thing? Yeah, the rules have evolved just in the last few years. Used to be IR = out of the year. Then they added where you could have 1 or 2 guys come back from IR, but it meant they were out at least 8 weeks. Then I think within the last 2 years they added the short-term IR. That used to be limited to a certain number of players as well, but then they allowed for everyone along with the whole 21 day thing with those not on short-term. But yeah, I guess it does save money. And it does make sense to do it this way if guys are going to miss 2-4 games. I know you can't know how guys will heal from every injury and you are cautious with the better players, especially as they get older. So, it makes sense to evaluate the guys on your practice squad weekly over putting a guy on the active roster, be stuck with him for 3-4 games if he can't play and then add new guys to the PS just to cut guys for roster moves in a few weeks. And perhaps you'd be more agressive with a better roster with better chances, but maybe pocketing the little amount of cap space for rollover, in a pointless season is a good thing. It's a small amount, but I'm also just really getting used to orienting myself to the new reality when carry a half dozen injured active guys had been the norm for a long time.

I think I had mentioned before, but yea I think the PS call-ups really alleviate some of that need. Since you can't dress the entire 53 man anyways, it just costs extra money for a pretty low benefit. It's kind of hard to remember, but it used to be going on the IR meant you were out for the year. It's gradually been relaxed to a very loose injury provision that it is now, but maybe managing it judicially and saving cap space is a good thing?

The whole tampering thing is a sham, but at least no first rounders taken. Hopefully AKME is fully entrusted by Michael to buy 2nd rounders they want.