nfoligno

I would argue the following: One. Plank is more experienced than Marinelli. While Marinelli had never been higher than a position coach, Plank was a head coach for 3 years. Yes, it was the arena league, but the fact is still that he held a higher level of coaching. I continue to argue there is not that much difference between coaching in another league, like the arena league, and college. Both are different from the NFL, but both can offer signs of what a coach has to offer. Two. Another reason I like Plank is similar to why I liked Rivera, who also came to the Bears w/o having been higher than a NFL position coach. I liked Rivera due to his more broad knowledge on schemes. Similar, Plank has been w/ multiple NFL teams, and again, the arean league, not to mention having plays for one of the top defensive minds in bear history. Contrast that w/ Babich, who basically spent all his coaching time in a cover two scheme. While we do run the cover two, we also need to tweak it (like Indy and others) to have success, and a DC w/ limited experience outside of one systems is handicapped from doing so. Three. While I am not someone who simply thinks any former bear can do it, I would point out that defensive players under Buddy have seemed to do pretty well, as Rivera, Frazier and Singletary have all had success. Maybe those defensive players learned so much of how to run a defense under Buddy that they offer something special today.

Agreed. In SD, while his rep is solid, he is a position coach under an offensive minded HC. As much as he may benefit the team, I think there will be questions how much of the success is him. On the other hand, if he were to join Chicago, there would be no question who was in control of the offense. I believe Mongo said taking over a unit takes time. While that may be true, at the same time, he would be entering a pretty good situation w/ Cutler, and solid young talent at RB, WR and TE. Taking over any team/unit is a risk, but at least in Chicago he has pieces to work with.

I know some are okay w/ the "taking our time" approach, but not me. IMHO, that may well be costing us applicants. I read a couple articles that questioned if we had gone after Fewell quicker and more aggressively, if we could not have locked him up before NY got involved. We just lost out on the guy from Baltimore, who decided to take (per reports) the firm offer from Oakland over our drawn out interview process. Reasons we didn't hire Chud range, but I can't help but wonder what would have happened if we made him an offer on the spot, rather than telling him thanks, we'll be in touch. While we are taking our time interviewing candidates, other teams are making hires, including the candidates we have on our list. Sorry, but I see little positive about this.

I do not think the Bears are the laughing stock of the NFL and tire of hearing that. I can think of at least at least 5 organizations that I would consider in role before the Bears led by Detroit, Oakland, and Washington. I am not happy with the Bears right now, but I certainly would not call them a laughing stock. While I generally agree, I would also say that laughing stock teams don't realize they are in that position until it is too late. What bothers the hell out of me is that a coach just choose Oakland OVER the bears. That is as sad of a statement as I could have come up with. FYI - Mully said that Chud's wife is expecting very soon and he decided that moving right now is not in the best interest of his family. I can't hold that against the Bears. While it is always possible, at the same time, those "issues" usually are all to often put to the side. Moving may not be in their best interest, but at the same time, a family w/ a new one on the way could also use extra cash, and this would be a promotion and salary increase. So I am not sure that excuse should be taken at face value. If the Bears made a nice offer, I can't help but to think of the quote, "With a new born on the way, I can't think of a better place than Chicago to raise a family."

It is truly a sad day when a coach prefers to work for Al Davis in Oakland, rather than join the Bears.

He was also, I believe, a HC in the arena league for 3 years, all of which I believe his team was successful, and I read he was coach of the year in 2 of those 3 seasons before heading to the NFL. Yes, I realize the Arena league is not the NFL, but at the same time, it does IMHO show an ability to coach. In fact, I might argue that proving yourself as a coach in the arena league may mean more than in college. In college, you are coaching kids who do not get paid and are simply more coachable, while in the arena league, you are coaching men who are getting paid. Not on the same level as the NFL, but I think closer than in college. So 3 successful years as a HC in the Arena league. Assistant w/ Atlanta in a pretty good secondary. Assistant in NY w/ a dominating secondary. Not a horrible resume. Not saying he is the best choice, but I am not sure he is any less qualified than whoever we end up with.

Just read that myself. The article goes on to really question the team though. First, it questions what the Bears may not have liked of a guy highly respected by some highly respected offensive minds. Then it goes on to question whether the Bear have a clue when it comes to offense. Lovie and Angelo are both defensive backgrounded guys. Question whether the Bears even know what it is they are looking for on offense. As the article says, Chud may have bombed the interview, but how much do we trust this group running the interviews, especially when it comes to the offensive side of the ball?

I would say Kampman. Kampman has more recently put up the bigger sack totals. This year was down, but he was also moved into a 3-4 scheme he said himself he never was comfortable with. Best year was 2006 with 15.5 sacks. Even though he didn't reach that number again, his 12 and 9.5 are still pretty dang solid. Wale's big 15 sack season was way back in 2003. He had 10 in '05 and 9 in '07, but has otherwise been pretty much a 5-6 sack DE. This year, he showed that he can get it done against weak RTs, but even average RTs were able to all but shut him down. Now, I have to say, I do think Wale is a good DE. He plays the run well. He is smart, and blew up several misdirection plays that often find the DE out of position. He is a fine all around DE, but simply not a great pass rusher. Kampman, I think, is also good vs the run, but has proven more capable of being a dominating pass rusher. Further, Kampman was dominating when he was the focus on OLs. Wale's big dominating year came when he was opposite Jason Taylor. There is no question I would rather have Kampman, but the question is going to be money. This is a thin year for FA, and pass rushing DEs come at a high premium. He is coming off a bad year, due to injury and scheme, but his recent history of dominating performances could spell big dollars. Not insane big, but likely higher than I would want to pay him.

Maybe, but why go through the charade at all then? If your associates have bad mouthed the team, and you don't intend to take the job, why even bother flying to Chicago for the interview. As others have done, he could have simply said he wasn't interested. I am not sure, as some have thought, that he was looking for contract language regarding his being elevated to HC. Frankly, that is just too rare. I do wonder though if he didn't let the team know that he was willing to leave SD, but would be looking for a 4 year deal, or something along those lines. Or Maybe the team simply said they were looking at a 2 year deal, which prompted him to say, "thanks for wasting my time". I would really have preferred it if there was never an interview. Really liked the idea of getting Chud. At this point, I am near the point of saying screw up. Hire Martz and promote Marinelli (or Babich if Marinelli won't do it). I don't think I am going to be very excited about whoever we finally hire. At least this way, we all but ensure we will have a total overhaul after this season.

I don't think you can read so far into that. We are letting Wale test the waters because while we may not mind having him back, it will not be at a great cost. Thus, if he gets luke warm interest in FA, we can re-sign him. If he gets more interest, then he is gone. Kampman is another issue entirely, as he will cost considerably more.

All were considered, but this was just a top 5 list.

Krenzel doesn't make the list. I think we fans tend to be a tad harsh on him. He was a 2nd day pick who was forced into action his rookie year, on an AWFUL team. He stunk, make no mistake about it, but I can't rip him too much. Kordell stunk, but didn't make the list due to playing well elsewhere.

Has anyone else heard any more details? The report was very vague, only stating a source close to the situation said it isn't going to happen. No mention if its the Bears or Chud who isn't interested. On the Bears side, its possible that Chud gave numbers, either in length of contract or dollars, the team didn't like, or maybe they didn't like his plans on offense. On Chud's side, I think the issues w/ the Bears are obvious, but most of those issues were known prior to his agreeing to the interveiw, so I wonder if something changed. Just curious if anyone in Chicago has heard anything more specific.

1. Cade McNown 2. Jonathan Quinn 3. Rick Mirer 4. Shane Mathews 5. Henry Burris

There is the problem righ there. The situation in Chicago is such that anyone w/ (a) stable job or ( better options is going to pass. Even if we are offering someone a promotion, it may not be enough if that person would expect to be unemployed in one year. Basically, we are looking at (a) unemployed coaches who have not attracted a ton of interest from other teams, ( assistants who have tried and failed many times to get that promotion or © assistants currently in a bad environment.

I'm not going to get into the WR thing. We have talked about that enough. I do not see us moving Tillman to FS though. In that article you mention, it has Graham starting in Tillman's place. The staff seemed very down on Graham this past season. Future burger flippers were getting snaps over him. He finally got on the field at the end of the year, only due to injuries, but looked pretty bad. I just don't see Tillman moving. We would create a huge hole at CB trying to fill the hole at FS. Further, Tillman has been suffered more and more injuries, and that would likely not improve if he moved to FS, where he would be expected to play the run more. Tillman to FS is an idea fans have talked about for year, but the coaches just don't seem to have any interest in the idea.

Jason, How do you REALISTICALLY see us dealing w/ the OL. I am not saying how would you do it. I have said this before, but I worry about what our plan will be. The fact is, our OL finished much better than it started. LT - Pace started the year, and wow. I was never in favor of signing him, but I never expected him to be as bad as he was. Finally by the end of the year, Williams replaced him and it was like night and day. Yes, I realize we gave him a lot of help against Jared Allen we did not give Pace, yet at the same time, I saw us also leave Williams on an island against Allen, and he still held his own. RT - Williams started out on the right side, and simply put, he was out of position. He didn't have the strength to matchup w/ the power rushing LDEs, and when he would try to cheat/compensate, he would be out of position/ off-balance and would then be easily beaten by edge rush moves. As bad as Pace looked at LT, at times Wiliams was just as bad at RT. But then Schaffer comes in. Schaffer was nothing special, but at the same time, I don't often remember DEs whipping him. The simple move of Williams to LT had a dramatic effect on our bookends. He was a huge upgrade over Pace, and Schaffer was a big upgrade over Williams. Further, I would argue this move also improved our interior.... LG - Omiyale was about as bad as any OL I have EVER seen. It was just incredible how bad he was. But he was also playing a new position, and playing next to a LT that was as bad as he. Later, he was benched, and then returned. Thing is, he finished the year playing pretty well. He played well, even strong, against Minny and then again against Det. Omiyale showed some improvement, and playing next to a more stable LT I think helped also. That doesn't mean I have any level of confidence in him, but you have to wonder how Angelo views the situation here. Omiyale was a player he spent fairly big dollars on. It was known he would need time to develop, and I can see Angelo arguing he did in fact develop as he finished the year on a fairly good note. Kreutz - Despite what many think, I don't see any change here. I believe this is his last year, but also believe he is still going to be the starter in 2010. Garza - On a bad OL, he was actually a solid player. I still don't think too much of him, and believe his looking good is more relative to a weak group, but the staff really seems to like him. I do not see us even considering competition, much less replacement or upgrade. Schaffer finished at RT. I am not sure I would consider Schaffer a long term solution, but are we confident Angelo will be quick to replace him? He played fairly well when finally given a chance. So there is the problem. The OL was awful through the season, but did finish pretty strong. I think we could look to add a RT, but I am not sure we will do much more. Despite how fans feel, I think Angelo will view the LG situation as (a) Omiyale improving over the year and believing Tice can further that development and ( we have Beekman in reserve if needed. I might do much more, but what are your legit expectations for our OL offseason?

One, I would argue there are always options. Wether that be AP, Bell, Wolfe or even signing a FA (which several teams did toward the end of the year). Two, in the later part of the season, we were out of the playoffs. At that point, what is the use of continuing to play a kid who is strugging through an injury? Would it not have been better to shut down Forte and just give Bell carries. I am not saying Bell is equal, but why risk making Forte's injury worse? If you have nothing to play for, shut him down. Three, even if you don't think about Sunday's, why not limit Forte in practice? Sorry, but I do not understand the rationale. His injury, which is reported to be similar to Idonije's, is one that you can have surgery, miss a couple weeks, and return. That would seem better than having him play the entire season hurt, and play ineffective at that. Even if you choose not to have surgury, there had to be things we could have done to limit him more, whether in pratice or in games.

We are not just talking 1st round. The suggested target was Dez Bryant. I have not really cared to look at many "boards" as we don't pick until day 2, but I have to believe Dez is considered not only a 1st round prospect, but a 1st half of 1st round prospect. That means we would be talking about going from mid round 3 all the way up to mid to early round 1. This would be very expensive and difficult if we had a high 2nd round pick, but w/o even a 2nd, I think this would be near impossible. We would have to trade Briggs, and hope to get a late 1st. We would then have to package that pick, along w/ likely a 1st round pick in 2011 and other picks to for the change to move into the 1st half of the 1st round. At that point, we still may not be high enough and would have to give up even more. For us to get up there, I think we would be talking about giving up Briggs and basically our 2010 and 2011 draft picks. Not even Ditka would be dumb enough to do that.

I don't think you and I are arguing much at this point. However, I disagree that most fans realize that the CBA situation might make the coaching situation even more complicated next year than this year. Actually, I don't think that most fans even realize how much the looming CBA situation affected the coaching carousel this year. Well - at least from the point that some don't realize (or perhaps accept) how much it had to do with the decision to keep Lovie. The fact that there were only 3 HC changes this year speaks volumes to me - and 2 of the 3 have the richest owners in the league. Oh, I would agree with that. Most fans will write off the Bears keeping Lovie as being as simple as their being cheap, but from a business standpoint, w/ the CBA issue looming, it frankly makes sense. That doesn't mean fans have to like it, but it does make sense. Not really. Cowher would be taken care of, and his preferred assistants may be identified, but that doesn't mean that his guys (that would normally be given permission to leave) will be given permission to leave because the teams they are under contract to will not want to have to figure out how to replace them. Only guys with a contract ending might actually be available. IMO, there will be a virtual "freeze" on the coaching community if everything comes down to the 11th hour. I guess my only point is this. If we want Lovie gone, and think outside the box, there are ways w/o killing the purse to hire a HC like Cowher while other teams are still holding back. We may not be in an ideal environment, but it can be done. And my point is that even now, the $20-30 mil you are talking about for hiring a coaching staff gets paid out in a bunch of smaller chunks over time to a player. They may only get $8-13 mil the first year. That wouldn't cover the whole coaching staff the first year and would also limit the team's ability to pursue free agents from a cash flow perspective. I get your point, but I'm just trying to put the cash flow in perspective. Lovie makes what, about $5m/yr. If you added up the total of all our assistants combined, I don't think it would equal that. So we are talking less than $10m for the entire coaching staff, right? I guess that is what I was getting at. The salary of your entire coaching staff is less than that of your higher paid players SBs. At the end of the day, owners are likely to try and save everywhere they can, but I think the first place many owners will look is player salaries, as those numbers simply get much higher than coaches. Yep - look for underperforming players with high salaries to get purged. Also look for there to be more trades than usual because there is no cap acceleration on trades either. I expect Roy Williams to get moved in Dallas no matter what Jerry Jones has been saying. He said TO wasn't going anywhere either. Honestly, this uncapped year is a partial reason why I am still optimistic about a new CBA happening prior to next season. Frankly, I think the owners flat out wanted this uncapped year. Initially, an uncapped year sounded like a windfall for the players, but then we found out about the restricted FA rules shifting to 6 years, the extra franchise tag and other things, and quickly it appeared this uncapped season didn't benefit players nearly so much. Further, it is a huge boon for many owners as they have the ability to purge their roster of players they may otherwise be stuck with. Just think about how big that is for someone like Snyder who always deals w/ cap issues. Further still, teams can further offset financial issues as they do not have a salary floor this year. So I think owners are talking tough today because frankly, they don't want a new CBA right now. They want this uncapped season. But before too long, I think negotiations will become more legit. Question. Okay, this is an uncapped year. We know that. Can teams play w/ contracts? What I mean is, can a team renegotiate a player's contract this year to front load it. For example, take a players 2011 salary and roll it into a 2010 roster bonus. If this is done, (a) players are always happy getting money now ( team takes a hit to the purse this year, but does so w/ revenue, while at the same time lessinging the burden next year when their finances may not be great and © if a new CBA does happen, this dramatically improves the teams future cap outlook. While I think this offseason is a great opportunity for teams to purge overpaid players, at the same time, it would also seem to prove a great opportunity to set up the team for financial stability for the future.

Damn man, I can't believe you read that article and still found a way to make a negative comment.

I agree. I'm just addressing the point that people are worried about what coaches will be available next offseason. For instance, Phillips just got an extension through 2011 in Dallas. All I'm saying is that if a deal gets done at the 11th hour to save the 2011 season, it will be too late to really try to get a new coaching staff for that year. I'm defining the 11th hour as late February which is after the traditional coach-hiring period. All of the other stuff in February like the application of tags and RFA tenders will be compressed and then FA will begin shortly. That's hardly enough time to hire a new staff and determine what type of players they need for a new scheme much less evaluate the talent already on the team. I guess I am not sure what we are arguing at this point. We already have Lovie through 2011, as Dallas just locked up Wade for. I agreed from the get go that we would not simply fire Lovie if there is no CBA agreement. Again, when fans talk about dumping Lovie after the season, I think (a) it doesn't mean they are saying 1 hour after the end of the final game and ( it is based on the assumption of a new CBA. I think most fans realize that if a new CBA is not agreed upon, then we are not likely to fire Lovie and pay for a 2nd HC to also sit at home. I would point out a little (on the other hand) scenario. I'll use Cowher, simply due to his being a popular choice. Lets say we tank this year and the owners want to make a change, but again, no CBA. What if we (a) cleaned house and ( hired Cowher, but wrote into his contract language that essentially agreed to pay him a minimal amount if there was no CBA and he was not really "working" but the contract kicks in a high salary if a CBA is reach. Then, even if an 11th hour deal is made, you still have a staff in place. While what you say is true right now, I'm pointing out that a new agreement might not have a salary cap meaning that there will be no such thing as a "signing bonus" as we know it now. Money paid is money paid and it won't matter when it's paid. Bonuses that come at the time of signing won't be anywhere near as large. For instance, currently, a signing bonus often has deferred payments so it isn't actually all paid at the time of signing. My ultimate point is that if the mechanisms for structuring contracts change, then teams really have no clue how much they will have available. I didn't make my point I guess. My point has nothing to do w/ the cap. The point is more this. Look at the SB of a big ticket FA. Say $20-30m these days. For the cost (just talking straight dollars) you can pretty much hire an entire coaching staff. So my point is, in ownerships eyes, player costs are more likely to be on the conservative side as those are simply the higher dollar. You are paid on commission and you didn't do so well, and you know your next check is going to be a tad weaker. You need to look at ways to cut back a bit in order to prepare for the lower income. What do you look at first. The big stuff or the little stuff. I can tell my wife to cut out/down on Starbucks, or this or that, but if all those little things is still less than one golf outing of mine, which do you think gets cut? Thats my point. Nothing to do w/ salary cap. I think this offseason, while there will always be the Snyder moves, I think most owners are going to take a conservative approach as they don't want to be on the hook for big salaries next year if there is no season. In fact, I think we could see a real rash of players being released as, w/o a cap, teams can purge their rosters of the expensive players not worth their contracts w/o worry about a cap penalty. I think they all will be signed to 2 year deals so there won't have to be any scrambling if there is an 11th hour agreement before the 2011 season. Ideally we would sign coaches to a one year deal w/ a team option for the 2nd year, but I think most coaches would balk at that idea unless they were truly desperate for a job.

I think the misconception may be between 3rd downs in general and 3rd and long. I don't have the stats in front of me, but I think we were actually a good overall 3rd down D last year. We were poor, I think, in 3rd and long (though not as bad as this year) but our overall 3rd down D wasn't so bad. Even that though is misleading, as I think we gave up a ton of 1st downs because we didn't force teams into 3rd down situations as often. You have to stop a team on 1st and 2nd down before you can even get to 3rd down, and we sucked in that regard.

While I have no problem blaming Turner, I find it hard to not find fault here in Lovie. Should the HC not know about injuries to players too. If the trainers/team doctors knew, then I have to believe the HC would know, not just the OC.

I like the list of OCs he has been tutored by. That is a pretty solid list. As for his offense, what I like is he has worked in more than one type of system, and I think is more likely to cater a system around the talent rather than force talent into a specific system. I have to believe this means he will utilize G Olsen and will help him develop. His experience and history working with TEs is one of the top things I like. When you look at the TEs he has worked with, its basically a who's who from the TE position (minus Tony G). While Olsen didn't really play for him, they did have one year overlap. I think it may have been a red shirt year for Olsen, but from what I read, the two did get to know each other. Where ever he has worked though, the TEs produce on high levels. When he ran the offense in Cle, Winslow was a freak. He already had Gates in SD, but there was no dropoff. And he did an incredible job developing and utilizing TEs at Miami. While I have questioned Olsen at times, there is little question (at least in my mind) that he is our most talented and gifted receiver. That opponents used their top CBs to cover him says a lot. If we brought him in, I think Olsen's development and stats would soar. But look at what he did in Cle. It wasn't just about the TE. Anderson came out of nowhere and put up big numbers that year. Braylon Edwards had a career season. Even Jamal Lewis, who many thought was done, put up big rushing numbers. So when he ran the offense, not only was it very productive, but it was also well rounded, utilizing WR, TE and RBs. That would be refreshing as I never felt Turner was able to do this. I just never understood the "plan" for Olsen w/ Turner. At times I would see us use Olsen as a WR, which he seemed to do well in. Other time, he was a FB? Dude can't block, but we use him as a FB? Too often we used him as a short yardage option, which just seemed like a waste of his talents. I think (a) turner was poor in developing and utilizing Olsen, while Chud would simply do so much more.