nfoligno

Angelo should step in. In Tenn, Bud Adams basically told Fisher to start Vince Young as the season was a bust, and the team needed to see if VY was their future or not. By that same right, Angelo should step in and force Lovie to play certain players. I can't totally fault Lovie. The job of the HC is to try and win each and every game, and that means playing your best players. That is even more true for a coach on the hotseat. The GM should be looking at the big picture more so though. Further, Angelo has extra reason to push Lovie to play the younger players. If, in the final 5 games, players Angelo drafted look good, he would have a better argument for keeping his job, rather than if his draft picks stay on the bench, or the inactive list.

Regarding Chico, I am pretty sure the only way we can get him away from SD would be to make him the HC. I think he may already be an assistant HC there, and regardless, I am pretty sure you can not steal away another teams coordinator simply by adding the worthless title "assistant headcoach". If you want Chico, you would have to make him the HC. Regarding Marinelli, Babich, and every other assistant coach on staff, if you hire Shanny (or frankly any other HC) you do not force him to keep anyone. He chooses his own staff. If he feels Marinelli or Babich are the best for the job, fine. If not, he gets who he wants. Frankly, I would hope we would not want either of those two. Each of those two have experience in one, and only one, scheme (cover two). I would hope we would be looking to change our scheme, and thus we would need different assistants too. Finally, if you want Shanny, you likely have to give him the GM role as well. I believe he had that in Denver, and is likely going to want that again. Shanny and Cowher are of a high enough level, and will likely be in a high enough demand, that they will most likely be giving a GM/HC job by someone.

Where did you read that? Everything I have read today is now putting him as questionable.

I could be wrong, but I think Jason was using a bit of sarcasm.

If Briggs is out for this game, and we play Cato June at WLB rather than Williams, I will be ticked. It isn't that I think June couldn't contribute. Heck, he may be better than Williams. But we are out of the playoff hunt, and we need to be looking at our young players wherever we can. Briggs injury gives us an opportunity to see what Williams can do. At this point, getting playing time for the younger players, and seeing if they have a future w/ the team, is a hell of a lot more important than any contribution a player like June, who is a stop gap fill in, could provide. If Williams can't handle the duties at WLB, then we need to know. I have no expectation of Lovie, who I am sure feels the heat, of just going to a total youth movement, but for some position, it is just too logical to give younger players an opportunity. Jamar Williams should be playing WLB. Chris Williams should be starting at LB w/ Pace out. Frankly, if Pace were not injured, Williams should be starting at LT regardless. DA should be getting increased reps at WR. Gaines Adams and Gilbert should be getting increased reps in their respective rotations at DE and DT.

Just curious though. If you took a pole and asked how many believed would would trade for Cutler, how many do you think would respond in the positive? I am far from confident, but so many times I have heard (and often said) there is no chance our ownership will do or allow this or that. No way they would hire a true GM w/ power. Heck, there was a time when fans didn't believe our ownership would shell out $10m or more in bonus dollars. No way we would have the highest paid coach in the NFL. And no freaking way we would ever trade for a QB like Cutler, giving up picks and even giving an extension when he has numerous years left on his deal. I think, for our ownership, Lovie is on the hot seat, but no decision has been made. More games like the Minny game very well could push them over the edge though. We have Stl this week, which we should win. But what could really make or break Lovie is the three games after that. We get GB at home, followed by a trip to Baltimore and home again for Minny. If we are embarassed in those three games, two of which are at home by division rivals, I honestly think Lovie is gone.

I don't see owners in any way wanting a no cap season, and think they would rather a lockout. And frankly, this would be stupid as well. The NFL has become such a big thing, it simply is not smart to mess w/ such a good product. Baseball has, several times, and the result was the National Pastime really losing a lot of fans. For the players, they too would really hurt themselves. As often talked about, only players w/ 6+ years of experience would be FAs, and that means a lot of players planning on a big payday would be RFAs, and would miss out on the big payday. Further, I believe each team would be allowed not one, but two franchise tags, and thus again, fewer still players hit the FA market and get their big payday. Lower level players could miss out as well. While the cap would be gone, so would the minimum. Thus the lower level players would no longer find themselves being offered what is the current veteran minimum. Seriously, everyone would lose all around, and it just would not make sense. That is why, despite the chest thumping and puffing, I just can not see the two sides drawing a line and not coming to an agreement. I think both sides will give.

I agree we don't have a NT that would command a double team, but then again, do we have anyone on the DL in our current 4-3 that commands a double team? The reality is, whether we change to a 3-4, a bigger body 4-3, or even if we stick w/ the cover 2 D, we need to add and upgrade on the DL. Not a player on our DL today consistently requires a double team. Not one! So while I realize we lack a NT, I could also argue we lack a player (or multiple) for any scheme we want to run. If we were to consider a jump to a 3-4 though... Brown and Melton would be interesting from the OLB position. I would add that Anderson could be re-signed cheap, and w/ his athleticism, he too could be a very interesting OLB. I really don't know enough about Gaines Adams to know whether he would be better off adding weight to stay at DE, or moving to OLB. Idonije could play DE in a 3-4. Harris and Gilbert would be interesting looking 3-4 DEs too. Heck, if the dude could stay healthy, Dusty would make an interesting 3-4 DE. That's the thing about going from a scheme like ours to a 3-4. In our scheme, your DL is already lighter, thus your DTs could play DE and your DEs would have the right size and athleticism to play OLB. I am not saying all of the players could make the transition, but when you talk about what you look for in a 3-4 scheme at DT and OLB, I think there is a fit. Yes, we would lack a NT, but as I said, we lack DE and DT now for our current scheme, and would be lacking for any scheme we change too. I didn't mention Wale only because he is due to hit FA, and I think he may have played well enough this year to be outside our price range.

Well, I would point out that our staff is usually a bit less than forthcoming when it comes to reporting on our players injuries. They often downplay injuries. Maybe that isn't what is going on, but like you said, why now. Even if Briggs might miss one game, we have Williams who can play WLB, and frankly, deserves an opportunity. That is why I think this may be a sign Briggs injury is a bit more series. Then again, maybe the staff is simply realizing the season is over and there is no reason to hold out hope for Pisa. So we may be planning to finally put Pisa on IR, which creates an opening. Honestly though, it doesn't make a ton of sense. June is no spring chicken. He isn't a player you bring onto a team that is now in a position to develop youth.

That might mean bad news regarding Briggs. Urlacher and Pisa have been out a while, yet the team did not make a move like this. Briggs went down Sunday, and reports I have read so far give me the impression the injury wasn't too minor. It isn't like we are still in the hunt, so there is no reason to go out at this point and add older veterans to try and upgrade. No, if we added June, that may well mean troubling things for Briggs.

The questions are (a) are any of the current players salvagable and ( how do we fix this ship. Regarding the first part, Players who deserve, or should, remain: Williams - It isn't that he has earned it so much, but he was a top 15, 1st round pick last year and is still early in terms of development. Needs to be moved back to the left side and given an opportunity to play the position he was drafted to play. Garza - Just can't explain how much it kills me to put him here, but he has been at least decent this year. I am not saying he is an automatic starter, but I think his play this year at least earns him the right to be on the roster next year, and be in the mix to start. Beekman - He did quite well last year, and has been better than Omiyale when given a chance this year. Still projects at C too. Omiyale - Likely shocking to see him on this list, but when you factor his contract, age and that we played him out of position, I just can't see the reason to cut him. That doesn't mean he starts, but he does get an opportunity to make the roster and potentially more. Its up to him. Mannelly - Doesn't really play OL, but is deep depth and simply a solid long snapper, which no one realizes the value until you see snap going over the punters head. Players who may not deserve it, but will likely be kept anyway: Kreutz - The old war captain has lost more than a step, but I just can't see the staff letting him go. Lance Louis - He could stay or go, but was drafted as a raw developmental player, and I thought I read some good things. Kid gets a chance to make the 53 man roster. Shaffer - I am not a fan, but you can only turnover so much, and you still need depth. We don't have enough draft picks for a complete overhaul, so Shaffer gets to return for depth. Gone: Pace - Should have retired already. Reed - If he hasn't developed by now, I doubt we should expect much more. That may not be as much turnover as most want, but understand, players like Louis and Shaffer are just being allowed back to camp to compete for a roster spot. I am just saying there is no need to cut players like that out-right. Second part, what do we do to fix this. With our top pick, which unfortunately is only a 3rd, look for OL. Preferably a big OT to play on the right side. And enough with looking for versatile OL. Either draft an OT or an OG, but stop trying to find guys who are capable of playing anywhere on the OL, but who are not great at any one spot. Draft at least 1 more OL in either the 4th or 5th round. I would love to say draft OL all the way through, but the reality is, we have so many needs, that just isn't realistic. Still, OL is a great enough need to warrant taking OL twice in our first 3 picks. Sign the best RG we can in FA. If we intent to play Williams on the left side, I think we need a solid veteran next to him. That will help sure up the RG position, as well as the right side in general, and should also benefit the development of Williams. Really, that is about it. We are not going to "fix" the OL in one year. I am looking at this as a two year process, with hopes of seeing enough of an upgrade by next season to have at least an average OL. So, by 2010, our OL would be: Williams - FA Veteran - Kreutz - Garza (w/ competition from Beekman and likely a rookie) - Rookie, Omiyale or Shaffer, whoever wins in camp. By 2010, our OL would be: Williams - Veteran from prior season - Beekman - 2011 rookie - 2010 rookie

Personally, I just do not believe we enter next year w/o a new CBA. I think a new CBA will be signed by then. I think the owners will eventually give in to the players in terms of the big picture dollars, but force the players to concede to many smaller aspects, like draft slotting, player conduct, etc. But football is simply too much of a golden goose that I just do not see either side taking it to the level they talk about. And if it does get there, I think we have a lockout, rather than an uncapped season. So in my eyes, either there is a new CBA and thus normal FA, or there is no new CBA, and thus a lockout, and thus no offseason so all talks are moot.

Yeah, I can't figure it out: both Lovie and Turner seem perfectly happy to make adjustments to capitalize on the other team's weaknesses, but they NEVER make adjustments to cover their own. If somebody's beating us (like Allen torching Pace or Griese hitting that 6-yard slant all day) it takes at least 3 quarters before they make any adjustments to stop it. It seems like they're doing exactly what you said: just asking guys to "play better" and leaving it at that. Only aspect here I disagree w/ is when you say our staff is happy to make adjustments to capitalize on opponent's weaknesses. Honestly, that is something I have never felt we did well. Turner often seems to out-thing himself. He enters a game against a team that is elite against the run, but weak against the pass. Most teams look at that and throw the ball. Turner? He thinks to himself that the opponent will expect him to do that, so instead, he will run the ball and outsmart them. Oops. We just talked ourselves into attacking their strength, rather than their weakness. No different on defense. Do we really do anything different based on the opponent. Hell, even Farve talked about how we really do the same thing game in and game out. Lovie believes his scheme is such that it can shut down an opponent, regardless what that opponents strengths are. If they'd just admitted that Orlando Pace can't stop Jared Allen one-on-one and left a TE in to block or assigned a back to chip him, maybe Cutler could have hit some of those passes. Literally EVERY TEAM IN THE NFL doubles Allen or at LEAST chips him, but the Bears think their 34-year-old retread LT is going to stop him solo? Even the 31-year-old version of Pace gave up 2 or 3 sacks to Allen; do the coaches think he's gotten better since then? Honestly, this one just goes being baffling. One, how the hell, when game planning, do you prepare for this game and not think Allen is the sort of player who warrants help. Pace has been getting destroyed all year, and frankly, at times by some pretty mediocre DEs. Entering this game, why the hell would we think Pace could handle Allen. Two, as bad as it is to think about the pre game planning aspect here, it is truly confounding that, as we watch Allen consistently destroy Pace, and thus Cutler, we do nothing to adjust. Toward the end of the game, on a couple plays, we did put a TE over there, but only after Pace left the game and Shaffer entered. So Turner thought Shaffer may need some help (but even then, only a couple times) but didn't feel Pace ever needed assistance. Wow! When the coaches won't admit that one of our guys is outclassed by a guy on the other team, they're just giving him license to beat us all day. If they can't see that, they should go find some tape of Super Bowl XXXI and watch what happened when the Patriots decided that Max Lane could handle Reggie White by himself, after he'd been needing help from a TE for the whole game. If your guy isn't good enough to block his man, then you need to get him some help. Worry about getting him to play better when you start practice on Monday, but don't leave it all up to him on Sunday. Remember some years ago when we were facing Carolina in the playoffs? Steve Smith came into that game w/ 103 catches, over 1,500 yards and 12 scores. He was having the best season of his career, by far. He was a player teams double teamed, and he was still productive. But everyone said. When facing him, you have to jam him early, and get a safety to help over the top. Did we? Nope. We put Tillman on him, often on an island. Or we played our hole filled zone and expected our Safety to cover him solo deep. Result? 12 catches, 218 yards and 2 scores. Smith destroyed us. No one could understand the thinking/game plan entering the game, but more confusing was our lack of adjustment while watching him destroy our DBs. The years have gone by, and yet so much is still the same. Whether talking about game planning or in-game adjustments, this staff just has no clue.

Back to the offense, I have also made this argument. No one wants the picks, but picks are part of what you get when you are aggresive and try to make something out of nothing. It could be argued that the only reason we were in some of those games was due to such an aggressive style of play. If we went back to a system where we don't play aggressive, we may have fewer turnovers, but I think we would also see far more 3 and outs and a worse TOP ratio. If we don't take chances and continuasly go 3 and out, how much more would our defense get beaten? If we go 3 and out and lose the field position battle, is our defense good enough to compensate? Not from what I have seen. So we could ask whether we would be better off w/o the picks, but that really puts a simplistic spin on this. To avoid the picks, you have to be less aggressive. We do not have a defense capable of compensating for a conservative offense, and thus, I think we still lose games at the end of the day.

Its really just depressing. There are many ways to compensate for a poor OL. At some points, I have seen us do things to compensate, only to for whatever reason, get away from that. In the Minny game, Pace, and then Shaffer, were getting destroyed by Allen, yet what did we do to compensate. All game Aikman was questioning why we left our LT on an island against one of (if not the) league's premier pass rusher. Against SF, we used the RB screen very effectively, but how much have we seen it since? We have all year been calling for Cutler to roll out, as have many, yet have we seen it? I have seen other QBs do this against us so well. When the QB rolls out, you are forcing DL to chase, and the QB simply has more time, which means WRs have more time to run their routes. Yet instead, we keep Cutler confined to the pocket, even though he is considered one of the best QBs throwing while rolling out. Especially w/ a poor OL, does it make sense to keep the QB in the pocket? All you are doing is making sure the DL knows exactly where the QB will be, making their job a lot easier. As you said, Forte is a great receiver, and yet rather than use him as a safety net for Cutler, he really only catches the ball on designed plays. Cutler really doesn't have a safety net. His safety net is usually Olsen, who is often covered by opponents #1 CB. That isn't a great safety net. One other thing I have noticed is, while we have started to have Cutler use more 3 step drops, at the same time, we are still having our WRs run deeper routes. Further, based on who Cutler first looks at, his first reads are still downfield. That just doesn't make sense. We are not the first team to field a poor OL, yet usually, OCs do more to try and compensate. As has been the case on this team for years, we seem to try and compensate by simply telling players to play better. Rather than give, for example, Pace help, we tell him to play better and block Allen on an island. It doesn't matter that he simply can't do it. We just ask him to try harder. This group of coaches has had their head in the sand for years, and my only hope at this point is that this will be the final year we have to watch Lovie and Co.

Yup. On the OL, could it really be worse? Williams to LT is just the absolutely most obvious. Omiyale to RT makes sense. He has experience at OT, and w/ Williams moving, there would be a hole. Beekman to center is touchy. Kreutz is such a leader, despite his play, that it could backfire. I know how you feel, but the staff would have to really approach that one carefully. Playing him would be essentially telling Kreutz, "We want to see if Beekman can replace you next year, or if we have to find a guy in the offseason to replace you in 2011". Doubt that goes over well, and could cause more harm then good. Still makes sense, but just not as easily done was other moves. Jamar Williams should be on the field a lot. It isn't like Hunter or Roach are so good you can't sit them. Adams? The only bad thing here is, when I have seen him on the field, wow has he looked awful. Still, we need to get him out there. Frankly, as Anderson is due to hit FA, we should simply give Anderson's reps to Adams. We need to decide whether Gilbert is a DT or a DE, but whatever he is, he needs to see the field a lot more. For Moore and Iglesias, a good start would their being active on game day. DA needs to get on the field a lot more. I think he has only two catches, but wow were both of those catches athletic. With that said, I expect to see very little. I think Williams to LT is a possibility, though only because Pace has suffered injury of late, giving the staff an excuse to do what they otherwise don't have the guts to do. Beekman to OG again is possible, though the staff went the opposite direction this past week. I think we may see more of DA and Gaines Adams, but for the rest, I expect to see little.

Adams and Harrison both weigh in at 310 or above. That isn't that much less than Hampton (Pitt) or Wilfork (NE) who play the NT position. Now, whether either would be capable, I don't know, but I do think both would be candidates. Would could also be interesting is, Harris might actually fit as a 3-4 DE. As might Gilbert. Brown would likely have to move to OLB. But I'll say this. This would be a bit interesting. DL: Gilbert - Harrison - Harris LB: Brown - Briggs - Urlacher - Jamar Williams. Not saying this would work, but it would be interesting

My thing is, he’s put in all this time trying to be a #1 and has yet to develop any rapport with Cutler. I put that on Hester, as the QB has to be able to trust his wideout. That being said, I do think Hester can re-kindle some of the fire gone from the return game. This will also give Knox more PT at WR; a move I think suits both skillsets. I guess part of my thing is that I still believe he can be a good WR. No, he is not, and will never be, a #1 WR, but that doesn't mean he can't be very effective as a WR. Frankly, I think his best position is out of the slot. Reasons I don't want to simply move him back to a returner role. (a) In terms of KO, DM and even Knox have been quite excellent, and frankly, DM last year was awesome. I am not sure Hester is truly an upgrade to DM, and even if he is, is he enough of one that you just quit on him as a WR? ( Punt returner is just too small of a role for him. He needs to be more than that. I do wonder if we made him a slot receiver, rather than our #1 starter, if that would not improve his chances as a punt returner. © I think returners have a very small window to be great, at least on the level Hester was. While he broke the mold in many ways, I just never felt it would be long term. (d) I think he can be effective, and even dangerous as a WR. I believe (a) coaching has done little to develop him in this area and ( he is essentially out of position as the staff has tried to force him to be more than he is. If he were a slot WR, or even a #2 opposite a more proven #1, I think he could be a damn good WR. He is simply not a #1. But many WRs can be great w/o being a #1. (e) Contract. This is simply reality. He signed a deal loaded w/ incentives tied to his play as a WR, which is also the position he wants to play. We move him where we want, but if he is not on board w/ the move, we are not going to see the effort. WR is what he believes is his position, and where he knows his money is tied too. He is not going to be happy w/ a move back to a returner specific role, and if he is not happy, you can bet he is not going to produce as he once did. Not talking about annointing the guy, but I do think he had some chemistry with Cutler. It’s tryout time and I think Aromashodu has shown more than the other WR’s that have not played much. I have zero issue w/, and have called for it myself, getting DA more PT. At the same time, I simply question jumping him all the way to a #1 role. I thin we can get DA a ton more PT w/o making him the #1. If DA producing, his PT goes up further, but I just think players need to earn their way. I guess we’ll have to see what the wad is. Sure, but be realistic. Even if we do hit the offseason w/ money to burn, there is simply no way we are going to sign upper tier FAs at: OL, WR, DL and CB. I am not even sure Danny Boy has a wad that large. More realistic is hoping we sign 2 upper tier FAs, and then a group of lesser guys. One has to be OL. I think most would agree with that. Could the other be a WR. Maybe. But that doesn't do much for the defense which has been awful. As much as I agree we could use a WR, at the same time, I also would not mind seeing what better coaches could do to develop our current group of young WRs. Further, w/ improved OL play (based on big ticket FA and draft picks) we may yet find our WRs better than we realize. We have talent and youth at WR. We have a pair of 3rds invested in Bennett and Iglesias. We have Knox who has developed faster than expected, and could still have a ways to go before he hits his ceiling. We have DA, who many fans love, and who Cutler is begging to see more of. And yes, we still have Hester, who I do not believe is a #1, but could well be a solid WR if put in a better position, like as a slot guy. We have talent. Could we use more, or a more proven stud. Absolutely. But w/ so many holes, I think we have more youth and talent at the WR position than most other units, and may need to devote more money and resources to other areas and give this group a bit more time to develop. I think he’s becoming one of those cancer types. He’s the engine, but if my man Cowher comes in the DT’s are getting bigger. I just am not sure he is a total cancer. Key for me is that, in your plan (as w/ mine) we would be bringing in a new HC w/ a tougher mentality. I just wonder if a coach like Cowher couldn't get more out of Harris than a player friendly coach like Lovie. And while you say we would need a bigger DT if we signed Cowher, I would argue that if we did move to a 3-4, Harris would actually fit the mold of DE in that system pretty well. If Harris' trade value were better, I could see trading him, but I think his trade value is very low. And I do not feel he has been bad enough to warrant "addition by subtraction" thinking. We have so many holes to fill that I feel getting rid of Harris would only great yet another. Never know, maybe we get lucky. This is regarding Wale. Sure, we could get lucky, but I wouldn't count on it. Key here, as talked about above, is also what our new scheme will be, and whether or not Wale would even be a good fit. I believe he is around 260lbs, which is not close to ideal if we moved to a 3-4. As much as I’ve rooted for Wolfe, he’s shown me nothing to keep him. I guess he can play out his rookie deal since he can play teams. As Jason has said many times, I question how Wolfe has been used. Most teams would view Wolfe as a sort of 3rd down or scat back. For some reason though, we more often than not run him up the middle, or play him as if he were a 220lb every down RB. If he were a FA, and we didn't want to re-sign him. Fine. But I just don't see the need to cut him, especially as he is one of our top special teams players, and if we cut the likes of AP, Davis and others, we may need to keep him for his STs play. Hell yes, it’s not my money!!! Funny, but I am not sure even Danny Snyder or Jerry Jones could afford your offseason play, as fun as it may be.

I don't know the details, but I remember most are tied to his performance as a WR. That is why I don't think we will ever simply move him back to a returner role. Hester knows his money is tied to his play as a WR, and he is not going to willingly give that up.

Great use of stats to back up what we see every Sunday. Our OL is just pathetic. You mention NE and Brady, and that shows IMHO that our problems are not just the OL. The OL is a HUGE part of this, but our weakness at WR also plays a part. W/ the NE example, Brady had Welker, who I believe had a monster year that year, at least in regard to catches. Welker is incredible getting quick separation, and that really helped bail Brady out. Also, playcalling. NE did a lot more that year to compensate for the weak OL w/ a ton of slant and quick release passes. It took us half the season to start looking underneath more rather than deep. Working through your reads takes time. If you 1st read is downfield, which ours often is, you need time to look at that read, then move on to the next. Our OL is so bad that our 1st read doesn't have time to work his route, but at the same time, by the time Cutler starts to look to his 2nd read, he is already having to run for his life. That is a big difference in playcalling between use and NE that year. That year, Brady's first read would often be Welker. If he had time, he could look downfield to Moss, but if the OL broke down, it didn't hurt so much as he just went w/ his first read. For us, that first read is downfield, and too often, so is the 2nd. Cutler doesn't have time to work through his reads. The OL is a huge part of the problem, but only part of it. Right now, the whole thing is a bomb, from OL to WRs to playcalling.

One, for the record, Hub's mention of Pitt was less about their particular scheme, and more about what a DC like Dick LeBeau could do w/ a player of Urlacher's talent. Two, while I am not saying his value would be a 2nd, I do believe many teams around the league would view Urlacher as still capable of being a stud LB for them. IMHO, where he might best fit would be a team like Baltimore. I think Urlacher was at this best when he had bigger DTs in front of him eating up blocks, allowing him more freedom to attack.

The worst part is, IMHO, that you don't stop doing this when Urlacher is out. It is bad enough to make Urlacher do this, but Hunter? It is well known that Hunter lacks the raw athleticism. He is smart, but just lacks the ability to cover a big portion of the field. Yet as we have done so often, when one of our upper tier players go down w/ injury, we expect his replacement to play at the same level. That is a joke. The other aspect of this that always bothered me was, some years ago I remember Lovie talking about Urlacher's strengths and talking about how Urlacher is best when playing "downhill". When he is moving toward the ball and attacking, he is at his best. Yet, despite Lovie saying this is Urlacher best style, we do the opposite w/ him and put him in a position where he is often running backward, uphill, rather than downhill and attacking the LOS. By Lovie's own words, we did not use Urlacher properly.

To be totally honest, I was a young kid when Halas passed, so I admit to not knowing the full story. My point though is simply this. He is glorified for stepping in and hiring Ditka. Such a move was very much outside the box, and it led us to a SB. With that said, my point is only this. Did he not also hire the previous head coaches, none of which saw a great deal of success? Between the time Halas as HC and Ditka as HC, we had 4HCs. Dooley 4 years, no winning seasons. Gibron 3 years, one winning season. Pardee 3 years, 1 winning season. Armstrong 4 years, 1 winning season. That doesn't look like an impression group of HCs. Regarding Ditka, while I do not know, I doubt he was only a TE coach as he was an assistant w/ Dallas for 9 seasons. That is a long time to be just the TE coach. Also, while this is not a popular statement I realize, but I too always thought Ditka was a bit over-rated as a HC. That group of players should have won much more than they did. Ditka will always be a Chicago Immortal as he was the HC of one of the greatest teams ever, and frankly, his personality made him (and many on that team) bigger than life.

I can't disagree with a thing you said. However, I really do not want the McCaskey's telling the coach what to do. Angelo should be letting him know that it is all about next yr at this point. Problem is, Angelo may well be just as on the hot seat as Lovie. W/ that said, Angelo would look a lot better if the players he drafted started to show increased promise, and that isn't going to happen so long as they are on the bench, inactive or playing out of position. One thing I don't see a huge problem with, Madlith, is when Lovie says, "Smith eschewed the idea of playing for the future in the final five games. He said the Bears will field the lineup that gives them the best chance to win." That is coach talk, and not specific to Lovie. Every coach is going to say as much. Hell, I bet Marinelli said the same when his team was winless at this point. You can start giving young players increased playing time, but you still don't admit to it being all about development. You still have a ton of veterans on the team, and you still need everyone to enter each game w/ the intention of winning. If players don't feel winning is top goal, they are going to slack off, and then it really gets ugly.

Look, I love Halas, but to be fair, how many coaches did he go through himself? His record for coaching hires was far from perfect.