jason

Bingo. Same for Lovie. It's understandable guys want to keep "their coach" around, but if that coach doesn't produce to expectations, then management has a decision to make. Players will say, "Oh, it's not the coach; it's us!" So, as management, I'd say, "If you wanted to keep him around longer, you should have produced."

Bingo. This is something that has eluded the Bears and most fans for years and years.

I agree in general. OT, WR, OT, WR, Edge, CB. The simple fact is, the Bears are still several pieces away. Given that Pace has staked his job on Trubisky, I know what I would do if I were him. I'd virtually ignore defense and tell Fox and Fangio to coach'em up. One note: A first round OT could work, regardless of Leno. Leno can sit the bench for all I care.

I wasn't even trying to be right. The entire debate is based on a hypothetical that won't happen, so it can't be proven or disproven. But, like Moneyball, could yield results if the tight asses thought outside the box every once in a while. Last but not least, winning a World Series didn't happen for moneyball, but success was achieved and the game changed forever more. I'd settle for those two things and my beloved Bears. It's better than what we have experienced for quite some time.

I thought the final jab about Eason, who went out of the game after going 0fer and got yanked after a quarter, was obvious enough for it to be sarcasm. The fact that it wasn't only proves how stupid PFF's ratings are.

I'm not as sold on Amos.

No. LOL. I just made it up like PFF makes up their grades. Funny though, right?

PFF: "Yeah, I know they wont 46-10, but it really wasn't that dominating. Dent graded out as a 71, Richardson only got an 80, and the leader of the defense, Mike Singletary rated lower than anyone else in the game. Including Eason."

Only one of those guys would play corner.

Where did I contradict myself? The mere possibility is the only thing I've been debating the entire time. A STC could (not would) get a promotion (debatable if it's a promotion) to become an OC. Furthermore, he could do as well or better than the burning feces the Bears have had running offenses. It's unlikely because of the establishment of front offices believing in a rigid, homogeneous pool of candidates. Like I said elsewhere, Money Ball is a perfect example of when thinking outside the box can produce amazing results. This could be a situation like that, but won't, because the people in charge are the same guys who continually hire retreads who got fired unceremoniously from the previous two or three jobs where they were considered an expert. For this franchise, like I've said before, it's probably not the best move, because Trubisky is the most important player the Bears have picked in perhaps a decade or more.

Are we already in mock draft territory? I think we are. Here's my first fanspeak mock. 10: R1P10 EDGE ARDEN KEY LSU 42: R2P10 WR CALVIN RIDLEY ALABAMA 112: R4P10 OT JAMARCO JONES OHIO STATE 114: R4P12 CB ADONIS ALEXANDER VIRGINIA TECH 148: R5P10 CB JAMAL PETERS MISSISSIPPI STATE 189: R6P10 G BRADEN SMITH AUBURN I think we'll draft higher than 10, but it's a good place to start. And if it happens like this, I'll be floored. Arden Key is probably the best possible 3-4 OLB available, and I think Ridley is the best WR in the nation. That would be incredible. Following that up with a solid OT is great. Adonis Alexander could easily play safety since that's where he started, so it lists him opposite of where he'd play. The other two are high upside guys. Peters is a big CB, and Smith should not be available that late. BTW - I'm in the trade down camp again. The Bears should be able to move back several positions with all the QB frenzy to be expected.

That looks horrible in my opinion.

That's almost precisely my point. You can't prove a negative. Neither list provided shows how a ST coach can't be an OC. Both just show the current belief among NFL people is that offensive guys stay in their lane, sometimes go up to HC, and sometimes come back.

Again. You're probably right in terms of whether or not it would happen. It probably never will. But that's only because of the static thinking of these guys who year after year profess themselves to be so amazing and irreplaceable, but year after year only a handful are great at the job. It might not be a bad idea to run an experiment like Toub-to-OC. He'd probably do better than most. That list only proves the static thinking among the coaching ranks and front office types. It doesn't prove Toub would be bad as an OC. The Bears aren't likely to do it, but Trestman was supposed to be magical with QBs, and that didn't pan out. It would definitely be a risky bet, and Trubisky's development as a QB would be the ante.

What he's saying is, the list you linked to is only: 1. Proof that the current OCs are from offensive backgrounds. 2. Full of guys who have sucked as OCs. A few have not. Nowhere on the list does it demonstrate or prove that a ST coach couldn't successfully transition into an OC position.

I merely suggest that if you attempt three-pointers for two decades and continuously shoot bricks with a regulation basketball, it wouldn't be worse to shoot with a football.

It's an interesting thought, and a pretty compelling list, but there is one problem. Only a handful of those guys are considered to be top-notch at their job. Much like Moneyball had to be force-fed in order for old-timers to accept it, thinking outside the box is something that would be tough to swallow for guys who have been around for a long time. But times have changed over the past decade or so, and younger, more innovative minds have looked at the game in different ways. And compounded with the relative lack of success in Chicago on the offensive side of the ball, I could see the McCaskey family being persuaded by someone with a unique set of eyes and approach. Toub is not an inexperienced coach, and regardless of the ST excellence and lack of offensive exposure, there is no way he is completely ignorant of any portion of football. Hell, he played OL in college. But you're right on one thing: I couldn't see any franchise risking the development of a young blue-chipper on a guy who has never coached offense. The only way he'd be hired as OC would be with a QB coach whose experience could hamstring Toub as an OC.

I side with Alaska on this. Would Toub be the perfect candidate as OC? No. Would he be much worse than the retards running Chicago offenses for the past two decades? Unlikely. And those guys were supposed to be offensive gurus. Hell, I literally think anyone on this board could be better than Shoop was.

I'm sort of in the middle on this argument. The Bears have hired more than a few "smart" guys who supposedly knew their stuff on offense. Shoop was supposedly an offensive mind. It turned out he was more of a brain-damaged mind. Crowton was an offensive super-genius, but was only good at a single thing. When the D figured it out, his novelty wore off. Trestman was a highly regarded offensive guy for years and year, but like Crowton he was only good for one year, and couldn't lead a flock of sheep. So why not go unconventional? Could it be much worse than the shit show Chicago has seen over the last two decades? At the very least we know Toub is a proven commodity on the NFL level. He is considered one of the top couple ST minds, and has shown it's not just Hester. He's been successful for nearly 15 years. To be quite honest, if he were hired when he interviewed post-Lovie, the Bears would probably be in a better position right now than they were as a result of Trestman.

Didn't watch it, don't really care. But the ending is perfect. 1. Bears were close 2. Barth not a legit kicker 3. WRs need work 4. OL forced Trubisky to run a few times (according to radio) 5. Trubisky leads 2:00 drive 6. Loss secures the draft position 7. Loss moves closer to firing Fox

I rarely hope/cheer for injuries, but this guy deserves an exploded ACL in the next few games.

I know it sounds cliche, but I want one of the following: 1. Gruden-Throw the bank at him. He's a known offensive guru and QB guru. 2. Harbaugh-He has the type of energy that invigorates a franchise. 3. McDaniels-He learned under the best all time, and would help Trubisky immensely.

My perfect/realistic scenario: 1. Lose to Lions. 21-24, Trubisky throws for 250+ and 2TDs. (3-7) 2. Lose to Eagles. 24-27, Trubisky lights it up and the D keeps the game managed. (3-8) 3. Win vs SF. 35-14. Seems like a given. Balanced offense and defense dominates. (4-8) 4. Lose to Bengals. 21-28. AJ Green torches Kyle Fuller and puts to rest any thought of offering him a good contract. (4-9) 5. Lose to Lions. 21-24. Game looks almost identical to the first go around, and proves Fox doesn't adjust. Rumblings about firing grow. (4-10) 6. Win vs Browns. 30-24. The game is far too close, but they're the Browns. Nail in the coffin. (5-10) 7. Lose to Vikings. 14-31. The offense is in shambles, the team has no energy, and it's clear Trubisky needs A. Help on the OL, B. A better coaching staff to guide his future. (5-11)

Problem with that scenario is no offensive guy worth a damn will come work for a lame-duck HC. Fox would get one more year in your scenario to turn things around, and based on this year, it would be nearly all defense. Same problem Lovie had. Let's say he goes 9-7, and the defense looks just good enough to make the team competitive, but the offense is bad enough that the Bears are never really a threat. Unless there is a truly transcendent player on defense, the overall team treads water around .500, which is just enough to keep a HC. No thanks.

It's only softened because Trubisky's accuracy has been truly enlightening. He will face hurdles as a rookie, and even in the next year or so, but there is no mistaking how he can thread the needle. That gives me hope. On top of that, Jackson appears to be a great find. Like you, I've been asking for Alabama defensive players for several years. I don't really understand the infatuation with small school guys. Give me power conferences all the way. And as for Cohen, I think he's just been scouted by other teams, and Low-Gains is not creative enough (similar to predecessors) to use his weapons effectively. I truly believe an offensive mind that can adjust during the game is capable of exploiting defensive issues with the weapons available (provided the weapons are good). There is no reason whatsoever that double-TE formations haven't been used, particularly when both guys are supposed to be pretty physical blockers. Furthermore, I don't understand why play-actions and roll-outs haven't been used a lot more considering Trubisky's mobility.