DABEARSDABOMB

Gamble and Ballard (along with DeCosta) are widely viewed as the three top GM candidates in the league. Getting any of the three would be the right move on paper. How it works out, who the hell knows. I really like Ballard's combination of scouting and coaching experience but also like Gamble's background as well. I would be curious what the issues were in Philly and I am sure he will be prepared to discuss that in any interview. However, if our consultant ultimately doesn't recommend him / add him to the list, I would obviously ask if I were the Bears brass and see why he isn't on there so that I understood and may meet with him and have Ernie meet with him, but the move I am making, while I have to be comfortable with it (if I'm in McCaskey's chair), I also want to make darn sure my adviser is also on board.

Clearly my top choice as well, unfortunately, he isn't going to leave his gig for another place. I respect him for it and understand it. He's in a known situation, paid well, and will get to grab the reigns of a franchise where he is comfortable with all of the people (and he has a timeline or is pretty aware of the timeline). To leave that for unfamiliar pastures when you have all of that isn't necessarily a wise choice.

I will continue to say that experience under JA is not a bad thing. JA had a good 5 year run here and than struggled once Lovie got more control (but still made some aggressive moves and helped build a team that made it to the superbowl). Oh and he was given a lot of credit for the Tampa Bay team that was a perennial juggernaut too. Angelo's overall career was extremely successful and to be able to learn from him is not the bad thing that many make it out to be. I'll continue to get ripped for saying it but that is fine.

Harbaugh's success is the reason I'm intrigued with Toub. Not that they are the same people but ST coaches have to deal with the most players on the roster in general and while Toub may not be a specialist in all areas, as long as he has the right philosphy and knows how to appropriate manage people and his staff and obtain the right level of respect and ensure that top notch talent wants to work with him, than he's the right guy. Those are the skills necessary to succeed as a head coach. Being a guru on one side of the ball is nice, but those other skills are far more key, imo.

I wouldn't take Hundley @ 7, but if he was there in 2nd, I'd take him all day long. Hundley's make-up is off the charts. Biggest issue is can he develop. Really didn't see a lot of him this year (in terms of steps forward). However, if you look at his tools he's a better QB than Mariotta in my opinion. Bottom line, only QB worthy of a top 10 pick in this draft is Jamison and that is a major question mark due to his overall make-up.

I am 100% okay with that.

Hundley is extremely intelligent and very talented. Has most of the IQ, but if we take him, we need a legit QB guru to help him with his footwork, etc. None of that Trestman bullshit. I think the Seahawks OC would be a solid fit for Hundley.

I certainly wouldn't take Petty with a high pick. I am completely against taking almost any spread QB very early because I think you are in for a world of hurt getting them developed, etc, unless they are extremely intelligent. I think the biggest thing I look for in a QB is their football IQ and leadership. Obviously they have to have enough arm, but I think it is those other tools that ultimately indicate whether you will succeed at the next level or not.

I like him and I also like their head coach. I think Art Briles would be a great out of the box hire.

It is really simple. Emery interviewed everyone but he also had Marinelli take part in the process. He never delegated the decision to Marinelli, just had other people involved. Haven't you guys ever interviewed at a company where you are interviewed by your future boss (along with other cohorts, etc, sometimes introduced briefly to staff, etc). Happens all the time. Some of you are implying that the Bears gave Marinelli full control. That isn't the case. They just involved him in the process and let him meet potential candidates and asked for his opinion. His opinion isn't what mattered and that was clear at the end of the day. Of course we'd have been better off had it mattered.

I don't think he was in charge of the process, however, they clearly valued his opinion and its too bad no one listened to him. Marinelli has been around the league a long time and is one of the most respected, non head coaches in the business.

Ok...it took the Bears management 10 years to figure out Angelo was bad? Angelo, the same guy who built a franchise that looked to be loaded for a multiple super bowl run (and it might have darn well happened had Harris not been injured). Yes, Angelo struggled his last few years and he failed miserably at reacting quicker to our oline but early on in his tenure he did an exceptional job. Was he responsible for everyone the Bears had on that Super Bowl run, no, but he made a heck of a lot of good moves.

I agree and I would hope if that was whom everyone thought was the right guy and it took making a president, they would do exactly that. To be frank, they already said if they needed to change that structure for the right person, they would be open to it.

Your right, he had done both, but he had a heck of a lot of successes. His big misses were Mark Bradley and Cedric Benson. You list a lot of other guys but not knowing the details, you don't know what Ballard's view was on those guys. You also are going to have misses and Ballard in general had a pretty good track record and has major support. Outside of DeCosta, who is likely not leaving Baltimore, Ballard is arguably the next top candidate in the league.

The general league wide consensus on Ballard is he is probably the top realistic GM candidate. Haven't heard a national pundit who doesn't rave about him. Now we'll leave everything up to Ernie but I don't care if he worked for the bears or not (and I also am not going to handcuff a guy just because he worked for the Bears). The top candidates is the Ravens asst gm, however, he turned us down a couple years ago and I presume he'd do the same now. PS: Ballard wasn't involved in the Bears drafts, he was more a pro scout with the Bears IIRC.

Ballard or DeCosta please.

So for those of you bashing George / Phillips. Does anyone seriously think that Ted / George are going to turn down the candidate that Ernie recommends at the end of the day? Yes, the final decision is with the owners but if people think these guys are going to complete ignore what comes out of Ernie, than well, I think you all are crazy. Also, Pixote, not sure if it was in this thread or another thread, but your post was spot on regarding not trusting them to hire GM, than why trust them to hire football czar either. At the end of the day they made a significant move and are acting much differently than in years past. For now, they get the benefit of the doubt for me and I'm excited about that.

Polian is reportedly talking with the Bills about returning their, so I presume at this time, he wasn't interested.

Accorsi will stick around to help the whole way through but the head coach is going to be picked by the GM (although others will have input). They talked numerous times about how important it is for their to be extremely strong chemistry between the head coach and GM, etc.

Now we have to hope we get different results!!!

Not really...they will have final say and clearly be involved, but they have an expert to help them with the process and provide a lot of insight, etc. Owner is always going to have a say but this time they also have a voice in the room who has successfully done this in the past in Ernie.

In the past, they hired more corporate consulting firms to help with the search. Now they are hiring an extremely respected past GM, who had tons of success and has successfully hired new head coaches and knows exactly what it takes to be a succesful GM. This is totally different.

Would be a good move by Lovie. He has the leadership skills Trestman lacks and should be able to cover Trestman's weaknesses (while Trestman covers up Lovie's offensive limitation).

I have never seen a worse head coach in the NFL. He was awful.

He also was a pretty good player after he got over his illness. You just have to realize he's more limited and needs less snaps to be more effective but he can still get after the QB. I'm okay cutting him too though.