Systemic failure

[anotheridiot]

To hire a guy, they must be available. So to hire a GM with experience as a GM or a HC with experience as a HC, it must be a guy that is no longer doing that job. Typically there's a reason for that and the most common reasons are that they either failed or retired. Occasionally you'll see a guy that failed in his first go around, succeed the second time (Belichik for example), but it's not terribly common. I think that probably has more to do with it than money.

But by all means, please provide some examples of the guys you're referring to. Who are these experienced GM & HC candidates who were available when the Bears were hiring for those jobs, but you believe were passed over because of money? Key word here is "available". So listing names like Belichik or Ozzie Newsome like in that other thread don't count. It has to be guys who weren't already working as a GM or HC somewhere else at the time.

Dont forget most of the big names out there like Gruden, Dunge, Billick, Cowher, all want 5+ million and say over personnel decisions. You give all that up and that coach fails and bails you have a bigger mess on your hands than giving a coach a team to field.

 

[toooverbearing]

I really think that a void of leadership on the field is a big problem and I'm wondering if that is the big hole in the analytics approach to personnel.

As I've said before, I don't think there is enough "give a shit" to Lance Briggs and Jay Cutler in how their units are performing. There's just not enough pride. And I really believe that leadership has to come from the guys calling the plays in the huddle... no matter how strong the leadership is from a pass rusher, a cornerback, an offensive lineman or a receiver... it takes a qb or a lb to really rally their units.

So Emery took the analytics route (at least in the past two offseasons) in building this team. Is getting this quality on the field at the key positions a blindspot to this approach? Shit... am I wrong? I don't want to even assume that with all of the problems with this team that those are the two biggest.

 

[anotheridiot]

Can we just make sure if Virginia is forced to sell the team that we demand the new owner bring back the honey bears? No super bowls since the honey bears were banned.

 

[nebearsfan70]

Great post, DaCoach. I think it's the most logical way of looking at it. Undoubtedly Ted Phillips and the McCaskeys are at the root of this problem.

I just keep wondering what the Bears organization would look like if it went to it's rightful owner, George Halas, Jr.


Fucking McCaskeys just suck so bad......

Exactly.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

Wounded put it well in the post right above.

The accountant is our team president. Great for getting shit built/milking money out of us fans (PSL Anyone?) IMO Not so great when he's the guy responsible for running the team.

The scapegoating is a ton of people calling for Trestman/Emery's heads but not the guy who was responsible for hiring THEM. If Emery is so bad he deserves to be dismissed 2.5 years into his GM stint, why does the guy responsible for hiring him get a pass(and the guy responsible for hiring a god damn search firm to hire Angelol...)

Since the Bears would be worth a LOT more if they were winning Super Bowls, why would an accountant not want them to be successful? That just doesn't make any sense. I think the "they are just milking fans for money" angle isn't really the right diagnosis, personally.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

Can we just make sure if Virginia is forced to sell the team that we demand the new owner bring back the honey bears? No super bowls since the honey bears were banned.

This is the smartest post in this entire thread. With you all the way on this one hombre.

 

[JoeyTourettes]

TooOver- Comment on Leadership is interesting... Here's my take.

Briggs: Has never been a leader. He's been a member of the Urlacher brotherhood. Nothing wrong with that...but when Lovie was fired and Urlacher didn't resign I felt Briggs wasn't going to buy into anything any new coach was going to sell. This year has proven that out with some of his comments and actions. And then during the game the announcers causally say that Briggs talks w/Urlacher all the time. Something tells me based on BU's comments in the media that he isn't going to be too complimentary of Trestman or anyone else in the franchise. I know that's a lot of speculation, but that's the way I see it.

Cutler: No he's never been a vocal leader- But going back to when he got here- this team was pretty well stocked with vet leaders. Urlacher/Krutz. Jay was 25 with a rep as a crybaby. I don't think he felt he could "takeover" as leader and when his first year didn't go as planned he didn't earn much from those vets. In fact he got a lot of shit if I remember BU was injured that whole first year and threw him under the bus a few times in the media- saying he preferred Orton. I don't know how much he's grown up or what...but I have noticed some more leadership qualities in Jay. One of many that trained with Marshall in FL this offseason... Maybe it was Lovie's guys being gone. He's not done enough, obviously, but I don't think he's a bad leader- just not what we see from Brady or Manning.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

I really think that a void of leadership on the field is a big problem and I'm wondering if that is the big hole in the analytics approach to personnel.

As I've said before, I don't think there is enough "give a shit" to Lance Briggs and Jay Cutler in how their units are performing. There's just not enough pride. And I really believe that leadership has to come from the guys calling the plays in the huddle... no matter how strong the leadership is from a pass rusher, a cornerback, an offensive lineman or a receiver... it takes a qb or a lb to really rally their units.

So Emery took the analytics route (at least in the past two offseasons) in building this team. Is getting this quality on the field at the key positions a blindspot to this approach? Shit... am I wrong? I don't want to even assume that with all of the problems with this team that those are the two biggest.

This is a really interesting point. I hadn't thought of this before, but you know, I think you are really onto something here. The whole "build by numbers" works better in baseball because so much of everything is one on one matchups...when compared to football. Chemistry cannot be captured by analysis of numbers.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

If we don't take the term "cheap" too literal, and I am not a "the McCaskeys are cheap" pundit at all, a case can be made. Here are two irrefutable facts that illustrate how inept Bears management has been staffing their front office and the head coaching position with experienced NFL people over the years:

1. Phil Emery represents the only the 2nd true GM since Jerry Vainisi was fired in 1986
2. The last Head Coach the Bears have hired a Head Coach who had previous NFL head coaching experience is Paddy Driscoll in 1956

Let that soak in for a minute.

This represents a conscious effort to NOT bring in experienced NFL personnel to lead the team. Yes, there are likely a myriad of reasons why this has happened but an argument could be made that money was an issue. This needs to stop if we're ever going to put a consistent winning product on the field.

You know, I don't think every coach that has been hired since 1956 has been a bad coach. Like...um...da Coach. And since I am not a member of the I Hate Lovie Smith bandwagon, I'm one of the few who actually thought he was a good hire and a good coach. Maybe it was time for Lovie to go, I don't know, but Lovie consistently had winning teams.

 

[nomoreshoop]

Originally Posted by anotheridiot
Can we just make sure if Virginia is forced to sell the team that we demand the new owner bring back the honey bears? No super bowls since the honey bears were banned.

This is the smartest post in this entire thread. With you all the way on this one hombre.

Are you sure you want the honey bears from the early 80's. Them would be old cougars, lol.

 

[toooverbearing]

TooOver- Comment on Leadership is interesting... Here's my take.

Briggs: Has never been a leader. He's been a member of the Urlacher brotherhood. Nothing wrong with that...but when Lovie was fired and Urlacher didn't resign I felt Briggs wasn't going to buy into anything any new coach was going to sell. This year has proven that out with some of his comments and actions. And then during the game the announcers causally say that Briggs talks w/Urlacher all the time. Something tells me based on BU's comments in the media that he isn't going to be too complimentary of Trestman or anyone else in the franchise. I know that's a lot of speculation, but that's the way I see it.

Cutler: No he's never been a vocal leader- But going back to when he got here- this team was pretty well stocked with vet leaders. Urlacher/Krutz. Jay was 25 with a rep as a crybaby. I don't think he felt he could "takeover" as leader and when his first year didn't go as planned he didn't earn much from those vets. In fact he got a lot of shit if I remember BU was injured that whole first year and threw him under the bus a few times in the media- saying he preferred Orton. I don't know how much he's grown up or what...but I have noticed some more leadership qualities in Jay. One of many that trained with Marshall in FL this offseason... Maybe it was Lovie's guys being gone. He's not done enough, obviously, but I don't think he's a bad leader- just not what we see from Brady or Manning.

I totally agree with you on Briggs and somewhat agree on Cutler. Cutler got a lot of crap for pushing Jamarcus Webb on the back to the sideline after he perceived Webb was going through the motions. In a way, I kind of wish that Jay Cutler was back. If a receiver runs the wrong route, make sure he knows you expect more. If a lineman gets beat because he isn't as sharp off the snap, let him know that's unacceptable. Even if it is Forte missing a block or dropping a pass... as great as Forte has been it is OK to make sure he knows that he is expected to stay great... it's not like a bank account where he has earned enough savings to get by for a few plays. Of course, it is kind of hard to demand that from others on the unit when your own mechanics and decision making have been sloppy. Briggs... I was hoping we'd trade him to the Bucs for a fifth round pick or something before the season started. I see the same thing you do... a guy who is part of a clique, and not a team leader.

 

[Da Coach]

But by all means, please provide some examples of the guys you're referring to. Who are these experienced GM & HC candidates who were available when the Bears were hiring for those jobs, but you believe were passed over because of money?

With all my free time, I'll get right on it. Hold your breath while I do it too. You completely missed the point of the comment.

 

[Da Coach]

You know, I don't think every coach that has been hired since 1956 has been a bad coach. Like...um...da Coach. And since I am not a member of the I Hate Lovie Smith bandwagon, I'm one of the few who actually thought he was a good hire and a good coach. Maybe it was time for Lovie to go, I don't know, but Lovie consistently had winning teams.

There have been 11 head coaches, including Driscoll, since 1956. Halas came back again so let's remove him. Giving you Ditka and Smith as good head coaches, which I agree with, we're batting .200 at head coach hires. That's not good enough.

 

[brh]

With all my free time, I'll get right on it. Hold your breath while I do it too. You completely missed the point of the comment.

So enlighten me then. If your point wasn't that you think they are passing over experienced candidates because of money, then what was it?

 

[yutch]

Emery took too much control of hiring coaches. None of the coaches are Trestman guys.

They're all Trestman guys. Trestman was hiring guys from his Montreal staff, for crying out loud.

 

[Wounded Bear]

So if I'm understanding you guys right, you think the problem with ownership/Phillips is that they're cheap when it comes to hiring the GM & coach. Is that correct? If so, can you provide some examples of it? Just saying "Emery didn't cost much" doesn't prove anything. Who are the options that you believe they passed over for financial reasons? Who are these high priced awesome GM candidates that were available when Emery was hired that they passed over?

Who were the better candidates for GM in 2012? Sure, that's easy. The list is almost too long....

Ryan Grigson - Eagles director of player personnel (now Colts GM)
Les Snead - Falcons director of player personnel (now Rams GM)
Dennis Hickey - Buccaneers director of pro personnel (now GM of Miami)
Russ Ball - Packers VP of football administration/player finance(still with Packers)
Nick Caserio - Patriots director of player personnel (still with NE)
Eric DeCosta - Ravens director of player personnel (now Ravens Asst GM)
Pat Moriarty - Ravens VP of football administration (still with Ravens)
Tom Gamble - 49ers director of player personnel (now Eagles director of pro personnel)
Will Lewis - Seahawks director of pro personnel (now Chiefs director of pro scouting)
Marc Ross - Giants director of college scouting (now Giants VP of player evaluation)
Doug Whaley - Billsassistant general manager (now Bills GM)

Phil Emery doesn't even make the list....

As thunderspirit already pointed out, both Wanny & Lovie were considered hot candidates at the the time they were hired.

Sure. Both of these candidates were assistant coaches (aka, "unproven NFL head coaches"), who would be willing to take a B-list salaries....

I already pointed out that the team wasn't afraid to pay Lovie after he made the superbowl and also wasn't afraid to eat a year of his high salary (and his assistants) when they fired him.

Do you even remember how Lovie's pay raise went down? Do you remember how long it took for them to pay Lovie a salary worthy of a coach that made it to the Super Bowl?

It didn't happen right away (the entire offseason, well after every other coach had made deals). As a matter of fact, I recall the media shaming the McCaskeys and the Bears front office until they got Lovie's salary in line with other head coaches who had gone deep into the playoffs.

So the coaching thing isn't really holding water to me. You may dislike who they hire, but there's little evidence to suggest that ownership being cheap has anything to do with it.

Yep, except for the evidence I have listed above.

Furthermore, the fact that many better qualified GM candidates were available and Ted Phillips and the McCaskeys were unable to land them or pry them away to be the GM of one of the most, if not the most storied franchises in all of sport shows how incompetent they are.

I mean, you would think it would be easy to lure the best candidates...or at least have them consider being the GM of the Chicago fuggin' Bears. But these candidates are well aware of the challenges they will have to face when working for the McCaskeys and their bean counter, Ted Phillips.

 

[yutch]

Not for nothing, but the Bears did pursue DeCosta, who re-upped with Baltimore before interviewing with anyone. Grigson (and Reggie McKenzie) signed early, too, when a few teams were still looking for GMs.

 

[yutch]

And from where I'm sitting, that list is stuffed with candidates whose accomplishments don't exactly leap off the screen at 'ya. Of the guys who actually got GM jobs with new teams, well, helping to make the Falcons and Bucs what they are today ain't exactly feathers in their caps.

 

[brh]

Who were the better candidates for GM in 2012? Sure, that's easy. The list is almost too long....

Ryan Grigson - Eagles director of player personnel (now Colts GM)
Les Snead - Falcons director of player personnel (now Rams GM)
Dennis Hickey - Buccaneers director of pro personnel (now GM of Miami)
Russ Ball - Packers VP of football administration/player finance(still with Packers)
Nick Caserio - Patriots director of player personnel (still with NE)
Eric DeCosta - Ravens director of player personnel (now Ravens Asst GM)
Pat Moriarty - Ravens VP of football administration (still with Ravens)
Tom Gamble - 49ers director of player personnel (now Eagles director of pro personnel)
Will Lewis - Seahawks director of pro personnel (now Chiefs director of pro scouting)
Marc Ross - Giants director of college scouting (now Giants VP of player evaluation)
Doug Whaley - Billsassistant general manager (now Bills GM)

Phil Emery doesn't even make the list....

I don't disagree with that list at all. However, it really doesn't answer my question. The question wasn't just "Who were better candidates?". It was "Who were better candidates that finances prevented the Bears from hiring?". Pretty much every guy on your list held a similar position as Emery did prior to being hired. So it stands to reason that their financial expectations would be similar to Emery's. Why do you believe that finances prevented the Bears from hiring someone from your list instead of Emery?

Do you even remember how Lovie's pay raise went down? Do you remember how long it took for them to pay Lovie a salary worthy of a coach that made it to the Super Bowl?

It didn't happen right away (the entire offseason, well after every other coach had made deals). As a matter of fact, I recall the media shaming the McCaskeys and the Bears front office until they got Lovie's salary in line with other head coaches who had gone deep into the playoffs.

You're exaggerating. His contract extension was signed on March 1, just a few weeks after the superbowl. Hardly "the entire offseason". I do recall the media did make a stink about it though, that much is true.

Yep, except for the evidence I have listed above.

Sorry, I don't find it particularly convincing.

Furthermore, the fact that many better qualified GM candidates were available and Ted Phillips and the McCaskeys were unable to land them or pry them away to be the GM of one of the most, if not the most storied franchises in all of sport shows how incompetent they are.

I mean, you would think it would be easy to lure the best candidates...or at least have them consider being the GM of the Chicago fuggin' Bears. But these candidates are well aware of the challenges they will have to face when working for the McCaskeys and their bean counter, Ted Phillips.

You may have a point here. It's pure speculation on your part, but there could be some truth to it that people view them as difficult to work with and therefore it's more difficult to get candidates. I see no evidence that it has anything to do with finances though. What other reasons do you think they're considered difficult?

 

[richig07]

There have been 11 head coaches, including Driscoll, since 1956. Halas came back again so let's remove him. Giving you Ditka and Smith as good head coaches, which I agree with, we're batting .200 at head coach hires. That's not good enough.

.200 is certainly not good. Especially when you take into account, that in all likelihood Ditka was not a very good coach either. Formidable? Sure. But not great, by any stretch of the imagination.

Kind of crazy to think Lovie is probably the best coach this team has had in the Super Bowl era.

It was a strange situation with Lovie. While the team inexcusably missed the playoffs after two hot starts (7-1, and 7-3), it's hard to pin that on him… at least in 2011 losing Cutler and Forte. At the same time, the head coach will always be held accountable. Emery clearly wanted to bring in his own guy.

If Lovie is still here, this team certainly looks different. Whether it would have been better last year, I'm not sure. Although, I am nearly positive that they would not have completely mailed in their season after a 3-4 start like they have this season.

This team has given up… plain and simple. Trestman has lost this team. Lovie may have had his downfalls, no doubt. But never at any point did I feel like a Lovie Smith led team laid down. This team, right now is the most unlikeable Bears team I have ever watched.