AZ54

Doesn't seem like the right personality to lead that team out of it's misery. In fact it appears they took what they ended up with instead of going out and getting their guy who was reportedly Whisenhunt.

There's a lot of talk about Tucker throwing the position coaches under the bus. I've considered it myself. But step back for a minute and ask yourself this: If we're changing schemes to a 3-4, or even some sort of hybrid, which coaches on defense would you need to replace? I can't sit here in Arizona on a sunny 60 degree day (had to get that in) and say I know these guys backgrounds but here is what I'm thinking... Is Phair a coach, who was brought in by Marinelli, more knowledgeable in the 4-3 scheme Lovie ran than he is the 3-4? How about Tibesar? Is he a LB coach with experience in the 3-4? As far as Hoke, the backend of a defense doesn't necessarily change….either man or some type of zone..if we go to a 3-4. We've mixed those up over the years despite all the sniping about cover 2. Again, if we are changing our scheme then shouldn't we change to coaches who can coach the new scheme and have experience with it? There may be a lot less of "you suck" and more of "I need somebody else with more experience in the direction we're going." For Tibesar I know nothing but the bad play of our rookies. Phair OTOH had some success developing Wooton and Melton, even made Collins into a good player for us. Seems like he might have deserved a second chance unless he doesn't have experience in the new scheme. Trestman, Tucker, et al have been silent about our new direction. I'll be watching for who they are interviewing and their backgrounds to get an indication of where we are going in terms of our scheme.

Firing two position coaches not entirely unexpected, nor is keeping Tucker around. I was non-committal on these decisions because I simply feel the coaches (Trestman) would be the only one's in position to really know how things were happening on the field, in the group meeting rooms, locker room, etc. Those are just things that we can't possibly know. That and the fact they forced Tucker to maintain Lovie's scheme led to the decision he deserved a second chance with his own system. If we had fired Tucker and went out to interview new coaches that would be their number one concern….will you give me the freedom to run my system my way? That alone may have hindered who would be interested (refer to Washington Redskins meddling ownership impact on coaching search). Than handcuffs are off now but Tucker is certainly on a short leash in 2014. Show us what you got.

I don't believe this is Phil Emery's style at all. We're saying he's sorta not happy with Tucker and might want to fire him IF he can get somebody but that guy is busy right now and we're not sure he'd want the Bears' job. No. Phil and Trestman will go through their process and make the determination to stay or go. Then he will put together a thorough list of candidates (likely done by Week 15 if he wanted Tucker gone) and be interviewing them without waiting for one guy who is still coaching a playoff team. At this point I believe the decision has already been made to keep Tucker. Delaying that further is just disrespectful to him because it is hindering his ability to seek a new job with all these new head coaches. I don't believe Emery nor Trestman would do that to him. I feel the delay in announcement is now centered around defining what direction we are going with the defense. Do we even want to announce that as it tips our hand before the draft. Of course who we go after in FA could tip our hand anyway so it likely doesn't make that much difference. In fact I won't be surprised to hear more "hybrid" tossed around just to muck it up further for everyone. One other note. By firing Lovie the Bears made a statement to the players he was not getting the job done as HC. By keeping Lovie's D in tact including scheme and terminology and forcing a new guy to run it the Bears were telling their players that guy we just fired was a pretty good coach and ran a pretty good scheme. They sent a mixed message to the players. When Bruce Arians took the Cardinals job he inherited a very good defense, and IMO a good defensive coordinator in Ray Horton. Reporters asked Arians if he would keep Horton since he was successful and for continuity. Arians flatly stated NO. While he respected the job Horton had done, keeping coaches around from the previous regime just gives players a place to go complain about the new changes. He had seen it too many times in his career. Fire them all and the players know the new sheriff is serious about making changes and improving things and if they don't like it they have but one man to come to talk to…him. By keeping Lovie's scheme (and some of the previous coaches) we may have created some of that locker room drama Arians speaks of. Think about training camp. Players would see immediately the differences in Tucker and Lovie coaching the same defensive scheme. I believe though that the players still wanted to win and worked to perform well overall. It is possible as injuries mounted and left voids in on-the-field leadership players trusted the scheme less (hey we no longer have the man who built it) and began playing more as individuals just trying to make the play. Having some dissension and lack of trust in the scheme, or lack of trust in the new coach to run the old scheme properly, would not be out of the norm thus the reason for Tucker to coach from the sidelines. If Tucker stays then the message has to be that we trust him. Blow up the D and let Tucker build what he wants from scratch and in so doing get rid of the ghost of Lovie in the locker room.

Remember these guys? Chris Harris...Defensive Quality Control Coach. Played a couple years under Lovie was well respected for his knowledge and leadership on the field. Jon Hoke...Defensive Backs Coach. Coached a couple years under Lovie Smith helped bring Peanut and Jennings to their first Pro Bowls. Helped Chris Conte and Major Wright play in a serviceable manner in 2012. I like Hoke and think he got the best performance we've ever seen from Bowman this past year. Mike Phair...Dline coach. Helped Henry Melton go from former RB to Pro Bowl DT. He helped Corey Wootton turn into a pretty good player at DE and then had him play acceptably out of position at DT this past season. The fact these guys were still around from a very good year in 2012 to a disaster year in 2013 means we had coaches on the roster that knew the nuances of the D and had coached it successfully before. That's either more damning of Tucker for leading us down the road to disaster, or more validation that in fact the injuries to all of our DTs, Briggs, and Tillman were too much to overcome in that system with so many rookies and 2nd year players on the field...Bass, Bostic, Greene, Frey, and any rent-a-DT that showed up.

Lots of their fans quit on them and refused to buy tickets. The video is worth watching….twice. LMAO

If true, that's a stroke of genius right there. Maximize flexibility while still forcing as much of Cutler's cap hit to year 1 as possible, which maximizes future cap space. If we pursue Michael Bennett and agree to terms needing more cap space….make it so. If we don't get him on our terms and sign a lesser quality player keep the cap hit on Cutler's deal

All players count against the cap but if you sign a veteran player to a minimum contract they have a reduced cap hit. Here's a couple links that explain it. http://overthecap.com/explaining-the-minimum-salary-benefit/ http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/i...-salary-benefit

Looks like the Bears did the same thing with Jenning's contract as they did with Cutler's. Jennings is signed for four years but if he's not performing well enough to be worth the $5mil/yr in years 3 or 4 we can cut him with no cap hit. I'm guessing they did the same with Slauson but can't find any details on what Slauson got paid. If we're sitting with just $2mil in cap space then there are definitely some cuts headed our way. Peppers seems like a must now along with Michael Bush, Podlesh, and Weems. Earl Bennett may join them too if they feel Wilson is ready to step up. This is likely to bring about a lot of emotions but if we are serious about switching to a 3-4 I can see a 33yr old Briggs getting cut unless Lovie would want to trade for him down in Tampa. We won't get much in exchange, likely a late round pick, but the cap space will allow us to pursue the players that fit the new scheme and who can help bring along the younger players in terms of learning assignments. If Bostic and SMC are the future at OLB then they might as well get experience there from game 1. DJ Williams can be re-signed, perhaps even cheaper than last season, to help fill the leadership void. I'm prepared for anything to happen.

I just want to let Stinger know there is no reason for him to change his photo.

You are asking that question of Bears fans so I'll give you the answer: NOTHING

Gotta add Bass as OLB and Washington as OLB as well. Green may be a better fit as ILB.

Few thought Emery would fix the Oline in one offseason but he got it done. We have a ton of cap space, something like $50mil, just a lot of positions to fill and Cutler just took up a big chunk. I see no reason we can't replace Tillman's $8mil/yr salary by signing Jarius Byrd, if we want to. I agree, we won't get 6 defensive starters out of the draft but two is a realistic possibility. What we will have is more youth and hopefully better talent in our depth. That's where the previous GM fell short…lack of drafting good talent that could fill out our depth chart. The youth movement also includes players like Bass, Washington and our two LBs from last years draft. Who are the old guys on the defensive side of the ball? The 30 and over crowd includes: Tillman, Jennings, Briggs, Peppers, Ratliff, Hayden, DJ Williams, and Anderson. Bowman is 29. I've made it well known that I would cut Peppers. We reportedly eat $7.5 mil in dead cap space depending on when we cut him but we also free up another $10.5mil. I would like Tillman back by the way but for a lot less money. Emery might be ready to move on from Tillman although he didn't sound that way in his press conference, and he also sounded very positive on DJ Williams but I'd say both are on the fence. Players like Anderson may be gone as we move SMC and Bostic around. Hayden won't be back. Ratliff? Briggs will be back. Realistically the two main players we're talking about are Tillman and Peppers. What happens will depend a great deal on what scheme we transition to, if we change at all.

I finally got a chance to watch the Emery press conference, at least part of it. He has a lot of conviction in terms of building this team and how we came up short this year (not just that we did). If you work for him there is no way you are not uncomfortable about your future. Trestman's generally a quiet guy but got the same sense from him too. We'll see how that translates this offseason. As far as the 3-4 or 4-3. This is what I see that gives us some insight but no detail: http://www.chicagobears.com/news/article-1...04-1960071e0fa6 --------------------------------------------------- Moving forward, Emery wants to build a "physical, fast, playmaking defense that causes disruption," something he says he saw in the first three games of the season when the Bears intercepted five passes, recovered six fumbles and scored three defensive touchdowns. "The No. 1 thing is score. The No. 2 thing is to create turnovers. No. 3 is to cause disruption to the opposing quarterback," Emery said. "We have to create more confusion pre-snap and more disruption post-snap on the opposing quarterback." --------------------------------------------------- Not clear that the Lovie 2 defense is gone but seems to indicate he wants a more diverse scheme. If I asked football fans what defense causes the most disruption to what offense's want to do I don't think anyone will say Lovie's scheme but you'll get a lot of "Steelers 3-4" in those answers. One thing to note is the value he places on having the defense score. Something to keep in mind as we head toward the draft because Emery might go after the playmaking DB first. We are now a week after the season ended and no word on Tucker…so he is still getting "evaluated".

Not at all but that doesn't change the evaluation and the business decision.

In a league where FGs win most games I'll be happy to keep Mannelly around for another season for vet minimum. Vets his age get a reduced cap hit that makes it easier to keep them around. We're not going to save much money so might as well keep him. Hester can go. Hasn't done much at all this season and he does not have the short area quickness that he used to have to break tackles. He's not a bad returner but he also takes far too many fair catches on punts that should be returnable for someone who prides themselves on being an elite returner. My other reason for cutting him is that he's one dimensional (returner) and I want to add a speed WR to our roster to mix in with the big boys. I think Jacoby Ford (or someone like him) can fill this role for us and do KR/PR as well as Hester. Ford is a better WR than Hester ever was but we only need him on offense for maybe 7-15 plays a game. He hasn't done much in his career in Oakland and this past season was a complete disaster. He should be cheap as a FA as long as he understands he's not a #1 or #2 WR. I expect Marquess Wilson to step up next year and with him and Ford out there we become much more explosive. For the rest of the FAs listed in the OP the real topic isn't so much who should be brought back as who should get long term deals. I think we should bring back a guy like Steltz because safety for us is a big need and he plays special teams. That does not mean I wouldn't also like to see us draft some competition for him or sign some other FAs to compete for his role. If he got cut in camp on a contract that had no signing bonus (or very small one) I don't really care. If we don't sign them and go after another similar FA I don't care. Players in the category: Collins, Costanzo, Britton, Garza, Anderson, Wright. Players I'd like to see get long term deals: Wootton, Ratliff (only for 2-3yr because I think he can help solidify a huge need), McCown (2yr). I'd like Melton back but he may end up with a 1yr prove it deal.

It could be argued that paying him $18mil to play next year would be dead cap space. I'll take the $7.5 mil in dead cap space and use the $10.5mil in change to sign a DE and two DTs.

Yes, your a right but we're going to have a youth movement on defense and that means lower cap hits on that side of the ball. Take the cap hit early on Cutler's deal and then in 2-3 seasons his hit drops significantly. I assume with this structure on the salary guarantees if we cut Cutler after two seasons we don't have a lot of cap hit.

I don't think Shea needs someone to light a fire under him. I think he's a hard working straightforward hustle-type player who is stuck out of position and will be better used in space more often than not. I like the guy and I like how he works on the field. Kudos to Emery and Trestman for being willing to admit they have not put him in the right spot (and really shouldn't have drafted him). I don't know if we're going to a 3-4 defense but it sounds as if we're heading toward using some 3-4 concepts next year. Other teams have mixed these concepts albeit none that were dominant. OTOH, if we drop the Tampa-2 style defense I'm not so sure Shea couldn't play MLB for us. There are other options besides just switching to a 3-4.

1) No more excuses for Peppers bad play. Cut block or not he was pushed around most of the day by the Packers and not with double teams. He is not the same player and we don't need that level of play from anyone on our roster much less someone making $18mil. Perhaps I'm the only one who noticed how teams like to run at Peppers this season. It wasn't that way before. Of course they like to run at anyone on our Dline but you'd think if Peppers was anything close to what he's been in past seasons they'd just go take the easy pickings up the middle or off RT. Yet they didn't. Wootton is more than capable of replacing Peppers production (46 tackles, 7.5 sacks) for a lot less money. 2) LT2 has corrected me in the past on this and I'm sure he'll do so again but I'm pretty sure at this point we don't have much of an option on restructuring Peppers deal. Maybe we could do something by extending his deal but after what little he's done this season why in the world would we want to cripple our salary cap 3 or 4 years down the road by doing that? Cut him, take the cap hit and replace his production with someone who makes a few million. Extra cap space freed up goes to fix DT, or even add another DE. Or two because with SMC moving out of DE we need 3 DEs added to our roster unless one of the young guys steps up.

Very interesting. We paid more for Cutler than I wanted, especially in the first 3 years but after reading this I think I understand why. By making Cutler's contract no bonus he skipped getting his big paycheck all at once but is guaranteed that cash over only the next 2 seasons as of Mar 2014. Essentially we have a way out albeit an expensive one. As of Mar 2015 we must guarantee the third year of his deal. Compared to Flacco's deal....Flacco got $30mil in year 1 versus Cutler $22.5mil. In year 2 Flacco gets $21mil Cutler $15.5mil. Hard to say that's not the market where Cutler fits in. I'm sure more clarity will show up on this soon but it appears Cutler has taken some risk of getting cut and losing money with this deal. In exchange for that little bit of escape clause we end up paying more money per season for his services in the first 3 years. Both sides give up some of what they wanted. What stands out most to me is that by avoiding the massive signing bonus we should have more cash on hand to give out some significant signing bonuses to some FAs. Need to see what we did with Jennings and Slauson and tally all this up but I'd say by going this route the Bears paid Cutler more than they wanted per season in exchange for having some money available to fix the defense this offseason. The Bears are a family run organization that does have the deep pockets some other owners have.

There has been a lot of silence out of Halas Hall regarding coaches so far. I know Trestman had some statements in support of Tucker during the season but what else could he do? Ok, he could have fired the guy and promoted a guy like Hoke to finish up but that doesn't appear to be Trestman's or Emery's style. Both will evaluate a body of work. That tells me this is not settled (that he's staying) because they'd have to come out with strong statements by now supporting him if they were. I'm not saying he's gone either just that I believe Emery and Trestman are undergoing a process of deciding where they want to go. If so, that process should include looking at who else is available. Fingers are crossed we get good news.

This is Detroit we're talking about. When asked if he would work with a QB coach this offseason to improve his mechanics Stafford bluntly stated: “Probably not,” Stafford said. “It’s not something that I feel would be my style or beneficial to me.” Their arrogance is not going to change in one offseason.

Not sure what we save by getting rid of Podlesh but it should be about 10 yds net on each punt.

When you look at how best to stabilize the backend of the defense I think adding Byrd makes the most sense. I don't know if Tillman will be back but even if he is at his age we have to think missing games due to injury is likely. I believe Jennings and Bowman will be back. Bowman should be back, he (finally) played well for us and having him around next year will give us solid depth. Tillman has been one of my favorite players since all the way back when most Bears fans didn't like him because he was too slow to cover the smaller quicker WRs that were the trend at the time he started his career. The league transitioned to his better matchup with bigger WRs. Nonetheless, if a reasonable contract can't be done and he wants a home town bonus ala Urlacher and Kreutz it is time to move on. If it's a question of paying Tillman or Byrd I'd take Byrd and draft a rookie to replace Tillman.