jason

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.

The last part is me, but not tanking. At this point (actually it was straight up before the season started) the Bears are not good enough to be in the playoffs. They are still several pieces away. Winning too much will hurt the team in terms of draft picks. And I will continue to believe this until they manage to have multiple picks in a row who look good. This past draft might be one of our better drafts in a long time. But make no mistake, being 9-7 and getting crushed in a wild card game hurts the team far more than simply being 5-11 and getting a better pick. BTW - I don't think any Bears fan wants to see a complete tank job. I just would like to see them do great, show promise, and barely lose.

Both he and his brother are scum.

Hahahahahahahahaha! F that guy.

Reminds me of a great book I'd like to read to my kids called "Who's Afraid of the Misuse of The Big Bad Garrett Wolfe."

OMG all you want. But they had developmental TEs in Braunecker and Pruitt. If they needed depth they should have drafted Shaheen only. If they were worried about having a guy who could step in week 1 if Miller went down after the fourth preseason game, then they should have gone with Sims. They didn't need both.

No, going 87-40-1 since the initial "get Rogers used to being a full time starter"-year and making the playoffs 8 straight years is what proved the packers' coaching prowess. I agree the wins vs the Panthers and Steelers look good. Depleted wasn't the right word because implied a team-wide issue. I merely meant QB-depleted. Their entire team has hinged on the QB position for years, and we all know them losing Rogers means a lot more than us losing Glennon or any other singular person.

Classy dude. I've always liked Zach Miller. His potential is great. I'd say he could be in the top of the league if he could have ever stayed healthy. He's the primary reason why I've long hated the search for so many tight ends, and why the offseason acquisition of Dion Sims and drafting of Adam Shaheen made no sense. Sure, it worked out, but you never go into the season thinking, "Well, that dude will go IR midway through the season." Having said that, his contract is up at the end of the year, and regardless of his comeback efforts, he should be done as a Chicago Bear. It's time to fully invest in Sims and Shaheen.

It's not about being on Rodgers nut sack. I loathe Rogers like I did Farv. But when lemon said the coaching talk should be tempered until after the results of the packer game, I don't view that as a valid reason to ignore an issue. Beating up on a depleted packer team is not an indication of coaching prowess. If the Bears were to lose to a Rogers-less packer team, however, it would definitely be a tarnish on the Fox record.

2017-The plan was Glennon 1, Trubisky 2 2018-Trubisky 1, who cares after that because he's definitely 1.

Incorrect. Pace signed Glennon to start, and Trubisky was the backup plan. The plan went from slow to accelerated when Glennon started to suck.

That's too simplistic. It's possible the Browns didn't want to trade a draft pick intra-division. It's also possible the Browns or the Niners, or any other team, thought a player at their draft pick was more valuable than McCarron. Particularly since they leveraged their second round pick to move back into the first round for a guy (Reuben Foster) many thought should have gone much earlier if not for shoulder concerns (which he hasn't hurt this year...just lots of other things).

So coaching talk should be paused because the Bears are about to play a packer team without rodgers?

There is no way of knowing if that would have happened had Chicago drafted him. ACL tears are freak things. There are millions of factors that go into the possibility of something like this happening. For all we know, if the Bears drafted him he would have thrown 40 TDs and 0 INTs by now. Or maybe he would have torn his groin in preseason. We just don't know.

I don't think that's true. The Bengals had control and may have just wanted to keep him as a backup. And Dalton has been an all-pro several times. AJ wasn't starting in Cincy.