Who do we draft as a QB?

[Connorbear]

one other item... why in the history of the bears have we NEVER hired a head coach with prior head coaching experience? could it be they would want more money than someone who has NO record of experience as a coach in the nfl? it's not like we have a record of winning with these coaches. so why offer a large contract to a tuna or gibbs type coaches when you can hire non-experienced coaches for a pittance? if they don't work out... oh well, try it again.

 

i would be interested to know what other winning franchises have never hired an experienced head coach in their entire history.

 

Tuna - yeah, he worked out so well in Dallas.

Gibbs - Ditto in Washington

 

Here are some other great retread signings:

 

Dennis Green in AZ - disaster

Marty S in Wash and SD - never won a playoff game

 

There have been success stories as well. The most famous being Bounce-a-check. But he was a horrible failure in Cleveland. If we were to hire a coach like that the fans would be the crap out of ownership.

 

Basically my point is hiring a coach (with experience or not) is a crap shoot.

 

I agree with you, however, that we need to spend more money on offensive scouting. In this area we have failed miserably.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

Good list...

 

Here are some others:

 

Good: Vermeil, Coughlin, Gruden, Shula, Shanahan

Bad: Ditka (NO), Erickson (SF), Jimmy Johnson (MIA), Dave Wandstedt (MIA), Jauron (BUF), Knox (SEA), Vermeil (KC), Shell (OAK, 2nd time), Seifert (CAR), Schottenheimer (WAS, SD), Turner (OAK, SD), Holmgren (SEA),

 

Seems to be more bad than good...

 

Tuna - yeah, he worked out so well in Dallas.

Gibbs - Ditto in Washington

 

Here are some other great retread signings:

 

Dennis Green in AZ - disaster

Marty S in Wash and SD - never won a playoff game

 

There have been success stories as well. The most famous being Bounce-a-check. But he was a horrible failure in Cleveland. If we were to hire a coach like that the fans would be the crap out of ownership.

 

Basically my point is hiring a coach (with experience or not) is a crap shoot.

 

I agree with you, however, that we need to spend more money on offensive scouting. In this area we have failed miserably.

 

Peace

[Connorbear]

Good list...

 

Here are some others:

 

Good: Vermeil, Coughlin, Gruden, Shula, Shanahan

Bad: Ditka (NO), Erickson (SF), Jimmy Johnson (MIA), Dave Wandstedt (MIA), Jauron (BUF), Knox (SEA), Vermeil (KC), Shell (OAK, 2nd time), Seifert (CAR), Schottenheimer (WAS, SD), Turner (OAK, SD), Holmgren (SEA),

 

Seems to be more bad than good...

Thanks. Appreciate the help. Like I said, its a crap shoot.

 

Peace

[Connorbear]

I swear that if a report came out showing how, as an organization, we spent more than any other (including staff and other personnel) but in that report it also said we pay our janiter $1/hr less than the average, you would scream, "I told you we were cheap".

If you listen to Chicago sports radio you hear this all the time. No amount of evidence ever convinces these callers any different.

 

Peace

[DrunkBomber]

Theres a lot more to this than quarterbacks. Its no secret the Bears havent found a career QB since most of us have been alive but the offense as a whole has been garbage as well. Since Payton our best running back was Thomas Jones. Who are the best receivers theyve had Booker? Berrian? Marcus Robinson? Finding the next "Tom Brady" wont do anything until they fix the other problems.

[Connorbear]

Theres a lot more to this than quarterbacks. Its no secret the Bears havent found a career QB since most of us have been alive but the offense as a whole has been garbage as well. Since Payton our best running back was Thomas Jones. Who are the best receivers theyve had Booker? Berrian? Marcus Robinson? Finding the next "Tom Brady" wont do anything until they fix the other problems.

I think you forgot Neil Anderson. He was much, much better than Jones.

 

Peace

[Lucky Luciano]

Cheap. No. I think it is FAR more a matter of strategy. Is Jerry Jones a cheap owner? Few would say that, yet until Parcells, he was well known for refusing to spend massive coin on coaches, and hated the idea of going after NFL has-beens and trash. He always wanted to grab the hot coordinators or college coaches on the rise, as opposed to grabbing a coach who had already failed. I see no difference in how we have done things. Wanny was a freaking hot commodity as I recall. He is so hated today, I think few remember how in demand he was then. He was the DC for a very good defense, and was one of the coordinators many sought after. Then there was Jauron, who was not as "hot" but a well liked and regarded assistant w/ long creds. Then there was Lovie, who was pretty hot himself, and from the Dungy tree so many have been stealing from. So you say cheap, but I say it is far more a matter of getting the young guys w/ upside rather than the ones who were already tried and failed.

 

so in YOUR opinion it is our "strategy" that we have had some of the worst coached teams in the history of the nfl over the last 10 years?

 

and jerry jones? jerry jones is a meglomaniac. he thought/thinks he is a football genius much like the imbecile that headed this organization for 20 years with the only difference he is willing to spend money. as to the coaching staff... he didn't spend money on coaches in the past because he thought he could steer the titanic cowboys from the top. he finally decided to actually SPEND the big bucks when he decided this didn't work and tried to actually get the best available coach out there and win a superbowl. at least i have to give him credit for spending money to improve his team even if he spends it badly.

 

wanny? maybe you should re-read your own post OR the one you replied to. i assumed since you stated "For the last ten years or so" that our discussion entaled the last TEN years. so that TEN YEARS to my estimation starts in 1997!!! this happens to be the last TWO years of wannys tenure in chicago in which the ONLY viable reason wanny was in chicago was because he was under contract for big, eatable money.

 

if you seriously think that even that idiot mikey was praising wanny for a good job in those last 2 years you are sadly mistaken. just for the record i AGREE that the original wanny hiring wasn't a cheap or even a stupid move. wanny WAS the top dog at the time so i have no problem with the initial hire and have stated so numerous times in the past.

 

now let's go to jauron..." well liked and regarded assistant w/ long creds" let's look at his record as a defensive coordinator UNDER a head coach who's forte' IS defense...

 

JAGS:

1998 - 17th in points given up; 25th in yds given up; 23rd in 1st downs; 23rd in passing yds; 22nd in rushing yds; 26th in yds per attempt

1997 - 15th in points given up; 23rd in yds given up; 25th in 1st downs; 24th in passing yds; 13th in rushing yds; 11th in yds per attempt

1996 - 19th in points given up; 15th in yds given up; 21st in 1st downs; 16th in passing yds; 19th in rushing yds; 21st in yds per attempt

1995 - 28th in points given up; 21st in yds given up; 17th in 1st downs; 17th in passing yds; 24 in rushing yds; 17th in yds per attempt

 

now.... are these the long credentials you were talking about??? or did we just hire him cause he is a such a peach.

 

here are a FEW of the prospects or new head coaches the year jauron was hired that became head coaches: mcginnis, billick, seifert, rhodes, cunningham, palmer, andy reid, mike holmgren. were there others? i would think so.

 

here is one other thought.... if you are going to hire a coordinator who is working under a head coach of the same ilk, why not offer a contract to one who ranked in the top ten rankings in his field and who just won 2 superbowls, maybe like kubiak?

 

just for curiosities sake... how did jauron's first contract compare to what other franchises paid their head coaches?

 

and finally lovie. if lovie was so hot why were we interviewing and courting saban? if lovie was so hot why were we interviewing russ grimm? if he was so hot why was he still available after we were done with all this? you can spin this however you want, saban was the first choice and money talks and bull$&!+ walks.

 

i am not totally trashing the lovie pick but if you don't think money had something to do with his hiring you are wrong. he was the best of what was left. also, why else was the media and everyone else saying lovie's contract dollars were less than some offensive coordinators in the league and were critisizing the bears for not renegotiating his contract quickly enough? because he had a market fair contract? i think not.

 

so on a final note... we should just keep lowballing coordintors to entice them to come to chicago as head coaches, is that correct? well, we have gone for 50 years with this "strategy" and so far we have ONE superbowl trophy and that because muggs halas and jim finks WERE smart football people and WERE willing to open up the pocketbook.

 

QUOTE

"in 1997-98 we kept wanny way past was was even reasonable as our HC. he was a complete failure yet we kept him 2 years longer than was sane. why? because he still had a big hit $ wise if we replaced him. THAT'S cheap. moving on........."

 

Funny thing about selective memory. It is hard to have such and win many arguments. Wanny was a the young stud DC, and we got him. Prior to the end of his deal, he was given more money. Not the sign of a cheap team. You say if we were not so cheap, we would have fired him sooner. I argue the issue was not money, but poor management. Do you believe he EVER should have received the new deal in the first place? I didn't. But giving him the new deal showed a total lack of management. END QUOTE

 

it's also funny that YOU either have selective memory or just don't read what i am writing. does "kept him 2 years longer than was sane" ring any bells? again referring to YOUR "last 10 years" argument, wanny's LAST 2 years fall into that catagory.

 

i argue that it was not only "poor management" which i relate also with poor payroll practices and plain old football intelligence in this case, but not wanting to fire wanny because they would have to pay his salary for 2-3 years because of an ill advised extension. besides the monetary hit in this case they would look like fools. but... do you think this may have had some impact on why they may have wanted voidable contracts in the mcginnis regime as someone stated? like maybe so they COULD fire coaches without monetary penalties which makes them not look any less foolish but does keep the money in their pockets?

 

speaking of his extension: of COURSE he was given more money, his contract was coming due the following year (1997). have you ever heard of anyone signing a coaching extension contract for less money? was this a terrible re-signing at the time? win/loss record considered, not neccessarily to some but certainly to me and any who really watched this guy coach a team. by the second year of wanny's term there were warning bells ringing. by the end of his fourth there were enough red flags to cover the earth.

 

QUOTE As for later, I would argue many, if not most teams, have carried a coach longer than they should have because of the contract left. It is not unusual. What I think would have been unusual would be to fire a coach so soon after giving him a new deal. END QUOTE

 

so this means what? that because other CHEAP teams will accept mediocre to horrible coaches years longer and field garbage teams with no hope of winning a superbowl in order to save money and screw it's fans, it's ok with you?

 

QUOTE

in 1999 we lowballed our first choice as HC in mcginnis and lost him as a prospect. THAT'S cheap. phillips then hired jauron after mikey was canned by his own mother.

 

As I recall, there was a hell of a lot more to that whole thing than just money, and yet, you pretend that money was the whole thing. As I recall, it was also a big deal when Mikey went public and said we had signed McGinnis, when we were still in negotiations. I do not recall it being a matter of lowballing him, but a matter of Mikey being a dumbass, and McGinnis realizing what it would be like to work for him. END QUOTE

 

did i "pretend" that money was the "whole" thing? i guess i don't remember saying it was the "whole" thing. please show me where i said that.

 

but i would also like to state, if the money were excellent rather than low/mediocre with strings attached do you really think he would have left like that? i seriously doubt it.

 

QUOTE

jauron - after one good season, with an anemic offense, and a playoff in-and-out we not only renegotiate jauron's contract but his pitiful OC as well. was this done as an atta-boy or in regards to cheapness? if jauron really turned out to be a perennial contender when his contract DID come due, two seasons from then, it would have cost this franchise a LOT more money than it did re-upping his contract than when it did. the smart move was to wait and see how the next season fared. moving on......................

 

 

Are you serious? So your argument is that it is better for a team to wait and pay a premium rather than try to get a deal done early? I think every manager in america would disagree. I suppose you wait until a stock hits a high before you buy too. Don't want to get a bargain. You call it being cheap. The 32 teams in the NFL call it good business. END QUOTE

 

am i serious? $%#@ YEA i'm serious. so, just to get your business portfolio correct, you are willing to enhance and extend an employee's guaranteed contract another 4 years when that employee has:

 

1. worked in that field for a grand total of three years or LESS.

2. his record boasts modest profits (one playoff spot) for only ONE year out of those three years.

3. he is still under contract for at LEAST one more make-or-break year at no added expense to you.

 

well brother, let me know when you want someone to run YOUR corporation cause i want in.

 

we are not talking about keeping a coach who has a proven track record and you are re-signing him for a third + go-round (someone similar to a fisher and bilichek type coach or someone else who DOES have previous experience) to save some coin, you are talking about upping an inexperienced guy with a short mediocre or worse track record to save a few bucks before he has even run out his existing contract. does snyder ring any bells?

 

am i willing to spend a little more to let him work over his last year/s and make a real informed decision on his whole body of work up to that time? yes i am. if i want to keep him happy and feel there is some pressure to do so i give him BONUS money those year/s he deserves it. that way i am not tied to 2-4 years of dead money if it turns out he was having a fluke of a career to that point. i pay market value for a proven commodity and don't try to cut a fat hog in the arse by pinching pennies!!

 

QUOTE

in 2004, one year longer than we should have kept jauron (again so we don't pay a coach who isn't here) we shop around for that clown sabin at LSU, who everyone is drooling over, but decide we don't want to pay him as much as he wants. again we settle for 2nd or 3rd best when we hire smith.

 

 

Again w/ the selective memory. Pretty much every report I recall said Saban was looking for a boat load of personnel power, power usually the GM employs. I recall the sort of money we were talking about, and it was FAR from cheap. I remember that deal dying mainly due to Saban making the power play, and Angelo not wanting to give up the power he had. He dealt w/ the power struggles w/ Jauron, and didn't want to go through it again. END QUOTE

 

hmmm.. i seem to remember it somewhat differently. must be my "selective memory" block. first of all saben was looking for a major payday. you say you recall the money we were talking about. so what was it? how did it compare to his salary at LSU? what power/struggles did saben want that you somehow know angie didn't want to go through again besides drafting personel? list them.

 

saben was already getting paid real good money from LSU so what's the incentive to leave? MORE MONEY! the reason i remember was that we wouldn't/didn't offer that big incentive payday to dig him out of there. yes he did want power but do you seriously think that couldn't have been negotiated with our franchise if the money was BIG enough to lure him into the nfl?

 

QUOTE hmmm, not cheap?

 

No, it wasn't cheap. It was about so much more then money, but because you have it in your head the team is cheap, that is the only way you know how to look at things. That is about the only way to explain how a team can fork over a big extension, and you rationalize it by saying it would cost more later. END QUOTE

the only way i know how to look at things? that is truely laughable. so a team signing a coach to an extension, if it looks like he MAY succeed, to beat the cost of what his fair market value would be when his contract came due is in itself not cheap. stupid maybe but not cheap. when it becomes cheap is when that coach is signed to that extension to save that money you are talking about and even AFTER he has failed you still employ him because OF the guaranteed extension you signed him TO.

 

QUOTE other than building the new training facilities what has the ownership spent money on? the stadium is not theirs plus they have greatly increased their seating income. the gm replaced mikey so the salary is probably comperable. so where are they spending loads of money that makes you think they are not cheap?

 

First, I would point to the scouting department. Prior to Hatley/Phillips, we had the smallest scouting department in the league. Those two men built up the largest.

 

Second, I would point to signing bonus money. I know your arguments. You believe signing bonuses do not matter because a team can not spend more than the cap, but the simple fact is, you are wrong. In fact, you can and teams do every year. Under Hatley, we began spending bonus dollars like never before. Now, you can easily argue against who we spent it on, but the reality is we began to shell out the coin for bonuses unlike in the past. END QUOTE

 

the scouting department???? you have said yourself in past posts you don't know anything about it other than it 'probably' is larger than it was in the past (which you don't even state or know how FAR in the past that is). if you have any facts as to how many we have added or even have, then post it. if you have any facts how much we pay them then post it. if you have any facts even on how they delegate these scouts by position or even which side of the ball their duties cover then post it. if you have any facts which schools are targeted by our scouts then post it.

 

you know, unlike you, i can only go by results. the results in my estimation ARE the facts. even if we have a thousand scouts and we end up with the results we have over the last 5+ years then we either don't have enough or we need better scouts.

 

let me ask you... if you were employing scouts to look at offensive players we end up drafting in chicago, how much do you think they are worth? how much would YOU pay them? would you maybe look for either better scouts or more of them or just keep the staus-quo and accept the CRAP we draft?

 

QUOTE I'm sorry, but do you watch the draft, or follow other teams. How many teams do you think take a player 5 or 10 spots higher than where they think they will be drafted? If a team thinks a player will fall in the draft, they trade down. You argue it is about money, and that is all, but it is also about getting extra picks, and still getting the guy you want. I remember that year Pepper was drafted. It shocked everyone Minny took him when they had Brad Johnson coming off a very good year. By your logic, we should have stayed at #4 and taken Rex if that is who we liked, right? END QUOTE

 

do i watch the draft? yes and obviously closer than some. so let's see... how many teams take a player 5-10 spots higher than where they THINK they will be drafted? how about at least ONE? how bout at least ONE that takes players ROUNDS before they are projected to go? uhhhh maybe like chicago?

 

yes i do argue at least SOME of it is about money. i have watched this team draft players since it was first aired on tv. and YES i have seen the bears call a player prior to picking him and ask if he will sign for X amount of money before they pick him and at times someone not projected to go in that spot simply to save money.

 

speaking of pepper and grossman as you say... i WOULD have stayed at #7 and picked pepper IF i thought he was the best qb left on the board and i needed the best qb to play in chicago for 10 years AND he projected as that quality qb. if i thought grossman was a special qb that could lead this franchise for 10+ years then YES i would have picked him at #4. saying that, i think the consensus was that leftwich at the time was certainly a better prospect yet we decided to go with a cheaper model.

 

i will say this... being in the spot to pick at #4 does not come around for chicago that often (or maybe it does more than i wish?). it was yet another year we needed a qb badly. a year we had a very high draft pick. it most importantly was a year with a real #1 qb prospect in palmer. THAT was the one time to really go for that homerun swing and move up at whatever the cost to pick up carson palmer at the #1 overall. it would have hurt some but the rewards for that chance at the best project out there in the last few years would have been worth that risk and being only THREE spots up wouldn't have been devastating like moving up from the bottom in given draft picks. no guts no glory. it's one thing being causious and another being afraid. so instead we get haynes and grossman.

 

QUOTE "i also have to ask.... if we had a real management system in place, including gm, scouts and talent evaluators, who knew jack about offense and especially about qb's, would we have chosen this "most ready to start" qb in the first place?"

 

But this is not about money. We do have a GM and large scouting department. You can argue, and I will do so w/ you, they suck, but that is not a money issue. END QUOTE

how can you say that with any authority? do you really think this organization is completely stupid? dumb i will grant you, but THAT stupid that they don't realize we haven't had an offense in chicago in 50 years??? they would have to have lived on mars. if half the fans in chicago can give you this answer as to how to GET a better offense don't you really think they know this?

 

lets go back to your corporate scenario... if you owned a corp and 45 of the last FIFTY YEARS one half of your company was running in the red wouldn't you, or even the mccaskey's, either figure it out themselves something just 'ain't' right or HIRE someone else to figure out why this kept happening?

 

they KNOW what the problem is. they are NOT drafting quality offensive players and haven't since jim finks left. they certainly have not over the last 10 years!! ask any other owner, ask any nfl expert. ask any knowledgable fan how you get quality players in the nfl. you scout them with good personel. you hire someone to evaluate what they are giving you and draft those players. if they keep failing to give you quality information on who to draft year after year it would be insane to keep them on staff don't you think? you hire either more if there is not enough quality info coming in or you fire and hire new ones. you hire quantity AND quality at least until you get on your feet. this stuff is NOT rocket science.

 

QUOTE "to top this off, which of our coaches would you have chosen for ANY input on drafting a qb? crowton? jauron? shoop-a-doop? none of them had ANY nfl offensive experience worth mentioning. also, who in this entire organization was qualified to not only evaluate mcnown, but actually coach him?"

 

First, I would point out that Shoop was a QB coach. Second, w/o trying to get into each and every assistant coach on the team, how does this help your argument we are cheap. I do not like the coaches we have hired, but that is not a 'cheap' issue, but a decision making one. END QUOTE

if shoop is hired to be your qb coach don't you think this idiot should know something about what makes a quality qb and has input? if you don't think he does then you hired the wrong man, which turned out to be the case again. same goes for crowton. so for X's sake hire someone who does know about it like a bill walsh or somebody who does have a good record picking and grooming qbs in the nfl.

 

QUOTE One, most believed our draft pick at #4 would have been the DT Robertson, not Leftwhich, who many fans wanted but I recall little to indicate our staff was high on him.

 

Two, as I recall, it was Rex all along our staff liked, and thus we traded down rather take him at #4. I do not get your argument. If our staff liked Rex over Leftwhich, is it your argument we should have taken Rex at #4 just to prove we are not cheap. Yea, that would have made our team look so much better. END QUOTE

sure most believed our #4 pick would be a DT. why would we think our fearless leaders would grow some stones and go for the pick that we not only needed most but would help this team more than any pick in the last 25 years in carson palmer? this when we had the pick and the need to get it done.

 

as far as the staff saying it was rex they liked all along... what else would they say after he was drafted? if our #1 need was for a franchise qb and especially grossman, why take a chance he would be gone FIVE picks later and choose a DE instead ahead of him even after you traded down once? in my estimation you either feel he is a franchise qb or you don't. they obviously didn't TWICE. so why not really make that extra effort and move up to get the one that is? because it's pure fear that stays the hand. fear of making a career decision that will cost a lot of money.

 

QUOTE As for moving up to get Palmer being too expensive, yes, it is. Not so much due to money but picks. Cincy was asking for the moon to move down, and for a struggling team w/ so many needs, it just didn't make sense to give up so many picks. END QUOTE

if we gave up our first that year and some combination of that year and the next to me it's worth it even if we gave up that first the following year. to be honest... palmer looked to be the best prospect since payton manning at the #1 overall spot. certainly better than his brother. how much is it worth to get a possible 10 year franchise qb in chicago?

 

you say it's not worth giving up that many picks with a struggling team. so i have to ask, (considering we will never know as we have never done it and we just continue to struggle decade, after decade, after decade with the same type of afterthoughts at the most important position in football) how much is it worth to you?

 

QUOTE "another miscue: we SHOULD have gotten 29 year old FA drew bledsoe the previous year, 2002, when he was a free agent but instead we went with a B.U. in the cheaper miller."

 

Yea, and the 2001 season Miller had for us had NOTHING to do w/ it. END QUOTE

which part of millers (15 total games started in his career) 2001 rankings of 24th in passing yds; 12th in TD's; 13th in INT's; and 19th in net passing yds do you think would pre-empt you from aquiring a 29 year old all-pro, pro-bowl quarterback in free agency?

 

QUOTE "mirer? this was one of the stupidest decisions in this entire franchises history. again this came about by not having any personel with any clue about offensive talent. we relied exclusively on a DC turned HC in wanny. to trade that high of a draft pick for mirer who was NOT even a starter on his own team was ludicrous. if we had any offensive evaluation personel besides mikey, they would have certainly put the brakes on that trade. but then personel cost money."

 

Sorry, but you are killing me. We have had a full compliment on the staff. I agree w/ the idea we have needed more offensive backgrounded coaches, but that simply has NOTHING to do w/ being cheap. Is it your argument that an OC costs more than a DC? I don't think so. We spent money, but didn't spend it well. Fine. But it does NOT help your cheap argument at all. END QUOTE

are you seriously saying that in 1997 we had a full compliment of offensive personel decision makers? just shout out when you get to their names: ed, tim, patrick, brian or mike mccaskey; ted phillips; rod graves; tim lefevour; ken valdiserri; mark bienvenu; john bostrom; tim bream; fred caito; george chryst; clyde emrich; greg gershuny; doug green; caroline guip; gary haeger; bryan harlan; jeff hay; tony medlin; ken mrock; bryan pett; carl piekarski; dean pope; russ riederer; max siatek; jack tropeter; scott worthem; pro scout - mike mccartney and our massive force of FOUR college scouts - charlie garcia, charlie mackey, bobby riggle, jeff shiver, or gary smith PLUS an unknown cast of thousands.

 

which of this full compliment of offensive oriented staff do you suppose gave the green light on mirer?

 

and finally, yes, hiring coaches with little or no experience to fill your staff is probably not due to any monetary considerations at all. in fact i'm sure they were in the top ten paid coaches at every position.

 

QUOTE "i think to cut this short, all the instances you mention are perfect examples of what you do when you don't have anyone in the entire organization that knows anything about offense and especially about quarterback talent. if you have failed this miserably for 45 of the last 50 years don't you think SOMEONE in management could figure out some changes need to be made in the way we evaluate and choose our qb's?"

 

You act like we have not had OCs or QB coaching on the team. We have had offensive coaches, just not as head coaches. Again, that simply has nothing to do w/ money or being cheap. END QUOTE

yet again i will ask you to name a single offensive coach under tenure in chicago that has gone on to even be an nfl OC let alone head coach besides ditka's abramowicz in NO as his OC. why do you think that is? do we go all out to pay someone top dollar to come to chicago and are just too stupid to pick a single good one over last 50 years? forget about head coaches, besides turner (who's only nfl OC experience was IN chicago) have we even ever hired an OC with even OC experience in our history?

 

QUOTE "i just can't believe that to be true.... if our scouts are telling our GM to pick certain players and he keeps picking others that bust, he needs to be fired."

 

This was your response from my comment that scouts can tell Angelo everything, but it is still Angelo's call. A scout does not tell Angelo who do draft. They give reports on prospects, and Angelo takes it from there. END QUOTE

so, are you saying then that all of our great scouts have given angie good offensive players to draft but he just doesn't want to listen to them and drafts the dogs?

 

QUOTE "so that leaves us with we don't have a large enough staff to scout offensive players,"

 

According to what are you basing this on. Bad decision making does not mean a lack of resources. It may question the ability of those resources, but does not mean resources are lacking. The article talking about the need for QB specializing scouts also flat out says no one in the league has one. So unless your argument is every team is cheap, I do not think this is a money issue. END QUOTE

so, in your estimation we have plenty of scouts but they are just stupid. how many years do you believe we should pay stupid scouts? 20 years? 30 years? or do you think we might look for more scouts who aren't as stupid and pay them what they are worth? that way we have the cheaper stupid scouts we can always rely on for bad picks in a pinch and a few good scouts who unfortunately actually cost real money but give us a better offensive selection to draft from.

 

"we don't have the RIGHT scouts to evaluate offensive talent, we don't have the key personel to evaluate what the scouts are saying, plus our coaching staff must be inept or they have no input on draft evaluation, AND we don't have quality personel including specialty coaches to evaluate and train the players CORRECTLY we do get."

 

And once again, I am not so much arguing this point, but I am arguing it being a money matter. You act like our scouts and staff work for free, or that scouts w/ more offensive background cost more, but you offer no evidence to show as much. Further, you do not even have a clue what our scouts background is. For all you know, we employ numerous former QBs as scouts. You don't know. We have not made good offensive choices in the draft, but again, I simply do not see how this is a money issue.

 

what in gods name ever gave you any idea i think our scouts work for free? cheaper maybe because either they are NOT as good as other scouts for other franchises that draft offense well OR the only other possibility is there just is not ENOUGH of them. so in the last case, open up the purse and freaking hire some more!!!!!!!!!!

 

also i will tell you yet again how many scouts are employed by chicago for college player evaluation that i can account for greg gabriel, and MAYBE 3-4 others that i can't find info about. is that enough? you tell me if you think any of these 4/5 have done a good job offensively evaluating players.

 

I know full well I have wasted my time. Some people have ingrained a belief, and there is no changing that. If we made a trade for McNabb, and gave him $20m guaranteed, you would find a way to say we were cheap. Or if we got Anderson and paid him a ton, you would again find a way to say we were cheap.

 

I swear that if a report came out showing how, as an organization, we spent more than any other (including staff and other personnel) but in that report it also said we pay our janiter $1/hr less than the average, you would scream, "I told you we were cheap".

Go to the top of the pageReport Post

 

and you, just because we hire a gm and pay most of our salary cap out to players now, think it means we are the elite of the nfl spending wise and the only problems we have are from us having hard luck. i ask you this AGAIN... show me where we have spent the money other than player salaries. we paid (estimate) $20 mil in 1997 for new facilities at halas hall. what else? list anything you can and not just this "some people" conspiracy CRAP. prove it with facts that our scouts are paid top dollar. prove it with facts that our scouting staff is large enough. prove it with facts we don't hire qualified staff that are new to that coaching position or 2nd and 3rd rate assistants. show me with facts that we pay them the going rate.

 

i will tell you that i have stated 'cheap' as a real POSSIBILITY for this franchises problems NOT that it is set in stone. maybe i'm wrong and they aren't cheap but then what is the other possibility why we have failed for decades? i can only go by the results i see.

 

if this were a new franchise then ok you get some slack. but this is an 80+ year old franchise. we should know how it's done and be able to do it better. we should know when it's not working and we should know what to do about it. so far over the last 25 years we haven't even come close. so if not enough money in the right places then what? you tell me.

[Lucky Luciano]

Tuna - yeah, he worked out so well in Dallas.

Gibbs - Ditto in Washington

 

Here are some other great retread signings:

 

Dennis Green in AZ - disaster

Marty S in Wash and SD - never won a playoff game

 

There have been success stories as well. The most famous being Bounce-a-check. But he was a horrible failure in Cleveland. If we were to hire a coach like that the fans would be the crap out of ownership.

 

Basically my point is hiring a coach (with experience or not) is a crap shoot.

 

I agree with you, however, that we need to spend more money on offensive scouting. In this area we have failed miserably.

 

Peace

 

 

hey at least dallas and wash tried to win using someone who IS/WAS a good coach and weren't afraid to put money on the line.

 

sure it might be a crap shoot but haven't we had basically CRAP for most of the last 50 years? think it may have been worth a try at least once? if nothing else maybe a former offensive minded HC to become our OC?

 

anyway... here are some of the coaches that did pretty well in multiple venues:

 

so-so coaches: herm edwards .464%, wade phillips, dan reeves, jack pardee, jim mora, sid gillman, joe gibbs (edit: same team but brought back so not sure if this fits the criteria)

 

currently active coaches: dungy, gruden, holmgren, shanahan, coughlin, belichick,

 

chuck knox, shottenheimer, marv levy, vince lombardi, vermeil, weeb ewbank, don coryell, parcells,. paul brown, george allen, , jimmy johnson