Chud Will Interview Today and Tomorrow

[DABEARSDABOMB]

The Bears' next candidate for their offensive coordinator position is Chargers assistant head coach/tight ends coach Rob Chudzinski, multiple league sources said.

 

Chudzinski is expected to arrive in Chicago on Wednesday night and interview over the next 24 hours. The Bears need to conclude the interview by Thursday night because the coaching staff and front office will depart early Friday on charter to South Carolina for the funeral of Gaines Adams.

 

Chudzinski previously was the Browns' offensive coordinator under Romeo Crennel and has experience as a play-caller both for Cleveland and the University of Miami.

 

Photo: Rob Chudzinski was with the Chargers last season. (San Diego Union Tribune)

Chudzinski was the Browns' offensive coordinator in 2007, when quarterback Derek Anderson began the season as a backup to Charlie Frye and ended up going to the Pro Bowl. He had a 10-5 record as a starter and passed for 3,787 yards and 29 TDs.

 

Anderson's strength was throwing the ball downfield, something the Bears want to do with Jay Cutler.

 

Chudzinski also is known for his ability to develop tight ends, having worked with Antonio Gates in San Diego, as well as Bubba Franks, Kellen Winslow and Jeremy Shockey at Miami.

 

You really got to like that bio.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Also a Bengals insider is reporting that the Bears really liked Zampese and that Zampese really hit it off with Cutler.

 

Zampese is probably in the drivers seat, but Chud is a serious candidate with nice credentials too. Bears really seem to be doing there homework on these guys, imo. It literally seems like they put together a list of OC candidates and they want to meet with everyone of them on there list before making a decision (Bates/Clements were the 1st they reached out to but also Zampese, Chud, and most likely Christensen next week).

[Pixote]

Also a Bengals insider is reporting that the Bears really liked Zampese and that Zampese really hit it off with Cutler.

 

Zampese is probably in the drivers seat, but Chud is a serious candidate with nice credentials too. Bears really seem to be doing there homework on these guys, imo. It literally seems like they put together a list of OC candidates and they want to meet with everyone of them on there list before making a decision (Bates/Clements were the 1st they reached out to but also Zampese, Chud, and most likely Christensen next week).

 

But now I am worried, OMG, does it matter if we hire the OC first or do we need to hire the DC first or do we need to hire all the position coaches first or or or????

[nfoligno]

Really, none of this matters as they will all be gone after 2010.

 

But now I am worried, OMG, does it matter if we hire the OC first or do we need to hire the DC first or do we need to hire all the position coaches first or or or????

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

But now I am worried, OMG, does it matter if we hire the OC first or do we need to hire the DC first or do we need to hire all the position coaches first or or or????

Exactly. I'm glad we are doing our homework. If we find a good coach, hire him. Plain and simple. We really have no competition for any of the positions at this point so there is no harm going slow.

 

I will admit the only thing that stung was losing Fewell. He was the perfect fit and really the only name we heard about the entire time so it stunk losing our top choice to another team.

 

On the offensive side of the ball, I'm perfectly happy with the way things have gone. I think I prefer Chuds to Bates and I certainly love the addition of Tice. I would have really liked Clements but that was out of the Bears hands.

[Pixote]

Really, none of this matters as they will all be gone after 2010.

.... Or all given extensions after we win the Super Bowl, LOL.

[madlithuanian]

Either of those 2 scenarios, and I'll be pleased (moreso with the big win...). But anything else worries me greatly.

 

.... Or all given extensions after we win the Super Bowl, LOL.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Really, none of this matters as they will all be gone after 2010.

I actually really like the staff Lovie has as of now. Obviously that could change since the two most important assistants haven't been hired, but I think Lovie is going to be in a position where he can excel. As a pure figure head I think he is one of the better ones. His problem is he was given too much power and failed a bit (way too much power on who the coaches would be).

 

Now Angelo is getting more involved and it just helps the team get a better all around coaching staff and I think we'll see that do wonders in Chicago. The only real question is can Angelo find enough talent upgrades this year (without a 1st or 2nd rounder and a limited FA crop) to improve the team.

 

I'm buying the coolaid right now and feel the Bears make the playoffs.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Either of those 2 scenarios, and I'll be pleased (moreso with the big win...). But anything else worries me greatly.

I'm sure they will offer the coaches brought in more than 1 year deals (otherwise no one would come) but if the team doesn't make the playoffs, Lovie will be gone and the new coach will get to decide whether any of the current assistants stay or go.

 

Remember, Toub was a holdover from the Jauron days.

[nfoligno]

I would think these coaches would be offered 2 year deals, which would match theirs w/ Lovies.

 

I'm sure they will offer the coaches brought in more than 1 year deals (otherwise no one would come) but if the team doesn't make the playoffs, Lovie will be gone and the new coach will get to decide whether any of the current assistants stay or go.

 

Remember, Toub was a holdover from the Jauron days.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I would think these coaches would be offered 2 year deals, which would match theirs w/ Lovies.

That seems fair. The one exception to that would be if we went after a high-profile candidate where we had lots of competition (right now we are one of the only jobs hiring OC/DC's so the Bears have the leverage) and in that instance the club might have to offer a longer term deal.

 

For example, if the Bears went hard after Frazier, they'd have to offer him a 4year deal worth 1+M a season.

[nfoligno]

That anything else is what you have in Dallas.

 

Wade Phillips was a laughingstock of a coach one year ago. Heck, even through much of the season, few thought much of him. Fans around here were counting the days until the end of the season, upon which his contract would expire and the team could move on, whether with Jason (Red Jesus) Garrett or someone else. Then Dallas finishes the season strong and even wins a playoff game.

 

Now, not only has Jerry Jones already said he would pick up the one year option for Wade, but is also talking about a multi-year contract extension. Huh? I know the team finsihed well and won a postseason game, but 6 weeks ago most wanted him on the firing line. Talk about love hate.

 

Further, while the staf is not as shiny, most still love Garrett. Garrett actually turned down HC opportunities in recent years as he was expected to get the Dallas HC role. If Wade is extended for 3 years (or whatever) that would be an ultimate slap at Garrett, and he would likely bolt first chance he gets.

 

Anyway, that is the current joke for Chicago, that we do just well enough to get in the playoffs and Lovie gets and extension, but a joke many are afraid could come true.

 

Either of those 2 scenarios, and I'll be pleased (moreso with the big win...). But anything else worries me greatly.

 

[madlithuanian]

Exactly! And similar to what I've been alluding to as the "Wayne Fontes Years"...

 

I literally want all or nothing!

 

That anything else is what you have in Dallas.

 

Wade Phillips was a laughingstock of a coach one year ago. Heck, even through much of the season, few thought much of him. Fans around here were counting the days until the end of the season, upon which his contract would expire and the team could move on, whether with Jason (Red Jesus) Garrett or someone else. Then Dallas finishes the season strong and even wins a playoff game.

 

Now, not only has Jerry Jones already said he would pick up the one year option for Wade, but is also talking about a multi-year contract extension. Huh? I know the team finsihed well and won a postseason game, but 6 weeks ago most wanted him on the firing line. Talk about love hate.

 

Further, while the staf is not as shiny, most still love Garrett. Garrett actually turned down HC opportunities in recent years as he was expected to get the Dallas HC role. If Wade is extended for 3 years (or whatever) that would be an ultimate slap at Garrett, and he would likely bolt first chance he gets.

 

Anyway, that is the current joke for Chicago, that we do just well enough to get in the playoffs and Lovie gets and extension, but a joke many are afraid could come true.

 

[nfoligno]

Two things.

 

One, I see a problem going down that route. You are flat out hiring an assistant coach to a deal running longer than a HC who is already on the hot seat. Regardless of intention, the perception will be that you have just hired Lovie's replacement, and then the media is going to go to town. A signing that was intended and expected to be a positive very quickly turns into a huge negative, at least in terms of PR.

 

Two, Regardless, I don't see this happening. I think our ownership knows full well the chances of Lovie (and everyone) being cleaned out if we have another season. They are not going to want to (a) pay top dollar for a coach when they may have to eat the contract in a year and ( sign a coach to a long term deal for the same reason. The owners may be okay w/ eating one year. We are talking about assistant who just don't usually make nearly as much money. But I don't see them shelling out the big bucks, nor the long term deals, for an assistant right now.

 

That seems fair. The one exception to that would be if we went after a high-profile candidate where we had lots of competition (right now we are one of the only jobs hiring OC/DC's so the Bears have the leverage) and in that instance the club might have to offer a longer term deal.

 

For example, if the Bears went hard after Frazier, they'd have to offer him a 4year deal worth 1+M a season.

 

[madlithuanian]

 

http://www.aetv.com/intervention/index.jsp

 

Put the glass down...it's for your own good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually really like the staff Lovie has as of now. Obviously that could change since the two most important assistants haven't been hired, but I think Lovie is going to be in a position where he can excel. As a pure figure head I think he is one of the better ones. His problem is he was given too much power and failed a bit (way too much power on who the coaches would be).

 

Now Angelo is getting more involved and it just helps the team get a better all around coaching staff and I think we'll see that do wonders in Chicago. The only real question is can Angelo find enough talent upgrades this year (without a 1st or 2nd rounder and a limited FA crop) to improve the team.

 

I'm buying the coolaid right now and feel the Bears make the playoffs.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Two things.

 

One, I see a problem going down that route. You are flat out hiring an assistant coach to a deal running longer than a HC who is already on the hot seat. Regardless of intention, the perception will be that you have just hired Lovie's replacement, and then the media is going to go to town. A signing that was intended and expected to be a positive very quickly turns into a huge negative, at least in terms of PR.

 

Two, Regardless, I don't see this happening. I think our ownership knows full well the chances of Lovie (and everyone) being cleaned out if we have another season. They are not going to want to (a) pay top dollar for a coach when they may have to eat the contract in a year and ( sign a coach to a long term deal for the same reason. The owners may be okay w/ eating one year. We are talking about assistant who just don't usually make nearly as much money. But I don't see them shelling out the big bucks, nor the long term deals, for an assistant right now.

While I believe ownership knows Lovie is out if they don't make the playoffs, they aren't going to go into this approach with the perception that Lovie is gone. If they thought they wouldn't be able to make the playoffs next year, than Lovie wouldn't be here (I realize Money is an issue and I believe it might have been what ultimately saved his job) but I also have to think the Bears also believe Lovie can win and that is why they brought him back and they fully expect him to do so.

 

You (Ownership) can't plan based upon failure, yes they should have contingency plans, but they need to go out and do everything they can to ensure this team will win and I expect them to do that.

 

Hiring Tice was a good step and if Frazier wanted to come to the Bears you will need to offer him a longer deal. And if people say he's taking over for Lovie, I'd say, we needed to make a competitive offer and we did. Lovie is our head football coach and he has full faith in Frazier who will run the defense.

 

I'd have a bigger issue if you hired someone like Martz who was a former HC. Plus, lets be honest, if we fire Lovie, they won't just hand the job to Frazier, they will look at a lot of candidates.

[nfoligno]

Call me a hater. I just don't think much of Smith. Period. I guess he may offer the least damage as a "pure figure head" but at the same time, i question if that is what we truly will get.

 

Even when Rivera was here, (a) I think Lovie was really pushing harder and harder for Rivera to do things his way, and that is before the power shift of the SB and ( simply put, we had a lot more talent then than we do today.

 

Lovie is no longer going to be the DC, nor is he going to simply have his BFF running the D. At the same time, he has flat said we would run his scheme, defended his scheme, and I find it hard to believe he will simply assume the role of figure head and not meddle too much. Add this this a talent base on defense that seems to be going straight downhill, and i just have very low expectations for our defense.

 

I do have higher expectations for our offense, especially if we can hire Chud. In my eyes, we have the QB, RB, WRs and TE(s). What we lack is OL, and Williams move to LT could go a long way toward the improvement there. The addition of Tice will also help, and will (hopefully) a new addition to the OL. Now throw in an improved scheme and playcalling, and I believe we could have a very solid or even good offense. I just don't have much faith in the D though.

 

I actually really like the staff Lovie has as of now. Obviously that could change since the two most important assistants haven't been hired, but I think Lovie is going to be in a position where he can excel. As a pure figure head I think he is one of the better ones. His problem is he was given too much power and failed a bit (way too much power on who the coaches would be).

 

Now Angelo is getting more involved and it just helps the team get a better all around coaching staff and I think we'll see that do wonders in Chicago. The only real question is can Angelo find enough talent upgrades this year (without a 1st or 2nd rounder and a limited FA crop) to improve the team.

 

I'm buying the coolaid right now and feel the Bears make the playoffs.

 

[nfoligno]

While I believe ownership knows Lovie is out if they don't make the playoffs, they aren't going to go into this approach with the perception that Lovie is gone. If they thought they wouldn't be able to make the playoffs next year, than Lovie wouldn't be here (I realize Money is an issue and I believe it might have been what ultimately saved his job) but I also have to think the Bears also believe Lovie can win and that is why they brought him back and they fully expect him to do so.

 

You (Ownership) can't plan based upon failure, yes they should have contingency plans, but they need to go out and do everything they can to ensure this team will win and I expect them to do that.

 

I think you need to share the koolaid. It isn't that I believe ownership is going to intentionally cripple Lovie, but at the same time, nor do I see them sinking a ton of money into a team when there is already talk of blowing it up.

 

Lets say you are talking about selling your house. It's old and you are feeling like you may have outgrown it. You still like it, and have not made a firm decision, but the thought is in your head. Are you likely to go out and sign a 2nd mortgage when thought of moving have already entered your head?

 

IMHO, if there is a coach out there who demands a long term, or expensive deal, we are simply going to hire someone else.

 

Hiring Tice was a good step and if Frazier wanted to come to the Bears you will need to offer him a longer deal. And if people say he's taking over for Lovie, I'd say, we needed to make a competitive offer and we did. Lovie is our head football coach and he has full faith in Frazier who will run the defense.

 

I honestly do not understand why Frazier's name keeps coming up. Minny seems very happy with him. We would not be offering him a promotion of any kind, and I don't care what the contract he signs would be, our situation is flat out unstable, while his situation in Minny would be near rock solid, or as close as you can get in the NFL. Now add in scheme and all the rest of the mess. There is just no reason for him to come here.

 

More general though, I almost had to laugh. Our staff can say what they want, but how much trust do you think is out there right now? When our guys said money played no factor in our keeping Lovie, you believed it? If they were to hire a "hot" candidate to a deal that had double the remaining years as Lovie, who's only connection to hot is the seat he is on, there isn't a media source out there which would not talk about how we just hired Lovie's replacement. You think angelo or Phillips telling the press different would make one bit of difference? They would be laughed at. And you might argue perception doesn't mean squat, I would strongly disagree. I have seen it here in Dallas. Washington had in this past year. In a situation like that, you find players begin to side w/ the heir apparant over the HC because, well, they aren't stupid.

 

I'd have a bigger issue if you hired someone like Martz who was a former HC. Plus, lets be honest, if we fire Lovie, they won't just hand the job to Frazier, they will look at a lot of candidates.

 

Frankly, I would argue if they hired Martz, there would not be much fear as they would not just hand the job to him. But if they did in fact go after, and did what it took to sign Frazier, then yes, I think the plan would be for him to simply replace Lovie. Frankly, such promises are all that "might" convince Frazier to come here.

[AZ54]

Call me a hater. I just don't think much of Smith. Period. I guess he may offer the least damage as a "pure figure head" but at the same time, i question if that is what we truly will get.

 

Even when Rivera was here, (a) I think Lovie was really pushing harder and harder for Rivera to do things his way, and that is before the power shift of the SB and ( simply put, we had a lot more talent then than we do today.

 

Lovie is no longer going to be the DC, nor is he going to simply have his BFF running the D. At the same time, he has flat said we would run his scheme, defended his scheme, and I find it hard to believe he will simply assume the role of figure head and not meddle too much. Add this this a talent base on defense that seems to be going straight downhill, and i just have very low expectations for our defense.

 

I do have higher expectations for our offense, especially if we can hire Chud. In my eyes, we have the QB, RB, WRs and TE(s). What we lack is OL, and Williams move to LT could go a long way toward the improvement there. The addition of Tice will also help, and will (hopefully) a new addition to the OL. Now throw in an improved scheme and playcalling, and I believe we could have a very solid or even good offense. I just don't have much faith in the D though.

 

 

A couple days after Lovie said his new DC would be running his scheme he came out and clarified things. He said he wanted a guy to run a similar scheme but that didn't mean it couldn't incorporate some new twists.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear08.article

'The person that is coming in, I would like for him to have some of the similar beliefs that I have,'' Smith said Tuesday. ''But at the same, as you evaluate what you are doing, with the new year, you want to bring in new ideas.

 

''That's what I am excited about, bringing in some of our new ideas, getting some of our old players back.''

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

His last line there makes no sense whatsoever but I think this is an admission that the new DC will have some autonomy to call the plays and adapt the scheme to their preference. There's no doubt this will come out in the discussion during the interview.

 

 

 

 

[LT2_3]

I think many of you are focusing on the wrong issues and misinterpreting things somewhat because everyone seems to be reading the tea leaves as if the looming CBA issue has no effect on coaching decisions.

 

For instance, we could suck balls next year, but Lovie still wouldn't be fired if it looks like a lockout is coming. It sounds like everyone is expecting that if there are no playoffs for us that Lovie would be fired the following Monday if not right after our last game. If it looks like there will be a lockout, there will be no changes at all because they wouldn't want to risk having to pay 2 sets of coaches.

 

As for the length of contracts, Tice signed a 2 year deal. That may be because they don't want anyone's contract to exceed Lovie's, and it may be due to the potential work stoppage. It's impossible to tell which.

 

What I think many aren't factoring into their thoughts is that the new CBA will be significantly different from what has been in the past. Things I've heard as possibilities include a rookie wage scale and a pool of money to be split by vets based on performance. For those things to occur, the entire way that teams share money will be affected and that means that the teams that earn less don't know how much money will get shared to them by the richer teams, and the richer teams don't know how much they will have to share with the poorer teams. In other words, nobody knows what their budget will look like past 2011.

 

Now I'm sure that someone will come back with "Yeah, but they make so much money they can afford anything they want to - those cheap bastards!) But the simple fact remains that when there are question marks, businesses don't make decisions if they don't have to.

 

 

[madlithuanian]

Question...

 

Assuming there is a lockout...do coaches and management get paid as per their individual contracts? Whether the payers play, do these guys still get paid?

 

I think that is the case.

 

And if so, there's no doubt in my mind that Sweaty Teddy bet on the lockout. Makes financial sense. It's still risky, because you could still lose out on the pool of potential coaches after this season (Cowher, Gruden, etc...). I'm not saying I agree with it. Becasue I don't. But it does make sense.

 

 

Sorry, it's early and I just switched to Sanka...

 

 

I think many of you are focusing on the wrong issues and misinterpreting things somewhat because everyone seems to be reading the tea leaves as if the looming CBA issue has no effect on coaching decisions.

 

For instance, we could suck balls next year, but Lovie still wouldn't be fired if it looks like a lockout is coming. It sounds like everyone is expecting that if there are no playoffs for us that Lovie would be fired the following Monday if not right after our last game. If it looks like there will be a lockout, there will be no changes at all because they wouldn't want to risk having to pay 2 sets of coaches.

 

As for the length of contracts, Tice signed a 2 year deal. That may be because they don't want anyone's contract to exceed Lovie's, and it may be due to the potential work stoppage. It's impossible to tell which.

 

What I think many aren't factoring into their thoughts is that the new CBA will be significantly different from what has been in the past. Things I've heard as possibilities include a rookie wage scale and a pool of money to be split by vets based on performance. For those things to occur, the entire way that teams share money will be affected and that means that the teams that earn less don't know how much money will get shared to them by the richer teams, and the richer teams don't know how much they will have to share with the poorer teams. In other words, nobody knows what their budget will look like past 2011.

 

Now I'm sure that someone will come back with "Yeah, but they make so much money they can afford anything they want to - those cheap bastards!) But the simple fact remains that when there are question marks, businesses don't make decisions if they don't have to.

 

[nfoligno]

Yes, I get that. Whoever we hire will not be pressed to be such a pure cover 2 guy, like Babich after Rivera. Whoever comes in will likely have room to tweak this and that.

 

At the same time, I still have questions in terms of game planning and such. When Rivera was here (going off reports and not facts) Lovie and Rivera would talk game plan, and that is where much of their disagreements would take place. Rivera would look at an offense and believe "x" scheme would work best, while Lovie would disagree. From what I read, an example (detail) would be man coverage. There were times Rivera wanted to play more man, but Lovie felt zone was best.

 

That is the sort of thing I wonder about. How much will Lovie be involved. Involved is actually the wrong term. How much freedom will Lovie allow? I talked in another post about how there are some teams out there that use the cover two, but have simply done far more to adapt it. I have also said much of our problem is not necessarily that we run a cover two (which is only maybe 35%) of the time, but more when we choose to run it, and how predictable we were in that regard. When we got another team into 3rd and long, they flat out knew we would drop into a cover two and that simply made it much easier for offenses to attack us in that situation.

 

Honestly though, my greater reason for pessimism on defense is about talent. I just don't see it anymore. With Urlacher back, I really like our LBs, but thats about it. We are between average and below average along the DL. CB situation is both questionable among starters and thin in terms of depth. FS situation is a hole we have tried for a long time to fill, but have failed. Even w/ the right coaching, honestly, I question how far this defense can go. I do have a great deal of optimism for our offense, especially if we can upgrade the OL, but simply not so much on the defensive side.

 

A couple days after Lovie said his new DC would be running his scheme he came out and clarified things. He said he wanted a guy to run a similar scheme but that didn't mean it couldn't incorporate some new twists.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear08.article

'The person that is coming in, I would like for him to have some of the similar beliefs that I have,'' Smith said Tuesday. ''But at the same, as you evaluate what you are doing, with the new year, you want to bring in new ideas.

 

''That's what I am excited about, bringing in some of our new ideas, getting some of our old players back.''

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

His last line there makes no sense whatsoever but I think this is an admission that the new DC will have some autonomy to call the plays and adapt the scheme to their preference. There's no doubt this will come out in the discussion during the interview.

 

[nfoligno]

Regarding your first point, I would say this. I agree there if it appears there will be a lockout, Lovie will not be fired. At the same time, I think fans are not really making that an issue is because it really won't matter. If there is a lockout, it doesn't matter who our coach will be. Also, I while I think most fully expect a non-capped season due to the lack of a CBA extension, I think most fans also struggle to believe either side, much less both, will truly kill the golden eggs producing goose. There will be plenty of fighting and puffing up of the chests, but when it comes down to it, I think most simply believe a deal will ultimately get done, and therefor most fans offer opinions under the expectation there will be football in 2011. And like I said, if there isn't, it really doesn't matter who our coach is.

 

As for the 2nd part, I am sure teams are taking a bit of a wait and see approach to how much money they will have to spend, but at the same time, I think that will have a greater affect on FA signings, both in money and lenth. You can hire an entire coaching staff for the cost of one big FA signing bonus.

 

With that said, it was a consideration of mine, and thus why I said I think our ownership is not likely to sign a coordinator to a 4 or 5 year deal right now. That is why I think any assistants we hire now to fill our holes will likely be signed to one or two year deals.

 

I think many of you are focusing on the wrong issues and misinterpreting things somewhat because everyone seems to be reading the tea leaves as if the looming CBA issue has no effect on coaching decisions.

 

For instance, we could suck balls next year, but Lovie still wouldn't be fired if it looks like a lockout is coming. It sounds like everyone is expecting that if there are no playoffs for us that Lovie would be fired the following Monday if not right after our last game. If it looks like there will be a lockout, there will be no changes at all because they wouldn't want to risk having to pay 2 sets of coaches.

 

As for the length of contracts, Tice signed a 2 year deal. That may be because they don't want anyone's contract to exceed Lovie's, and it may be due to the potential work stoppage. It's impossible to tell which.

 

What I think many aren't factoring into their thoughts is that the new CBA will be significantly different from what has been in the past. Things I've heard as possibilities include a rookie wage scale and a pool of money to be split by vets based on performance. For those things to occur, the entire way that teams share money will be affected and that means that the teams that earn less don't know how much money will get shared to them by the richer teams, and the richer teams don't know how much they will have to share with the poorer teams. In other words, nobody knows what their budget will look like past 2011.

 

Now I'm sure that someone will come back with "Yeah, but they make so much money they can afford anything they want to - those cheap bastards!) But the simple fact remains that when there are question marks, businesses don't make decisions if they don't have to.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

He got a ringing endorsement from a damn good coach (Shotty)

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/...chudzinski.html

SPNChicago.com reports: Rob Chudzinski, the Chargers' assistant head coach/tight ends coach who is interviewing Thursday for the Bears' offensive-coordinator post, gets a ringing endorsement from former Chargers coach Marty Schottenheimer.

 

"He's an outstanding football coach," Schottenheimer said Thursday on "The Waddle & Silvy Show" on WMVP-AM 1000. "He's got a very broad understanding of offensive football. Chud is one of the best young coaches I've been around, and I would imagine that given the opportunity with the background he has and involvement with the San Diego offense, he would be terrific in that role."

 

Chudzinksi coached the Chargers' tight ends under Schottenheimer in 2005-06 before becoming the Browns' offensive coordinator.

 

"I would say if they sign him as offensive coordinator, you need to look toward the sky, because the sun is now rising," Schottenheimer said.

[Pixote]

WoW, after reading what Marty had to say about Chud, how could you not like him as our OC?

 

Not to show my stupidity, what type of offense do you think he would run here? Hopefully West Coast as this is what Cutler is experienced in and the transition of OCers would be smoother.