Chud Will Interview Today and Tomorrow

[DABEARSDABOMB]

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.

I believe he runs a variation of the West Coast.

[Pixote]

I believe he runs a variation of the West Coast.

 

There are some interesting details on the Tribune site in this article:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...0,3129808.story

 

Among the coaches who have influenced him are Jimmy Johnson, Larry Coker, Butch Davis, Marty Schottenheimer and Norv Turner.

 

It is believed his offensive philosophy is most similar to that of Ravens offensive coordinator Cam Cameron. "Chud" worked with Cameron in San Diego before he became the Browns offensive coordinator under Romeo Crennel in 2007.

 

I like the list of OCs he has been tutored by.

 

Chudzinski is known for his ability to develop tight ends, having worked with Gates, as well as Bubba Franks, Kellen Winslow and Jeremy Shockey at the University of Miami. He also coached Greg Olsen when Olsen was a redshirt freshman in 2003.

 

I have to believe this means he will utilize G Olsen and will help him develop.

 

People who know Chudzinski well refer to him as very bright, hard working and well versed in his offensive system. There is no question the 41-year-old has significant potential. Chudzinski is known for using formations and personnel groups to create mismatches.

 

That would be refreshing as I never felt Turner was able to do this.

[nfoligno]

I like the list of OCs he has been tutored by.

 

That is a pretty solid list. As for his offense, what I like is he has worked in more than one type of system, and I think is more likely to cater a system around the talent rather than force talent into a specific system.

 

I have to believe this means he will utilize G Olsen and will help him develop.

 

His experience and history working with TEs is one of the top things I like. When you look at the TEs he has worked with, its basically a who's who from the TE position (minus Tony G). While Olsen didn't really play for him, they did have one year overlap. I think it may have been a red shirt year for Olsen, but from what I read, the two did get to know each other. Where ever he has worked though, the TEs produce on high levels. When he ran the offense in Cle, Winslow was a freak. He already had Gates in SD, but there was no dropoff. And he did an incredible job developing and utilizing TEs at Miami.

 

While I have questioned Olsen at times, there is little question (at least in my mind) that he is our most talented and gifted receiver. That opponents used their top CBs to cover him says a lot. If we brought him in, I think Olsen's development and stats would soar.

 

But look at what he did in Cle. It wasn't just about the TE. Anderson came out of nowhere and put up big numbers that year. Braylon Edwards had a career season. Even Jamal Lewis, who many thought was done, put up big rushing numbers. So when he ran the offense, not only was it very productive, but it was also well rounded, utilizing WR, TE and RBs.

 

That would be refreshing as I never felt Turner was able to do this.

 

I just never understood the "plan" for Olsen w/ Turner. At times I would see us use Olsen as a WR, which he seemed to do well in. Other time, he was a FB? Dude can't block, but we use him as a FB? Too often we used him as a short yardage option, which just seemed like a waste of his talents. I think (a) turner was poor in developing and utilizing Olsen, while Chud would simply do so much more.

 

 

[BearFan2000]

the more I read about Chud and the more he's talked about in these boards I really like the thought of him being here. When I first read Cleveland Browns I gaged a bit but realized that it was only 2 years ago that they were good and he was their Coordinator. I like that he's got experience with TE's and their success seems to follow him wherever he goes that bodes well. It would be nice to see the guy we envisioned when we drafted Gregg. Along with our other TE's Davis and Clarke (who is nearing the end of his career). I like that he has experience with more than one system and is very intelligent in how he calls plays and understands how to take advantage of mismatches. He seems like the guy who would tailor a system to the talent we have, rather than the square peg in a round hole. I would be very happy with him as OC and feel like on the offensive side of the ball we will have greatly improved the coaching.

 

Like many here I too am concerned about the defense, both in coaching and talent. This unit has slipped a lot since it was last a dominant force. Lack of consistent pass rush, poor coverage, poorly timed play calling, and poor fundamentals. I could see the 2010 Bears become a team that will need to outscore it's opponents to win but will not with any consistency depend on it's defense to come through. The question becomes will we be able to do enough on D to help the offense...... did I just say that???

 

Now if we do happen to bring in coaching that can get the best out of the talent who can still walk on defense then we could be surprised but at this point put me in the wait and see/I'll believe it when I see it camp.

 

As for contract lengths, stability and what not. We know this much it will be a weird couple seasons. I really hope that they get something worked out and we will have football in 2011. But the reality is that there is a shadow hanging over any decisions involving contracts over the next two seasons. It really muddies what would otherwise simply be a stability situation in Chicago, where you'd have to be living under a rock to believe that there is stability here in Chicago (implied or otherwise). The candidates aren't dumb they know this as well. So selling the impression of stability is a tough sell. The unknown that teams, players, coaches, etc are bracing for. Makes a bad situation an even worse one. But I think that the Bears are trying to make the best of it by focusing more short term (2010) and see where that goes. If there is no football in 2011, which would be Lovies final year of his contract, firing him following the 2010 season would change nothing. Either way he's be paid for 2011.

 

I do have a question about 2011. If there is no football does that simply mean no games, or does that also include football related actives like contract negotiations, player signings, coaching interviews etc. Does the league effectively come to a halt other than CBA negotiations? Or would it be like an extended offseason. Lovie currently isn't under contract in 2012. If we do so so and the decision is to clean house can that process proceed between the end of 2010 and the start of 2011. Could we potentially be looking at filling a vacancy at HC in 2012 (should football return) after letting Lovies contract expire and in turn have to hire a coach in what would normally be the offseason between 2011/2012 or could that process begin at the end of the 2010 season.

 

I can see this going one of two ways. If we have a good/great season in 2010 Lovie may (as illogical is it may seem) get an extension to say 2013 or 2014 or whatever. So when football returns in 2012 we'll have our staff in place. The other way is if we have another bad season they can fire him after 2010 but either way will still pay him in 2011 and the decision becomes do we fire him and then hire a new coach long term or bide our time and let his contract expire after 2011 and start the search for his replacement then.

 

In a way our situation isn't as bleak as it may seem. On one hand a successful season could very well see a Smith extension (with the right staff I might be ok with this). On the other hand a lockout in 2011 would present the option after 2010 to see who could be potential candidates and can decide at that point to cut Lovie lose and pursue a new HC for for a long term contract and if no one excites us we simply stay put let Lovies contract expire and look at the HC between 2011 and 2012. However, at that point we would have to find someone, though another option would be to give a one year extension if the options don't look promising.

[LT2_3]

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.

 

I agree. I'm just addressing the point that people are worried about what coaches will be available next offseason. For instance, Phillips just got an extension through 2011 in Dallas. All I'm saying is that if a deal gets done at the 11th hour to save the 2011 season, it will be too late to really try to get a new coaching staff for that year. I'm defining the 11th hour as late February which is after the traditional coach-hiring period. All of the other stuff in February like the application of tags and RFA tenders will be compressed and then FA will begin shortly. That's hardly enough time to hire a new staff and determine what type of players they need for a new scheme much less evaluate the talent already on the team.

 

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.

 

While what you say is true right now, I'm pointing out that a new agreement might not have a salary cap meaning that there will be no such thing as a "signing bonus" as we know it now. Money paid is money paid and it won't matter when it's paid. Bonuses that come at the time of signing won't be anywhere near as large. For instance, currently, a signing bonus often has deferred payments so it isn't actually all paid at the time of signing. My ultimate point is that if the mechanisms for structuring contracts change, then teams really have no clue how much they will have available.

 

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 they all will be signed to 2 year deals so there won't have to be any scrambling if there is an 11th hour agreement before the 2011 season.

[nfoligno]

I agree. I'm just addressing the point that people are worried about what coaches will be available next offseason. For instance, Phillips just got an extension through 2011 in Dallas. All I'm saying is that if a deal gets done at the 11th hour to save the 2011 season, it will be too late to really try to get a new coaching staff for that year. I'm defining the 11th hour as late February which is after the traditional coach-hiring period. All of the other stuff in February like the application of tags and RFA tenders will be compressed and then FA will begin shortly. That's hardly enough time to hire a new staff and determine what type of players they need for a new scheme much less evaluate the talent already on the team.

 

I guess I am not sure what we are arguing at this point. We already have Lovie through 2011, as Dallas just locked up Wade for. I agreed from the get go that we would not simply fire Lovie if there is no CBA agreement. Again, when fans talk about dumping Lovie after the season, I think (a) it doesn't mean they are saying 1 hour after the end of the final game and ( it is based on the assumption of a new CBA. I think most fans realize that if a new CBA is not agreed upon, then we are not likely to fire Lovie and pay for a 2nd HC to also sit at home.

 

I would point out a little (on the other hand) scenario. I'll use Cowher, simply due to his being a popular choice. Lets say we tank this year and the owners want to make a change, but again, no CBA. What if we (a) cleaned house and ( hired Cowher, but wrote into his contract language that essentially agreed to pay him a minimal amount if there was no CBA and he was not really "working" but the contract kicks in a high salary if a CBA is reach. Then, even if an 11th hour deal is made, you still have a staff in place.

 

While what you say is true right now, I'm pointing out that a new agreement might not have a salary cap meaning that there will be no such thing as a "signing bonus" as we know it now. Money paid is money paid and it won't matter when it's paid. Bonuses that come at the time of signing won't be anywhere near as large. For instance, currently, a signing bonus often has deferred payments so it isn't actually all paid at the time of signing. My ultimate point is that if the mechanisms for structuring contracts change, then teams really have no clue how much they will have available.

 

I didn't make my point I guess. My point has nothing to do w/ the cap. The point is more this. Look at the SB of a big ticket FA. Say $20-30m these days. For the cost (just talking straight dollars) you can pretty much hire an entire coaching staff. So my point is, in ownerships eyes, player costs are more likely to be on the conservative side as those are simply the higher dollar.

 

You are paid on commission and you didn't do so well, and you know your next check is going to be a tad weaker. You need to look at ways to cut back a bit in order to prepare for the lower income. What do you look at first. The big stuff or the little stuff. I can tell my wife to cut out/down on Starbucks, or this or that, but if all those little things is still less than one golf outing of mine, which do you think gets cut? Thats my point. Nothing to do w/ salary cap. I think this offseason, while there will always be the Snyder moves, I think most owners are going to take a conservative approach as they don't want to be on the hook for big salaries next year if there is no season. In fact, I think we could see a real rash of players being released as, w/o a cap, teams can purge their rosters of the expensive players not worth their contracts w/o worry about a cap penalty.

 

I think they all will be signed to 2 year deals so there won't have to be any scrambling if there is an 11th hour agreement before the 2011 season.

 

Ideally we would sign coaches to a one year deal w/ a team option for the 2nd year, but I think most coaches would balk at that idea unless they were truly desperate for a job.

[LT2_3]

I guess I am not sure what we are arguing at this point. We already have Lovie through 2011, as Dallas just locked up Wade for. I agreed from the get go that we would not simply fire Lovie if there is no CBA agreement. Again, when fans talk about dumping Lovie after the season, I think (a) it doesn't mean they are saying 1 hour after the end of the final game and ( it is based on the assumption of a new CBA. I think most fans realize that if a new CBA is not agreed upon, then we are not likely to fire Lovie and pay for a 2nd HC to also sit at home.

 

I don't think you and I are arguing much at this point. However, I disagree that most fans realize that the CBA situation might make the coaching situation even more complicated next year than this year. Actually, I don't think that most fans even realize how much the looming CBA situation affected the coaching carousel this year. Well - at least from the point that some don't realize (or perhaps accept) how much it had to do with the decision to keep Lovie. The fact that there were only 3 HC changes this year speaks volumes to me - and 2 of the 3 have the richest owners in the league.

 

I would point out a little (on the other hand) scenario. I'll use Cowher, simply due to his being a popular choice. Lets say we tank this year and the owners want to make a change, but again, no CBA. What if we (a) cleaned house and ( hired Cowher, but wrote into his contract language that essentially agreed to pay him a minimal amount if there was no CBA and he was not really "working" but the contract kicks in a high salary if a CBA is reach. Then, even if an 11th hour deal is made, you still have a staff in place.

 

Not really. Cowher would be taken care of, and his preferred assistants may be identified, but that doesn't mean that his guys (that would normally be given permission to leave) will be given permission to leave because the teams they are under contract to will not want to have to figure out how to replace them. Only guys with a contract ending might actually be available. IMO, there will be a virtual "freeze" on the coaching community if everything comes down to the 11th hour.

 

I didn't make my point I guess. My point has nothing to do w/ the cap. The point is more this. Look at the SB of a big ticket FA. Say $20-30m these days. For the cost (just talking straight dollars) you can pretty much hire an entire coaching staff. So my point is, in ownerships eyes, player costs are more likely to be on the conservative side as those are simply the higher dollar.

 

And my point is that even now, the $20-30 mil you are talking about for hiring a coaching staff gets paid out in a bunch of smaller chunks over time to a player. They may only get $8-13 mil the first year. That wouldn't cover the whole coaching staff the first year and would also limit the team's ability to pursue free agents from a cash flow perspective. I get your point, but I'm just trying to put the cash flow in perspective.

 

You are paid on commission and you didn't do so well, and you know your next check is going to be a tad weaker. You need to look at ways to cut back a bit in order to prepare for the lower income. What do you look at first. The big stuff or the little stuff. I can tell my wife to cut out/down on Starbucks, or this or that, but if all those little things is still less than one golf outing of mine, which do you think gets cut? Thats my point. Nothing to do w/ salary cap. I think this offseason, while there will always be the Snyder moves, I think most owners are going to take a conservative approach as they don't want to be on the hook for big salaries next year if there is no season. In fact, I think we could see a real rash of players being released as, w/o a cap, teams can purge their rosters of the expensive players not worth their contracts w/o worry about a cap penalty.

 

Yep - look for underperforming players with high salaries to get purged. Also look for there to be more trades than usual because there is no cap acceleration on trades either. I expect Roy Williams to get moved in Dallas no matter what Jerry Jones has been saying. He said TO wasn't going anywhere either.

 

Ideally we would sign coaches to a one year deal w/ a team option for the 2nd year, but I think most coaches would balk at that idea unless they were truly desperate for a job.

 

I suppose. I really don't care what the contract looks like as long as the team can keep them if they want due to the pending CBA stuff.

[nfoligno]

I don't think you and I are arguing much at this point. However, I disagree that most fans realize that the CBA situation might make the coaching situation even more complicated next year than this year. Actually, I don't think that most fans even realize how much the looming CBA situation affected the coaching carousel this year. Well - at least from the point that some don't realize (or perhaps accept) how much it had to do with the decision to keep Lovie. The fact that there were only 3 HC changes this year speaks volumes to me - and 2 of the 3 have the richest owners in the league.

 

Oh, I would agree with that. Most fans will write off the Bears keeping Lovie as being as simple as their being cheap, but from a business standpoint, w/ the CBA issue looming, it frankly makes sense. That doesn't mean fans have to like it, but it does make sense.

 

Not really. Cowher would be taken care of, and his preferred assistants may be identified, but that doesn't mean that his guys (that would normally be given permission to leave) will be given permission to leave because the teams they are under contract to will not want to have to figure out how to replace them. Only guys with a contract ending might actually be available. IMO, there will be a virtual "freeze" on the coaching community if everything comes down to the 11th hour.

 

I guess my only point is this. If we want Lovie gone, and think outside the box, there are ways w/o killing the purse to hire a HC like Cowher while other teams are still holding back. We may not be in an ideal environment, but it can be done.

 

And my point is that even now, the $20-30 mil you are talking about for hiring a coaching staff gets paid out in a bunch of smaller chunks over time to a player. They may only get $8-13 mil the first year. That wouldn't cover the whole coaching staff the first year and would also limit the team's ability to pursue free agents from a cash flow perspective. I get your point, but I'm just trying to put the cash flow in perspective.

 

Lovie makes what, about $5m/yr. If you added up the total of all our assistants combined, I don't think it would equal that. So we are talking less than $10m for the entire coaching staff, right? I guess that is what I was getting at. The salary of your entire coaching staff is less than that of your higher paid players SBs. At the end of the day, owners are likely to try and save everywhere they can, but I think the first place many owners will look is player salaries, as those numbers simply get much higher than coaches.

 

Yep - look for underperforming players with high salaries to get purged. Also look for there to be more trades than usual because there is no cap acceleration on trades either. I expect Roy Williams to get moved in Dallas no matter what Jerry Jones has been saying. He said TO wasn't going anywhere either.

 

Honestly, this uncapped year is a partial reason why I am still optimistic about a new CBA happening prior to next season. Frankly, I think the owners flat out wanted this uncapped year. Initially, an uncapped year sounded like a windfall for the players, but then we found out about the restricted FA rules shifting to 6 years, the extra franchise tag and other things, and quickly it appeared this uncapped season didn't benefit players nearly so much. Further, it is a huge boon for many owners as they have the ability to purge their roster of players they may otherwise be stuck with. Just think about how big that is for someone like Snyder who always deals w/ cap issues. Further still, teams can further offset financial issues as they do not have a salary floor this year.

 

So I think owners are talking tough today because frankly, they don't want a new CBA right now. They want this uncapped season. But before too long, I think negotiations will become more legit.

 

Question. Okay, this is an uncapped year. We know that. Can teams play w/ contracts? What I mean is, can a team renegotiate a player's contract this year to front load it. For example, take a players 2011 salary and roll it into a 2010 roster bonus. If this is done, (a) players are always happy getting money now ( team takes a hit to the purse this year, but does so w/ revenue, while at the same time lessinging the burden next year when their finances may not be great and © if a new CBA does happen, this dramatically improves the teams future cap outlook. While I think this offseason is a great opportunity for teams to purge overpaid players, at the same time, it would also seem to prove a great opportunity to set up the team for financial stability for the future.

 

[madlithuanian]

Interesting question...I'd like to know as well.

 

Question. Okay, this is an uncapped year. We know that. Can teams play w/ contracts? What I mean is, can a team renegotiate a player's contract this year to front load it. For example, take a players 2011 salary and roll it into a 2010 roster bonus. If this is done, (a) players are always happy getting money now ( team takes a hit to the purse this year, but does so w/ revenue, while at the same time lessinging the burden next year when their finances may not be great and © if a new CBA does happen, this dramatically improves the teams future cap outlook. While I think this offseason is a great opportunity for teams to purge overpaid players, at the same time, it would also seem to prove a great opportunity to set up the team for financial stability for the future.

 

[LT2_3]

Question. Okay, this is an uncapped year. We know that. Can teams play w/ contracts? What I mean is, can a team renegotiate a player's contract this year to front load it. For example, take a players 2011 salary and roll it into a 2010 roster bonus. If this is done, (a) players are always happy getting money now ( team takes a hit to the purse this year, but does so w/ revenue, while at the same time lessinging the burden next year when their finances may not be great and © if a new CBA does happen, this dramatically improves the teams future cap outlook. While I think this offseason is a great opportunity for teams to purge overpaid players, at the same time, it would also seem to prove a great opportunity to set up the team for financial stability for the future.

 

I guess I really don't understand what you are asking. Sure teams can choose to pay a player a higher salary in 2010 and a lower salary in 2011, but if there is a lockout, the players don't get paid anyway. Basically, if the uncertainty comes to pass, they don't have to pay the players in 2011. If the uncertainty is gone, then they'll have plenty of money in 2011. I guess I don't really see the point.

 

I guess you are asking if teams can buy future cap space by restructuring future obligations into this year without a cap. The answer is yes. But I can't imagine anyone but Dan Snyder even thinking of doing it because in 2010, teams will be looking to reduce costs (if anything at all) to conserve for the potential year without football.

 

On a side note, one thing I think that may be in a new CBA after an uncapped year is a clean slate on signing bonus prorations. So let's say a guy with 5 years left on his contract with a signing bonus proration of $3 mil per year would cost $15 mil against the cap in 2009, $0 against the cap in 2010, or $9 mil against a reconsituted cap in 2011. I think a new CBA will give everyone a clean slate on that $9 mil. That would benefit the players because it's more cap money teams would be required to spend against the floor (as opposed to the Bucs barely making it to the floor this year by cutting or trading guys with huge SB accelerations like Derrick Brooks and Gaines Adams) or an ability to have a higher ceiling for teams that actually spend money. The owners would benefit by being able to release or trade underperforming players (like 2010) and not be hamstrung by the ramifications.

 

That's why I think trying to buy future cap space isn't really something worth pondering. The teams will have the cap space back anyway.

[LT2_3]

Any more questions? I love this stuff.

 

Am I a thread killer?

[AZ54]

Any more questions? I love this stuff.

 

Am I a thread killer?

 

Not a thread killer, we're just stunned by your brilliance.

 

Kidding aside, your info on salary cap and finances is always first rate, much appreciated, and usually doesn't leave much to question. Just felt like taking a moment to give you some props.

[LT2_3]

Not a thread killer, we're just stunned by your brilliance.

 

Kidding aside, your info on salary cap and finances is always first rate, much appreciated, and usually doesn't leave much to question. Just felt like taking a moment to give you some props.

 

Well....err.....thanks. Glad to help out.

[madlithuanian]

Keep it comin'!

 

But in a way, yeah! If you answer the q, no need to proceed!

 

Any more questions? I love this stuff.

 

Am I a thread killer?