I think this is interesting, and I didn't see the game so I don't know. When the Bears beat Cincy apparently they were spreading the field, which allowed the Bears to run the ball and get off some easy completitions, Against Det apparently they went back to keeping everything bunched together and they again struggled.
Again this goes back to a staff that doesn't understand what they are doing and not putting their players in the best position to win. Been like that for a few years now.
Wait... last year, it wasn't coaching. It was talent.
Like I said with the Blackhawks ownership did not change but the right guy came in and made them a winning organization.
I agree. Ownership here does not need to change. They are quasi hands off anyway. I think they would prefer to have someone run it and just collect the money anyway. Ownership is not the problem. Phillips, the GM and the HC have been the problem.
I am not sure if the GM is still a problem. He may be. HC is definitely a problem, and IMO, Phillips has been and continues to be a problem.
This is how I see it too. I agree with @soulman that ownership will not change anytime soon. But I also agree with you, BIH, that the family, primarily, just wants the money pipeline to continue to pump the money to their bank accounts. While the teams have been crappy for a long time, I do believe a few things have changed recently regarding the ownership situation. These are things that COULD POSSIBLY help the family change their management of the business.
1. The fanbase and sports media (even outside of Chicago) are now focusing on the ownership as being responsible for the poor state of the franchise. We are seeing more open criticism of the ownership than I can ever remember in the many years I have followed the Chicago Bears. This is a good thing, but if this was the only problem, it wouldn't have much affect on them changing the business.
2. The fans are not showing up for the games, and the tickets are not selling by re-sellers now. While this doesn't hurt the business now, it must worry the family when tickets pretty much can't be given away now. Tickets are being posted for under $20. And the stands are visibly empty anyway. Fans don't want to go to the games. The old magic formula of just tossing another new head coach to the fans, isn't an easy fix anymore. Because the team has been losing for multiple coaches (see point #1 above).
I think that when you view both of those two points, it at least makes the family uncomfortable about the status quo, and they COULD make a business change, rather than just toss the fans yet another failed coach. My hope is that we could see Ted Philips relegated to non-football operations, and a sharp football exec added to the corporate structure, who will have the power to direct football operations. I don't expect this to happen due to the family being "nice" but to happen in order to strengthen their business and keeping the money pipeline to the family working for the foreseeable future.
This could certainly be good for us fans. And I don't think it is totally a pipe dream. It COULD happen.
I think this is interesting, and I didn't see the game so I don't know. When the Bears beat Cincy apparently they were spreading the field, which allowed the Bears to run the ball and get off some easy completitions, Against Det apparently they went back to keeping everything bunched together and they again struggled.
Again this goes back to a staff that doesn't understand what they are doing and not putting their players in the best position to win. Been like that for a few years now.
Wait... last year, it wasn't coaching. It was talent.
never said it was only talent. it was both, you just refused to believe it was talent; same w/Trestmans group. Talent matters more then coaches. Again see Belli's years in Cleveland, no talent no wins, goes to NE where he gets a HoF level QB and he's the greatest coach to ever coach.
Talent trumps coaches, that's not to say coaches don't matter.
Wait... last year, it wasn't coaching. It was talent.
never said it was only talent. it was both, you just refused to believe it was talent; same w/Trestmans group. Talent matters more then coaches. Again see Belli's years in Cleveland, no talent no wins, goes to NE where he gets a HoF level QB and he's the greatest coach to ever coach.
Talent trumps coaches, that's not to say coaches don't matter.
No it doesn't. Coaches get the talent. Without the right coaches you can't identify the right talent and even if you have it on the team, you may sit them. Or have a talented QB (just a hypothetical situation that would never happen with the Bears of course), and you do not have a clue how to develop him. With the right management/coaching comes the right talent.
Forget about BB when he was in CLE. Look at BB when Brady gets hurt or big contributors get hurt. Most of the time he still wins.
Post by Whisky Beer Bob on Dec 18, 2017 7:47:56 GMT -6
Well it is good to know that the local media and fans are giving it to the Family. The empty seats must amount to A LOT of lost revenue in the concession stands end of it. That has to be a shite ton of money that has been lost due to the empty seats.
never said it was only talent. it was both, you just refused to believe it was talent; same w/Trestmans group. Talent matters more then coaches. Again see Belli's years in Cleveland, no talent no wins, goes to NE where he gets a HoF level QB and he's the greatest coach to ever coach.
Talent trumps coaches, that's not to say coaches don't matter.
No it doesn't. Coaches get the talent. Without the right coaches you can't identify the right talent and even if you have it on the team, you may sit them. Or have a talented QB (just a hypothetical situation that would never happen with the Bears of course), and you do not have a clue how to develop him. With the right management/coaching comes the right talent.
Forget about BB when he was in CLE. Look at BB when Brady gets hurt or big contributors get hurt. Most of the time he still wins.
Coaches don't get the talent, they GM gets the talent then the coaches teach the talent their scheme; or if they are smart build a scheme around the talent. But if there is no talent then it doesnt matter either way. I won't forget BB in Cle b/c it's the perfect argument. GM gives HC no talent, they sack HC, HC gets another shot in org that does give him talent all of a sudden he's a HoF'r. Same w/Carroll in Sea, bust his first time in the NFL, then he gets to a team that gives him talent and he's a great HC. No HC can make a player that shouldn't be in the NFL look like a player that should be in the NFL.
No it doesn't. Coaches get the talent. Without the right coaches you can't identify the right talent and even if you have it on the team, you may sit them. Or have a talented QB (just a hypothetical situation that would never happen with the Bears of course), and you do not have a clue how to develop him. With the right management/coaching comes the right talent.
Forget about BB when he was in CLE. Look at BB when Brady gets hurt or big contributors get hurt. Most of the time he still wins.
Coaches don't get the talent, they GM gets the talent then the coaches teach the talent their scheme; or if they are smart build a scheme around the talent. But if there is no talent then it doesnt matter either way. I won't forget BB in Cle b/c it's the perfect argument. GM gives HC no talent, they sack HC, HC gets another shot in org that does give him talent all of a sudden he's a HoF'r. Same w/Carroll in Sea, bust his first time in the NFL, then he gets to a team that gives him talent and he's a great HC. No HC can make a player that shouldn't be in the NFL look like a player that should be in the NFL.
Coaches and the GM get the talent in tandem. Unless there is dysfunction in the organization or the GM is trying to kepp his blabbing secret squirrel HC quite so he can get his guy.
And you think BB in CLE was then the coach he is today? You can trot that out as many times as you want, but his coaching expertise at that time is nothing like it is today. Same person though so I guess that may be close enough for you.
Coaches don't get the talent, they GM gets the talent then the coaches teach the talent their scheme; or if they are smart build a scheme around the talent. But if there is no talent then it doesnt matter either way. I won't forget BB in Cle b/c it's the perfect argument. GM gives HC no talent, they sack HC, HC gets another shot in org that does give him talent all of a sudden he's a HoF'r. Same w/Carroll in Sea, bust his first time in the NFL, then he gets to a team that gives him talent and he's a great HC. No HC can make a player that shouldn't be in the NFL look like a player that should be in the NFL.
Coaches and the GM get the talent in tandem. Unless there is dysfunction in the organization or the GM is trying to kepp his blabbing secret squirrel HC quite so he can get his guy.
And you think BB in CLE was then the coach he is today? You can trot that out as many times as you want, but his coaching expertise at that time is nothing like it is today. Same person though so I guess that may be close enough for you.
Really depends on the GM and coach, go back to Lovie and Angelo, Angelo and the scouts had a far larger say in the draft, Lovie and his staff had some say, but not much; it wasn't until Lovie's contract ext after the SB that he got a larger say in draft/fa. I would guess that is more the norm then you would think.
He might not be the coach he is now, but he was the pretty much the same coach when he first started in NE, and it's not like he started slow in NE.
Coaches and the GM get the talent in tandem. Unless there is dysfunction in the organization or the GM is trying to kepp his blabbing secret squirrel HC quite so he can get his guy.
And you think BB in CLE was then the coach he is today? You can trot that out as many times as you want, but his coaching expertise at that time is nothing like it is today. Same person though so I guess that may be close enough for you.
Really depends on the GM and coach, go back to Lovie and Angelo, Angelo and the scouts had a far larger say in the draft, Lovie and his staff had some say, but not much; it wasn't until Lovie's contract ext after the SB that he got a larger say in draft/fa. I would guess that is more the norm then you would think.
He might not be the coach he is now, but he was the pretty much the same coach when he first started in NE, and it's not like he started slow in NE.
When is started in NE is not now, after decades more of HC. Why is that a hard concept?
I think everyone understands the Bears need good talent AND good coaching, if they are ever going to get a team that can win championships. One without the other won't change much here. I have thought many times that if Tom Brady had come to the Bears instead of playing for Bill Belichik in New England, he would have had a short career and long ago been out of the NFL.
The Bears need good talent AND good coaching. Let's see what the 2018 team roster & coaching staff looks like. Hope it's all good.
