Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2017 10:45:50 GMT -6
Real Talk: What happens if the Bears lose to the winless Browns?
Dan Wiederer and Rich CampbellContact ReportersChicago Tribune
Link: www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-bears-real-talk-browns-loss-20171219-story.html
This, we suppose, is what they call the home stretch. Two trivial games left to close out another deflating last-place season. The struggling Bears are here once again, needing to find motivation in unusual places. John Fox’s club can’t avoid another 10-loss season — that fate was sealed with Saturday’s 20-10 loss to the Lions. The Bears are also firmly stuck in last place in the NFC North, a position they’ve had their grip on for four consecutive seasons.
So now they’re left playing for pride. Or perhaps more exactly, the Bears are playing to avoid further embarrassment. This season’s penultimate game: a Sunday afternoon holiday gathering with the woeful Cleveland Browns by the Chicago lakefront.
Sadly, it’s a punchline game more than any kind of showdown. But it’s also a contest the Bears must truly focus in on. Why exactly? What are the stakes? In what ways are the matchup intriguing? What does it mean in the big picture? Bears writers Dan Wiederer and Rich Campbell search for answers in this week’s edition of “Real Talk.”
Dan Wiederer: I’m convinced psychiatrists should be stationed at every Soldier Field gate on Sunday offering free consultations to every patron bold enough to attempt entry. Giving up a huge chunk of Christmas Eve to watch the winless Browns and 10-loss Bears do battle on a cloudy afternoon with temperatures in the teens? Unless you’re in a suite with good food and unlimited booze, I can’t find the appeal.
This is likely going to be a low-quality game between two bad teams.
Stakes? Intrigue? Ummmm … I’m going to need some help solving this mystery.
Campbell: People love the Bears, man, no matter the record. In the NFL, it’s about the laundry. As long as the navy and orange uniform is on the field, people will come. Throw in the folks who don't want their season ticket payments to go to waste and those who want to escape their relatives on Christmas Eve, and we’ll have ourselves an honest-to-goodness holiday gathering.
Sure, whoever shows up will be treated to two of the league’s worst teams. But for me, there’s intrigue in the outcome. Remember how the vitriol exploded in the city after the Bears lost to the one-win 49ers? Some fans were ready to run general manager Ryan Pace out of town along with the head coach. A handful of fans on Twitter lashed out at media, saying the questions to Fox were too soft, a criticism echoed by at least one pair of local sports talk-radio hosts. I interpreted all that as proof that the fan base’s anger had boiled over.
Now imagine the extent of it if the Bears lose to the winless Browns. At the risk of speculating about ownership’s thought process, for the Bears this game is about damage control. They can't be the team that loses to the Browns.
Wiederer: Look, I don’t doubt that people will come. I just wonder why. Blind loyalty, to me, is a fascinating concept.
As for the ramifications of a Bears loss? It’s almost too painful to even consider. In October, when the Bears were in the middle of a mini-run of success — and yes, under John Fox three wins in five weeks is a success — we both felt confident that the team had left rock bottom behind. We were in agreement that the Bears were ascending slowly from the abyss. But now? If, hypothetically, they lose at home to these Browns? It’d be easy to argue that we’ve reached a new low point. And we all know how this city handles new low points with the beloved Bears. It’d be a Molotov cocktail of rage and irrational exasperation.
So what do you know? Maybe you found our hook, after all, our theme for the promo posters: “Bears vs. Browns. Sunday. Noon. This game is about damage control.”
Campbell: Let me be clear before we go any further. I expect the Bears to beat the Browns. The Browns’ level of bad football and dysfunctional operation is below those to which the Bears have sunk. The Bears have the superior quarterback. They should win.
But, we know the Bears are 0-7 under Fox in games they’ve been favored to win. So nothing is assured.
Only Chairman George McCaskey knows how a loss would affect his thinking about the current direction of the team. The fan response would be U-G-L-Y, but would it matter to him? Should it matter to him?
Given the organizational standards that have persisted for much of the last quarter century, you have openly questioned the extent to which the Bears’ top brass cares about the results on the field. Would a loss to such a hapless opponent spark anything to change people’s perception in that regard? These are the types of questions I’ll take in my back pocket Sunday.
Wiederer: The deeper we get into this discussion the more jarring it becomes. In Week 16, we’re sincerely pontificating the consequences of a Bears loss to the lowly Browns. And I can’t even lift myself to your level of confidence to state that I expect the Bears to win. I honestly can’t get there.
Truth is I have no idea what to expect. This team has given us far too many stinkers and letdown performances over the years to believe they’ll automatically be crisp and focused and playing up to potential. And yet any player or coach with reasonable pride ought to be fully locked in to reduce the chances of such a brutal setback.
Will they be? I have no idea.
And to your latter point about standards, at some point failures not only have to be labeled as unacceptable but also treated that way. We’re often asked to offer our analysis of the problems within the Bears organization and I’d argue that standards are at the root of the matter.
Campbell: That opens this discussion to the notion of accountability. What form does that take? Lost jobs? ’Tis the season for firings in the NFL.
I don’t see the Browns matchup as a one-game referendum. But would a loss send McCaskey and his confidants past their breaking point for a total housecleaning?
From the chairman’s standpoint, it’s more productive to deal with actual developments than hypothetical scenarios. We’ll have to see how Sunday plays out. But, win or lose against the Browns, there is no disputing that the GM remains unproven. The recent win over the Bengals, including several standout performances by rookies, was a positive. Again, no single game should be the determining factor in such big decisions.
This should be about whether the Bears are better off now than three years ago. Would a loss to the Browns stamp the answer as ‘no’? Not necessarily. The Bears have a talented young quarterback who is enduring growing pains and flashing ability. That, to me, puts these Bears ahead of where they were in January 2015.
Wiederer: One-game referendums are foolish at any point. So no, Sunday’s result shouldn’t suddenly create a binary situation for the job security of anyone in the organization. But it will certainly be another piece of evidence to illuminate this team’s strengths and deficiencies.
At present, it seems likely that Pace will be given a chance to select a new coach. And with that will come the opportunity to orchestrate Year 2 of the Trubisky development. That’s the fulcrum in the Bears’ turnaround prospects.
Still, no matter what happens against the Browns, the Bears should be pushing to make major changes. In some cases that will mean changing people. In others it will mean changing philosophies and procedures and, yes, standards. Consistently finishing in last place has to be treated as intolerable.
After five seasons covering this team — five seasons with exactly twice as many losses as wins — I’m not certain this organization truly understands the pursuit of excellence. That it takes a building-wide effort every day. That it takes buy-in across the entire organization. That mediocrity never can be accepted — on any level, in any department, on any day.
The Bears need more people who have the needed passion to set a tone and standard for the level of investment needed to be a top-tier NFL franchise. And those who already possess that passion and dedication need to do much more to trigger change.
Campbell: No argument here on any of your points. The Bears are not the Browns, but they’re not far enough away from them either. A turnaround requires a humble, honest acknowledgment of that fact at Halas Hall. There’s complacency within a Bears organization that too often misconstrues history for present-day clout. They have not served the club well.
Beating the Browns would help mark the distance between the two bottom feeders. But it would be only a start toward creating more.
dwiederer@chicagotribune.com
Twitter @danwiederer
rcampbell@chicagotribune.com
Twitter @rich_Campbell
Dan Wiederer and Rich CampbellContact ReportersChicago Tribune
Link: www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/ct-spt-bears-real-talk-browns-loss-20171219-story.html
This, we suppose, is what they call the home stretch. Two trivial games left to close out another deflating last-place season. The struggling Bears are here once again, needing to find motivation in unusual places. John Fox’s club can’t avoid another 10-loss season — that fate was sealed with Saturday’s 20-10 loss to the Lions. The Bears are also firmly stuck in last place in the NFC North, a position they’ve had their grip on for four consecutive seasons.
So now they’re left playing for pride. Or perhaps more exactly, the Bears are playing to avoid further embarrassment. This season’s penultimate game: a Sunday afternoon holiday gathering with the woeful Cleveland Browns by the Chicago lakefront.
Sadly, it’s a punchline game more than any kind of showdown. But it’s also a contest the Bears must truly focus in on. Why exactly? What are the stakes? In what ways are the matchup intriguing? What does it mean in the big picture? Bears writers Dan Wiederer and Rich Campbell search for answers in this week’s edition of “Real Talk.”
Dan Wiederer: I’m convinced psychiatrists should be stationed at every Soldier Field gate on Sunday offering free consultations to every patron bold enough to attempt entry. Giving up a huge chunk of Christmas Eve to watch the winless Browns and 10-loss Bears do battle on a cloudy afternoon with temperatures in the teens? Unless you’re in a suite with good food and unlimited booze, I can’t find the appeal.
This is likely going to be a low-quality game between two bad teams.
Stakes? Intrigue? Ummmm … I’m going to need some help solving this mystery.
Campbell: People love the Bears, man, no matter the record. In the NFL, it’s about the laundry. As long as the navy and orange uniform is on the field, people will come. Throw in the folks who don't want their season ticket payments to go to waste and those who want to escape their relatives on Christmas Eve, and we’ll have ourselves an honest-to-goodness holiday gathering.
Sure, whoever shows up will be treated to two of the league’s worst teams. But for me, there’s intrigue in the outcome. Remember how the vitriol exploded in the city after the Bears lost to the one-win 49ers? Some fans were ready to run general manager Ryan Pace out of town along with the head coach. A handful of fans on Twitter lashed out at media, saying the questions to Fox were too soft, a criticism echoed by at least one pair of local sports talk-radio hosts. I interpreted all that as proof that the fan base’s anger had boiled over.
Now imagine the extent of it if the Bears lose to the winless Browns. At the risk of speculating about ownership’s thought process, for the Bears this game is about damage control. They can't be the team that loses to the Browns.
Wiederer: Look, I don’t doubt that people will come. I just wonder why. Blind loyalty, to me, is a fascinating concept.
As for the ramifications of a Bears loss? It’s almost too painful to even consider. In October, when the Bears were in the middle of a mini-run of success — and yes, under John Fox three wins in five weeks is a success — we both felt confident that the team had left rock bottom behind. We were in agreement that the Bears were ascending slowly from the abyss. But now? If, hypothetically, they lose at home to these Browns? It’d be easy to argue that we’ve reached a new low point. And we all know how this city handles new low points with the beloved Bears. It’d be a Molotov cocktail of rage and irrational exasperation.
So what do you know? Maybe you found our hook, after all, our theme for the promo posters: “Bears vs. Browns. Sunday. Noon. This game is about damage control.”
Campbell: Let me be clear before we go any further. I expect the Bears to beat the Browns. The Browns’ level of bad football and dysfunctional operation is below those to which the Bears have sunk. The Bears have the superior quarterback. They should win.
But, we know the Bears are 0-7 under Fox in games they’ve been favored to win. So nothing is assured.
Only Chairman George McCaskey knows how a loss would affect his thinking about the current direction of the team. The fan response would be U-G-L-Y, but would it matter to him? Should it matter to him?
Given the organizational standards that have persisted for much of the last quarter century, you have openly questioned the extent to which the Bears’ top brass cares about the results on the field. Would a loss to such a hapless opponent spark anything to change people’s perception in that regard? These are the types of questions I’ll take in my back pocket Sunday.
Wiederer: The deeper we get into this discussion the more jarring it becomes. In Week 16, we’re sincerely pontificating the consequences of a Bears loss to the lowly Browns. And I can’t even lift myself to your level of confidence to state that I expect the Bears to win. I honestly can’t get there.
Truth is I have no idea what to expect. This team has given us far too many stinkers and letdown performances over the years to believe they’ll automatically be crisp and focused and playing up to potential. And yet any player or coach with reasonable pride ought to be fully locked in to reduce the chances of such a brutal setback.
Will they be? I have no idea.
And to your latter point about standards, at some point failures not only have to be labeled as unacceptable but also treated that way. We’re often asked to offer our analysis of the problems within the Bears organization and I’d argue that standards are at the root of the matter.
Campbell: That opens this discussion to the notion of accountability. What form does that take? Lost jobs? ’Tis the season for firings in the NFL.
I don’t see the Browns matchup as a one-game referendum. But would a loss send McCaskey and his confidants past their breaking point for a total housecleaning?
From the chairman’s standpoint, it’s more productive to deal with actual developments than hypothetical scenarios. We’ll have to see how Sunday plays out. But, win or lose against the Browns, there is no disputing that the GM remains unproven. The recent win over the Bengals, including several standout performances by rookies, was a positive. Again, no single game should be the determining factor in such big decisions.
This should be about whether the Bears are better off now than three years ago. Would a loss to the Browns stamp the answer as ‘no’? Not necessarily. The Bears have a talented young quarterback who is enduring growing pains and flashing ability. That, to me, puts these Bears ahead of where they were in January 2015.
Wiederer: One-game referendums are foolish at any point. So no, Sunday’s result shouldn’t suddenly create a binary situation for the job security of anyone in the organization. But it will certainly be another piece of evidence to illuminate this team’s strengths and deficiencies.
At present, it seems likely that Pace will be given a chance to select a new coach. And with that will come the opportunity to orchestrate Year 2 of the Trubisky development. That’s the fulcrum in the Bears’ turnaround prospects.
Still, no matter what happens against the Browns, the Bears should be pushing to make major changes. In some cases that will mean changing people. In others it will mean changing philosophies and procedures and, yes, standards. Consistently finishing in last place has to be treated as intolerable.
After five seasons covering this team — five seasons with exactly twice as many losses as wins — I’m not certain this organization truly understands the pursuit of excellence. That it takes a building-wide effort every day. That it takes buy-in across the entire organization. That mediocrity never can be accepted — on any level, in any department, on any day.
The Bears need more people who have the needed passion to set a tone and standard for the level of investment needed to be a top-tier NFL franchise. And those who already possess that passion and dedication need to do much more to trigger change.
Campbell: No argument here on any of your points. The Bears are not the Browns, but they’re not far enough away from them either. A turnaround requires a humble, honest acknowledgment of that fact at Halas Hall. There’s complacency within a Bears organization that too often misconstrues history for present-day clout. They have not served the club well.
Beating the Browns would help mark the distance between the two bottom feeders. But it would be only a start toward creating more.
dwiederer@chicagotribune.com
Twitter @danwiederer
rcampbell@chicagotribune.com
Twitter @rich_Campbell