John Fox Will Be Fired, Rumored Replacement Named Says NFL I

I don't know that anyone would argue with that. I think it is all in the interpretation of a "fair shake"

Cutler's not a Pace era commitment. Pace didn't sign him to a contract and so he didn't have a conversation about what he would/wouldn't do over that time period. When Fox was brought on they had discussions about team direction and longevity. THey probably laid out goals and but in place benchmarks. Fox is Pace's first hire. See it through. 

Regarding @bearsinhouston point, I agree. I think "Fair Shake" is the debated concept. I argue a fair shake is through the contract term. The modern urge to fire coaches and GMs before their contracts are up is silly. Offer a shorter contract (and deal with people not wanting to sign it) OR let the guy coach through the contract. I think this team has improved (despite the record) and I think Fox (and his staff) is a big reason for that improvement. I'd like see what he can do in years 3-4 of his contract. 

My interpretation of fair shake looks at it from both sides -- to be "fair". What value has been given? What has been received in return? Has enough time been given to accomplish the goals given the circumstances?

Once again, all of this is subject to individual viewpoints and is subjective. For me the answers for the first two are easy. Fox gets paid a whole lot. I do not think what we have gotten back reflects our expectations.

As far as the third item..... well that's where the crux of the disagreements really revolve.

Here is where I sit on this. after reflecting on this (mucho toilet seat time)....

There is the general concept .... has he been given enough time? And then there is the specific circumstance here. For me, the answers are different.

In general, I would say that two years are not enough time for a turnaround, but even in a general concept where you have many injuries, adding talent and going backwards raise an eyebrow. I think in general, my answer to this is two years is really not enough and he deserves a third to see if the downward trend will be reversed.

To get specific with the Bears (which is really the only pertinent thing), you have the above general situation, but you also now have a pattern you can see that is not there in a general situation. You have talent being let go on a basis that is probably not based on talent alone but the coaches desire not to deal with the situation. You have talent being brought in (Barth) that is really not any better than we had. You see a lack of adjustments. You see a person that does not seem to have a true grip on making the changes (granted an outsiders look). You see a lack of game time savvy and clock management. Any you see the team going down. Too many injuries. Bad luck (certainly) or perhaps some resistance to new age training methods that an old stubborn coach refuses to believe will help? Along with any sort of player metrics.

You take a look at that specific picture and then you factor in the desire to accelerate any build process (don't put it off for years like with Lovie or you just delay the rebuild) and you ask "is this the person I want to lead the team even in good times? Does he have the ability to shift strategies to accommodate different strategies from really good opposing coaches (the kind you must face in playoffs). At this point, to me anyway, the contract commitment is irrelevant. You want to see if this is the right leader. If not, cut your losses and get the right guy.

For me, the answer to this particular situation is that we would be better off moving away. I think just like Lovie, the writing is on the wall to read for anyone willing to read it and it will happen anyway. The sooner we do it, the sooner we have the ability to get set in our long term solution. Assuming we pick the right guy.

Shhhhh....Belli...stop...it was all just dumb luck. LOL