Post by dachuckster on Apr 12, 2024 13:28:57 GMT -6
What you two are discussing is precisely why I had the flash of what might happen with Flus and Waldron. Assuming of course that Waldron brings in and executes a highly productive offense.
It will hopefully be the Chicago Bears offense and not the Shane Waldron offense - even though he will be the architect setting it up. The Bears have the flexibility to promote or hire the next OC who can build onto success rather than (as the Bears have in the past) burn it all down and start over. Continuity of success is different than fixing a dumpster fire. And when you think about it, that makes perfect sense to keep your schemes that are tailored to your existing talent - you don't have a guy burning it all down and then wanting the GM to bring in different types of players (the square peg Nagy thing of forcing players into YOUR scheme when they don't fit your scheme).
I don't worry about success. I hate failure - especially decades of mediocrity. Success is a good thing that can be sustained beyond a coordinator. It will (hopefully) be the Bears offense not the Waldron offense. In fact, I would hope the Bears groom an existing guy for stepping into the OC role... if they've hired the quality coaching staff on offense then that is a distinct possibility. Success can breed success. Promote a rising young talent on your staff that has worked with the schemes and also the players who perform in those schemes.
I'm afraid wishful thinking. Even if a subsequent OC wants to keep the same offense, they only know their own offense. They will run what they know. I don't worry about success either. I am worried about the mediocrity that might follow the success. I always think long term. My wife hates it. So I just think about long term she might not hate it :-)
If they are promoted from your organization, having been developed in the organization's schemes, they would know that offense. Promote that guy and sustain success. And if the Bears hire from outside the organization they control who they hire. The NFL's offenses core playbooks may have different terminologies but the plays are remarkably similar. When you watch ex-NFL quarterbacks break down film they talk about this often... J. T. O'Sullivan, in particular is often talking about how every team has a similar play as what he is showing on his breakdown. He will say that some teams call it (and he'll throw out the play name) and others call it something else. I'm not saying all OC's are cookie-cutter guys. They aren't. But it's not like cryptic one-offs with them. We can see that with our own eyes. Every game. I figure it isn't a whole lot different than a business hiring a supervisor from the outside of the organization... they control who they hire. In the case of a football team you hire a person with experience in a similar system... and again, you always have the option to develop your talent from within your coaching staff and hire a sharp guy. All first-time OC's are promoted from positional coaching positions.
I think the main point I am trying to make is that there are two different (very different) scenarios here. A failed offense (what we have had for a long time here in Chicago) is a situation where you burn it down and install a new offense with a new guy. Because you don't want the failed offense. But a successful offense is one you want to sustain. You don't need - or want - to gut that and rebuild with something different. Hire a guy who understands the offense and can sustain success. That just makes sense to me.
What you two are discussing is precisely why I had the flash of what might happen with Flus and Waldron. Assuming of course that Waldron brings in and executes a highly productive offense.
I figure that if the offense is a success then you don't "fix" what isn't broken. I tried to explain this in my post, above. A broken offense needs fixing. Sure, if that is the situation then burn it down and rebuild the offense with a better OC. But if the offense is a success - so much so that the OC is hired as a head coach - then promote a sharp rising positional coach from your own organization (all rookie OC's are hired from previous positional coaching jobs... this isn't anything new here).
My point is that there is a huge difference between rebuilding a failed offense (as we have had in Chicago for years now), verses trying to sustain a great offense that you already have in place. If the offense is a success, then keep that thing going... your players fit those schemes already and they know the schemes. The organization controls who they hire (or promote) so focus on a guy who sustains rather than changes. A good head coach (or for that matter any good executive level leader) should be identifying and developing the future management people. JMO.
I'm afraid wishful thinking. Even if a subsequent OC wants to keep the same offense, they only know their own offense. They will run what they know. I don't worry about success either. I am worried about the mediocrity that might follow the success. I always think long term. My wife hates it. So I just think about long term she might not hate it :-)
If they are promoted from your organization, having been developed in the organization's schemes, they would know that offense. Promote that guy and sustain success. And if the Bears hire from outside the organization they control who they hire. The NFL's offenses core playbooks may have different terminologies but the plays are remarkably similar. When you watch ex-NFL quarterbacks break down film they talk about this often... J. T. O'Sullivan, in particular is often talking about how every team has a similar play as what he is showing on his breakdown. He will say that some teams call it (and he'll throw out the play name) and others call it something else. I'm not saying all OC's are cookie-cutter guys. They aren't. But it's not like cryptic one-offs with them. We can see that with our own eyes. Every game. I figure it isn't a whole lot different than a business hiring a supervisor from the outside of the organization... they control who they hire. In the case of a football team you hire a person with experience in a similar system... and again, you always have the option to develop your talent from within your coaching staff and hire a sharp guy. All first-time OC's are promoted from positional coaching positions.
I think the main point I am trying to make is that there are two different (very different) scenarios here. A failed offense (what we have had for a long time here in Chicago) is a situation where you burn it down and install a new offense with a new guy. Because you don't want the failed offense. But a successful offense is one you want to sustain. You don't need - or want - to gut that and rebuild with something different. Hire a guy who understands the offense and can sustain success. That just makes sense to me.
JABF, I understand what you are saying. I really do.
But I also understand that theory and reality rarely intersect exactly. And to know that there is a fork in the road ahead and not plan for it usually does not work out well. This will not be a killer, but it surely may blunt any sustained improvement.
What you two are discussing is precisely why I had the flash of what might happen with Flus and Waldron. Assuming of course that Waldron brings in and executes a highly productive offense.
I figure that if the offense is a success then you don't "fix" what isn't broken. I tried to explain this in my post, above. A broken offense needs fixing. Sure, if that is the situation then burn it down and rebuild the offense with a better OC. But if the offense is a success - so much so that the OC is hired as a head coach - then promote a sharp rising positional coach from your own organization (all rookie OC's are hired from previous positional coaching jobs... this isn't anything new here).
My point is that there is a huge difference between rebuilding a failed offense (as we have had in Chicago for years now), verses trying to sustain a great offense that you already have in place. If the offense is a success, then keep that thing going... your players fit those schemes already and they know the schemes. The organization controls who they hire (or promote) so focus on a guy who sustains rather than changes. A good head coach (or for that matter any good executive level leader) should be identifying and developing the future management people. JMO.
This is why I am thinking that Poles may have a Plan B in his head for the situation I outlined in my original post. If/when we hit a point where the offense in highly productive and the OC wil be or is looking for a HC opportunity, what do we do?
IMO a proven offensive mind is likely a better long-term HC for one who is defensive minded and needs a strong offensive mind as his OC.
If they are promoted from your organization, having been developed in the organization's schemes, they would know that offense. Promote that guy and sustain success. And if the Bears hire from outside the organization they control who they hire. The NFL's offenses core playbooks may have different terminologies but the plays are remarkably similar. When you watch ex-NFL quarterbacks break down film they talk about this often... J. T. O'Sullivan, in particular is often talking about how every team has a similar play as what he is showing on his breakdown. He will say that some teams call it (and he'll throw out the play name) and others call it something else. I'm not saying all OC's are cookie-cutter guys. They aren't. But it's not like cryptic one-offs with them. We can see that with our own eyes. Every game. I figure it isn't a whole lot different than a business hiring a supervisor from the outside of the organization... they control who they hire. In the case of a football team you hire a person with experience in a similar system... and again, you always have the option to develop your talent from within your coaching staff and hire a sharp guy. All first-time OC's are promoted from positional coaching positions.
I think the main point I am trying to make is that there are two different (very different) scenarios here. A failed offense (what we have had for a long time here in Chicago) is a situation where you burn it down and install a new offense with a new guy. Because you don't want the failed offense. But a successful offense is one you want to sustain. You don't need - or want - to gut that and rebuild with something different. Hire a guy who understands the offense and can sustain success. That just makes sense to me.
JABF, I understand what you are saying. I really do.
But I also understand that theory and reality rarely intersect exactly. And to know that there is a fork in the road ahead and not plan for it usually does not work out well. This will not be a killer, but it surely may blunt any sustained improvement.
I agree with that. Losing a valued/successful coordinator is hard on a team. But I wouldn't be surprised if this present Bears regime of Warren/Poles/Eberflus are doing exactly what you said there, "plan for it" and have a few people on D and O who you are grooming to step into the next level of coaching. But I 100% agree that theory and reality don't intersect perfectly. Still, there are some general basics of management that do help an organization if it is a solid one. And as you say (and I totally agree) "plan for it" - wise people plan. You don't worry due to the fact you DO plan... you may get rocked and hurt, but you can survive as an organization if you have a solid plan. I don't think the Bears had that in the past because it was a "ma and pa" run family business. My hope is that with the present CEO, Warren, the business will be run more professionally now. Only time will tell. But who knows, right?
JABF, I understand what you are saying. I really do.
But I also understand that theory and reality rarely intersect exactly. And to know that there is a fork in the road ahead and not plan for it usually does not work out well. This will not be a killer, but it surely may blunt any sustained improvement.
I agree with that. Losing a valued/successful coordinator is hard on a team. But I wouldn't be surprised if this present Bears regime of Warren/Poles/Eberflus are doing exactly what you said there, "plan for it" and have a few people on D and O who you are grooming to step into the next level of coaching. But I 100% agree that theory and reality don't intersect perfectly. Still, there are some general basics of management that do help an organization if it is a solid one. And as you say (and I totally agree) "plan for it" - wise people plan. You don't worry due to the fact you DO plan... you may get rocked and hurt, but you can survive as an organization if you have a solid plan. I don't think the Bears had that in the past because it was a "ma and pa" run family business. My hope is that with the present CEO, Warren, the business will be run more professionally now. Only time will tell. But who knows, right?
I figure that if the offense is a success then you don't "fix" what isn't broken. I tried to explain this in my post, above. A broken offense needs fixing. Sure, if that is the situation then burn it down and rebuild the offense with a better OC. But if the offense is a success - so much so that the OC is hired as a head coach - then promote a sharp rising positional coach from your own organization (all rookie OC's are hired from previous positional coaching jobs... this isn't anything new here).
My point is that there is a huge difference between rebuilding a failed offense (as we have had in Chicago for years now), verses trying to sustain a great offense that you already have in place. If the offense is a success, then keep that thing going... your players fit those schemes already and they know the schemes. The organization controls who they hire (or promote) so focus on a guy who sustains rather than changes. A good head coach (or for that matter any good executive level leader) should be identifying and developing the future management people. JMO.
This is why I am thinking that Poles may have a Plan B in his head for the situation I outlined in my original post. If/when we hit a point where the offense in highly productive and the OC wil be or is looking for a HC opportunity, what do we do?
IMO a proven offensive mind is likely a better long-term HC for one who is defensive minded and needs a strong offensive mind as his OC.
I'll fully disclaim here that I don't know anything about this, but am just spitballing as a fan. I may very well be wrong here. My thought on this is that the head coaching job is very different from a coordinator job. That's why we watch so many coordinators fail when they become head coaches. It is a different gig. The head coach is the executive-level coach who needs to first be a great leader of men. Secondly he needs to understand EVERY unit at a high level - offense, defense and special teams. I read where Eberflus "is in the room" at the positional coach level at times... he seems very "hands on" knowing his team and observing his coaching staff of near 30 people now. I see some of the most successful head coaches in the NFL today - are defensive background guys. Look no further than Houston's DeMeco Ryans... another one that comes to mind off the top of my head is John Harbaugh. Sure, I totally understand that it is an offense slanted NFL now. The offense background head coach candidates that are mostly sought are O coaches. But that doesn't mean there are not successful D background coaches. I don't think you fire a successful head coach just due to one of his coordinators being good at his job (Waldron). I just can't get my head around that. There are other ways to sustain a solid offense if your coordinator is hired as a HC somewhere. Success can breed success if you transition to the right replacement. LOL, that's just my spitballing opinion.
I agree with that. Losing a valued/successful coordinator is hard on a team. But I wouldn't be surprised if this present Bears regime of Warren/Poles/Eberflus are doing exactly what you said there, "plan for it" and have a few people on D and O who you are grooming to step into the next level of coaching. But I 100% agree that theory and reality don't intersect perfectly. Still, there are some general basics of management that do help an organization if it is a solid one. And as you say (and I totally agree) "plan for it" - wise people plan. You don't worry due to the fact you DO plan... you may get rocked and hurt, but you can survive as an organization if you have a solid plan. I don't think the Bears had that in the past because it was a "ma and pa" run family business. My hope is that with the present CEO, Warren, the business will be run more professionally now. Only time will tell. But who knows, right?
Yeah.... that's all I'm saying
I think there is one huge thing we agree on. The Bears desperately need Warren to be the guy who can transition the franchise from the ma and pa years to the modern NFL. If he is the right guy for that job, he will lead the franchise to a better future, beginning now.
What you two are discussing is precisely why I had the flash of what might happen with Flus and Waldron. Assuming of course that Waldron brings in and executes a highly productive offense.
I dont think Flus will be going anywhere if the Bears have a Top 5 Offense and Top 10 defense.It was a boon for the Bears when Pete Carrol got fired making Waldron available otherwise he would still be in Seattle. If the offense turns it around that quickly with a rookie QB maybe there is interest in Waldron but he'd probably be pretty picky in choosing the right HC gig to walk away from a successful offense & rookie season by CW. We certainly wouldnt be used to the situation but Im pretty sure the best & brightest would be lining up to be the OC working w/Top 5 offense led by rookie phenom QB. We as Bears fans are used to the McCaskeys pinching pennies while scraping the bottom of the barrel in search of an OC resulting in no namers or guys that have never called plays Getsy, Nagy, Tice or old offensive 'geniuses' like Mike Martz where the game had past him by.
