Are Bears the most attractive HC job on the market?

[Black Rainbow]

The Bears are not a premier destination for an offensive minded coach. Fields doesn't trump the decades long front office incompetence.

If Fields doesn't play much better by the end of the year...I'm ready to be disappointed when they hire some dark-horse guy that no one is mentioning on the board as of yet.

 

[msadows]

yes, there is plenty of talent on this team but also major holes.

A good coach would feel confident he could step in and patch those holes up until we get the talent to solve them long term.

Exactly I don't see how anyone could view this as a attractive destination without serious changes in the front office

This is why you promote Pace to President and allow a new coach and GM to come in.

 

[msadows]

The Bears are not a premier destination for an offensive minded coach. Fields doesn't trump the decades long front office incompetence.

If Fields doesn't play much better by the end of the year...I'm ready to be disappointed when they hire some dark-horse guy that no one is mentioning on the board as of yet.

No one gives a fuck what the bears were in the past. All they care about is the young offensive talent they have to work with.

Imagine being offered millions to coach a team but turning it down because "Its a defensive franchise"

Might be the dumbest shit youve posted.

 

[msadows]

Bears got their pick of the litter in 2018(nagy) with much lesser offensive talent.

But evidently having the best prospect in franchise history isn't enticing to an offensive mind because...you know....the bears.

 

[Black Rainbow]

Fields has been crap across the board... especially on quick throws.
McDaniels has Mac Jones performing leaps and bounds over every other rookie QB in the league by playing to his abilities.
McDaniels also turned Cassel in to a 10-6 fill in off the bench.

McDaniels also brought brady from a game manager first and foremost in the early days to being the oc that put up the number one 2007 passing offense in yards per attempt, yards per game, passing touchdowns, completion percentage, total yardage, and rating.
It was the very definition of a big play offense.

Seems to me that McDaniels can hit home runs in the passing game no matter what style he is forced to employ.

The only frame of reference you have outside of New England is Denver.

In that situation he was correct on Cutler, was saddled with Orton, lost Marshall, was screwed even further by getting Tebow, and sacrificed in the house cleaning for the John Elway hire.
His stint in Denver can really only be considered an incomplete.

I don't get the McDaniels hatred. He will hit double digit wins with a rookie.
He has run an offense with a 6th round qb playing game manager, he has run the most prolific and explosive big play offense in the game.
He has created gaudy numbers for superstar recievers, he has created offenses allowing middling possession receivers to shine. He has run offenses featuring dominant tight ends, running back by committee, and once in a blue moon a great workhorse running back.

I find it incredibly strange that someone would take issue with him as an oc when he has literally found success employing every conceivable offensive strategy over the years.

He has a rookie performing top in his class by selecting the style that is working at this moment... and that is what Chicago needs, is it not?
Do you think McDaniels will forget how to call a season like 2007 with 50 tds and 8 interceptions with a league leading yards per attempt just because he is catering to the strengths of a rookie at this moment in time?

Your take on McDaniels is ridiculous.

Please, if you are that down on McDaniels and his "dink and dunk" style, name another oc in the league that has had success like he has employing quite possibly the widest array of offensive schemes and philosophies anyone has cycled through, finding success in all iterations.

It is hard to believe given the struggles Fields has gone through in regards to play calling, that someone can take issue with the oc of the patriots calling games for a rookie that has resulted in the patriots leading the division, tied for most wins in their conference, and being the 3rd ranked scoring offense in the league.

Great post.

...but there's NO WAY McDaniels is dumb enough to take a job with the Bears. Like NO EFFING WAY. ?

 

[Black Rainbow]

No one gives a fuck what the bears were in the past. All they care about is the young offensive talent they have to work with.

Imagine being offered millions to coach a team but turning it down because "Its a defensive franchise"

Might be the dumbest shit youve posted.

You guys say this with every coaching hire...

 

[90sBullsFan]

That would be a disaster. Nobody in their right mind would give that immature knucklehead the keys to the organization. Quite the opposite. If McDaniels is to succeed it would be under a GM with a tight rein.

Agree 100%. He was 12-20 in Denver, rode his starting QB out of town (remember him?), then pissed off so many in the organization they couldn't wait to let him go back and be the o-coordinator for the Patriots. I would take a super hard pass on McDaniels. He's waiting to take the reigns from Bellichek, anyway.

 

[Black Rainbow]

Agree 100%. He was 12-20 in Denver, rode his starting QB out of town (remember him?), then pissed off so many in the organization they couldn't wait to let him go back and be the o-coordinator for the Patriots. I would take a super hard pass on McDaniels. He's waiting to take the reigns from Bellichek, anyway.

It's a moot point. McDaniels would never agree to coach the Bears.

 

[Pegger]

I'm going to try to be very objective here by looking at areas of importance and how I'd rank each opportunity:

• Existing Roster - Bears, Jaguars, Dolphins, Panthers, Giants then Texans (assuming Watson is traded)
• Salary Cap situation - Dolphins, Jaguars, Bears, Texans, Panthers, then Giants
• Draft Capital - Giants, Jaguars, Texans (assuming Watson trade), Dolphins, Panthers, then Bears
• GM (Disclaimer - using current GMs and if fired that would make them a complete unknown that can work for or against attracting a head coach.) - Panthers, Jaguars, Dolphins, Giants, Bears, then Texans
• Ownership - Dolphins, Panthers, Giants, Bears, Jaguars then Texans
• Weather - Panthers, Texans, Dolphins, Jaguars, Giants, then Bear
• Market - Giants, Dolphins, Bears, Texans, Jaguars then Panthers

The truth is each head coaching candidate will look at those 7 areas differently, but it's also hard to guess which one is more important. If I was to do a rotisserie type scoring system (top spot gets 6 points, every one after that gets one less point. After that just add up the total points accumulated) it would look like:

1. Dolphins 32 pts
2. Jaguars 27 pts
3. Panthers 25 pts
4. Giants 24 pts
5. Bears 21 pts
6. Texans 18 pts

So, after going through that exercise I think the best head coaching candidate will go to whomever pays him the most money, period. None of this matters and about the Benjamins...

I would add if you look back at historic coaching hires the 'hot name' rarely turns out to be the best coach. Look at our current coaches who have had long tern success. Was Belichick, Reid, Harbaugh, Tomlin, McVay, etc... considered the hands down best hire in their respective 'free agent' years? Hell no.

Personally I think how good a team is comes more from their ownership then we like to believe. It's a 'top down' way of looking this, but ultimately that's the group most responsible for culture. I know that's not what you guys want to hear, but often it's the truth.

 

[Noonthirtyjoe]

Fields has been crap across the board... especially on quick throws.
McDaniels has Mac Jones performing leaps and bounds over every other rookie QB in the league by playing to his abilities.
McDaniels also turned Cassel in to a 10-6 fill in off the bench.

McDaniels also brought brady from a game manager first and foremost in the early days to being the oc that put up the number one 2007 passing offense in yards per attempt, yards per game, passing touchdowns, completion percentage, total yardage, and rating.
It was the very definition of a big play offense.

Seems to me that McDaniels can hit home runs in the passing game no matter what style he is forced to employ.

The only frame of reference you have outside of New England is Denver.

In that situation he was correct on Cutler, was saddled with Orton, lost Marshall, was screwed even further by getting Tebow, and sacrificed in the house cleaning for the John Elway hire.
His stint in Denver can really only be considered an incomplete.

I don't get the McDaniels hatred. He will hit double digit wins with a rookie.
He has run an offense with a 6th round qb playing game manager, he has run the most prolific and explosive big play offense in the game.
He has created gaudy numbers for superstar recievers, he has created offenses allowing middling possession receivers to shine. He has run offenses featuring dominant tight ends, running back by committee, and once in a blue moon a great workhorse running back.

I find it incredibly strange that someone would take issue with him as an oc when he has literally found success employing every conceivable offensive strategy over the years.

He has a rookie performing top in his class by selecting the style that is working at this moment... and that is what Chicago needs, is it not?
Do you think McDaniels will forget how to call a season like 2007 with 50 tds and 8 interceptions with a league leading yards per attempt just because he is catering to the strengths of a rookie at this moment in time?

Your take on McDaniels is ridiculous.

Please, if you are that down on McDaniels and his "dink and dunk" style, name another oc in the league that has had success like he has employing quite possibly the widest array of offensive schemes and philosophies anyone has cycled through, finding success in all iterations.

It is hard to believe given the struggles Fields has gone through in regards to play calling, that someone can take issue with the oc of the patriots calling games for a rookie that has resulted in the patriots leading the division, tied for most wins in their conference, and being the 3rd ranked scoring offense in the league.

I'm not sure why you give McDaniels credit for any of that stuff? He was there I guess. He did what BB told him too I guess.
NE's defense and team play are why they win.

 

[Noonthirtyjoe]

I'm going to try to be very objective here by looking at areas of importance and how I'd rank each opportunity:

• Existing Roster - Bears, Jaguars, Dolphins, Panthers, Giants then Texans (assuming Watson is traded)
• Salary Cap situation - Dolphins, Jaguars, Bears, Texans, Panthers, then Giants
• Draft Capital - Giants, Jaguars, Texans (assuming Watson trade), Dolphins, Panthers, then Bears
• GM (Disclaimer - using current GMs and if fired that would make them a complete unknown that can work for or against attracting a head coach.) - Panthers, Jaguars, Dolphins, Giants, Bears, then Texans
• Ownership - Dolphins, Panthers, Giants, Bears, Jaguars then Texans
• Weather - Panthers, Texans, Dolphins, Jaguars, Giants, then Bear
• Market - Giants, Dolphins, Bears, Texans, Jaguars then Panthers

The truth is each head coaching candidate will look at those 7 areas differently, but it's also hard to guess which one is more important. If I was to do a rotisserie type scoring system (top spot gets 6 points, every one after that gets one less point. After that just add up the total points accumulated) it would look like:

1. Dolphins 32 pts
2. Jaguars 27 pts
3. Panthers 25 pts
4. Giants 24 pts
5. Bears 21 pts
6. Texans 18 pts

So, after going through that exercise I think the best head coaching candidate will go to whomever pays him the most money, period. None of this matters and about the Benjamins...

I would add if you look back at historic coaching hires the 'hot name' rarely turns out to be the best coach. Look at our current coaches who have had long tern success. Was Belichick, Reid, Harbaugh, Tomlin, McVay, etc... considered the hands down best hire in their respective 'free agent' years? Hell no.

Personally I think how good a team is comes more from their ownership then we like to believe. It's a 'top down' way of looking this, but ultimately that's the group most responsible for culture. I know that's not what you guys want to hear, but often it's the truth.

Your ratings are pretty far off. And the owners don't matter at all. It's a QB league and nothing more.

 

[Pegger]

Your ratings are pretty far off. And the owners don't matter at all. It's a QB league and nothing more.

Things like cap space, draft picks, weather and market size are all fairly tangible numbers, so hard to argue that one. For the others they are just my opinions and if you see things differently you are completely entitled to that.

I get that QB is the most important position in football, but do you really think it's that simple? By that logic the Jags with Trevor Lawrence would be the most desirable place, which we know is not true. Personally I think all Head Coaches do prioritize QB quite high, but often they like the ability to choose their QB weather that's in FA or the draft.

Look at your Shanahan and McVay. Both prioritize QB very highly, but neither went to their respective teams because of the guy who was already on the roster, right? QB like all positions, is in flux providing the team has the resources and mindset to make it happen.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

It's a moot point. McDaniels would never agree to coach the Bears.

He already interviewed with them before. Obviously he'd at least consider it.

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

I'm going to try to be very objective here by looking at areas of importance and how I'd rank each opportunity:

• Existing Roster - Bears, Jaguars, Dolphins, Panthers, Giants then Texans (assuming Watson is traded)
• Salary Cap situation - Dolphins, Jaguars, Bears, Texans, Panthers, then Giants
• Draft Capital - Giants, Jaguars, Texans (assuming Watson trade), Dolphins, Panthers, then Bears
• GM (Disclaimer - using current GMs and if fired that would make them a complete unknown that can work for or against attracting a head coach.) - Panthers, Jaguars, Dolphins, Giants, Bears, then Texans
• Ownership - Dolphins, Panthers, Giants, Bears, Jaguars then Texans
• Weather - Panthers, Texans, Dolphins, Jaguars, Giants, then Bear
• Market - Giants, Dolphins, Bears, Texans, Jaguars then Panthers

The truth is each head coaching candidate will look at those 7 areas differently, but it's also hard to guess which one is more important. If I was to do a rotisserie type scoring system (top spot gets 6 points, every one after that gets one less point. After that just add up the total points accumulated) it would look like:

1. Dolphins 32 pts
2. Jaguars 27 pts
3. Panthers 25 pts
4. Giants 24 pts
5. Bears 21 pts
6. Texans 18 pts

So, after going through that exercise I think the best head coaching candidate will go to whomever pays him the most money, period. None of this matters and about the Benjamins...

I would add if you look back at historic coaching hires the 'hot name' rarely turns out to be the best coach. Look at our current coaches who have had long tern success. Was Belichick, Reid, Harbaugh, Tomlin, McVay, etc... considered the hands down best hire in their respective 'free agent' years? Hell no.

Personally I think how good a team is comes more from their ownership then we like to believe. It's a 'top down' way of looking this, but ultimately that's the group most responsible for culture. I know that's not what you guys want to hear, but often it's the truth.

Yup (the bolded part)

 

[BaBaBlacksheep]

Your ratings are pretty far off. And the owners don't matter at all. It's a QB league and nothing more.

How the fuck can you be a Bears fan and say this?

 

[Pegger]

Fields has been crap across the board... especially on quick throws.
McDaniels has Mac Jones performing leaps and bounds over every other rookie QB in the league by playing to his abilities.
McDaniels also turned Cassel in to a 10-6 fill in off the bench.

McDaniels also brought brady from a game manager first and foremost in the early days to being the oc that put up the number one 2007 passing offense in yards per attempt, yards per game, passing touchdowns, completion percentage, total yardage, and rating.
It was the very definition of a big play offense.

Seems to me that McDaniels can hit home runs in the passing game no matter what style he is forced to employ.

The only frame of reference you have outside of New England is Denver.

In that situation he was correct on Cutler, was saddled with Orton, lost Marshall, was screwed even further by getting Tebow, and sacrificed in the house cleaning for the John Elway hire.
His stint in Denver can really only be considered an incomplete.

I don't get the McDaniels hatred. He will hit double digit wins with a rookie.
He has run an offense with a 6th round qb playing game manager, he has run the most prolific and explosive big play offense in the game.
He has created gaudy numbers for superstar recievers, he has created offenses allowing middling possession receivers to shine. He has run offenses featuring dominant tight ends, running back by committee, and once in a blue moon a great workhorse running back.

I find it incredibly strange that someone would take issue with him as an oc when he has literally found success employing every conceivable offensive strategy over the years.

He has a rookie performing top in his class by selecting the style that is working at this moment... and that is what Chicago needs, is it not?
Do you think McDaniels will forget how to call a season like 2007 with 50 tds and 8 interceptions with a league leading yards per attempt just because he is catering to the strengths of a rookie at this moment in time?

Your take on McDaniels is ridiculous.

Please, if you are that down on McDaniels and his "dink and dunk" style, name another oc in the league that has had success like he has employing quite possibly the widest array of offensive schemes and philosophies anyone has cycled through, finding success in all iterations.

It is hard to believe given the struggles Fields has gone through in regards to play calling, that someone can take issue with the oc of the patriots calling games for a rookie that has resulted in the patriots leading the division, tied for most wins in their conference, and being the 3rd ranked scoring offense in the league.

I'm not anti-McDaniels, but here's 3 reasons why I wouldn't want him as my head coach:

1 - Belichick's coaching tree - There's a long history of Patriot coordinators who were supposed to be the 'next Belichick' that ultimately failed. This speaks a ton to just how good Belichick is when it comes to getting the most out of his players AND coaches. For those that want to bring up Vrabel, he never coached in NE. He was a former player, but his coaching background is Ohio St, then the Texans.

2 - I don't trust him - His time in Denver was a disaster. That was a long time ago, but then he agreed to coach the Colts, got people to quit their jobs to join him only for him to change his mind after one joint meeting with Belichick and Kraft. That's insane and shows some of the worst leadership skills. You have head coaches willing to fall on their sword for their players and coaches. That move makes me think he'll walk both groups to the guillotine if it's in his best interest.

3 - He'll be extremely expensive - I know it doesn't impact the salary cap or anything, but it's important to know. A big part of him staying in NE was that he's getting paid entry level head coach money. He's not leaving NE without a massive bump up in pay, which means the team will be committed. I just don't feel his full history, which includes the Broncos debacle, warrants a big payday.

 

[Noonthirtyjoe]

How the fuck can you be a Bears fan and say this?

Because they don't. They stay uninvolved in personal moves and always spend near the top. They don't even pick the coaching staffs. Were cursed at the QB position and that is our only problem.

 

[Anytime23]

How the fuck can you be a Bears fan and say this?

He's a tard

Defended Mitch for 4 yards. Already bailed on Fields.

 

[Soterod]

No. We have the creepiest/weirdest FO in football.

I wouldn’t use the words creepiest or weird to describe this front office. More like incompetent or fucked up but I am picking up what you are laying down.

 

[hyatt151]

so wrong. That's what you would do. Anyone who knows anything about the NFL will tell you this is an attractive job

and anyone who knows nothing, as this board proves