When is enough enough?

[Pool]

Honest question here. It's been years since I've enjoyed watching Bears football. And typically it's one decent to good year for every 5 to 10 bad ones. I just don't have any  hope for this franchise to ever get things right and turn it around. Call it the cheapness of the McCaskeys, a bad reputation in league, or something in the water. This stuff just does not EVER change. It's been 30 freaking years since we have had a competent offense outside of a couple of seasons. Every week I watch other teams offenses who can *gasp* run and pass the ball and every week I get to watch the Bears struggle to get 3 yards. I'm just so sick of it. I quit watching this team halfway through last year, and I'm done watching them for the rest of this year. Prior to last season I hadn't missed one of their games in over 20 years. I've just had enough. It isn't remotely fun anymore. Idk maybe I just need sleep but I can't be the only one who feels this way. Anyways, rambling done. Thoughts?

[JAF-N72EX]

Urlacher was right when he said this team is cursed. The honey bear curse may be real after all.

Here is a long list of some of the mistakes made by the FO over the years.

 

 

[beardown3231]

I get where you're coming from. My dad passed his season tickets down to me and I used to love going and would look forward to games, home or away, all week long. Now? Blah. They're good every 4-8 years. I'm sick of them playing good D and bad O like it's 1975 again. It just sucks all around. They are depressing.

BTW, I'm not trying to derail the thread but the McCaskey's aren't cheap. That was debunked years ago. They have used a lot of their cap. They might be dumb as s*** but not cheap.

[Sugashane]

Even being a franchise that is laughably mediocre in the Super Bowl era it is still a very profitable one. 

 

They'll bleed this franchise for generations. 

[JAF-N72EX]

We need a fresh restart.  With the 2011 CBA, the new formula in the NFL is this simple. You have 4 years to build a team around a QB and win a championship. That's the new layout.

Find a QB in the draft that you feel comfortable building around while said QB is still playing on their 4 year rookie contract before you have to extend him and before they start eating up 13-17% of your entire cap every year on one player and essentially stopping you from making any major free agent moves to improve your roster in other areas of the team. 

Hire a GM and let him choose the HC. If the HC is an offensive minded coach, then let him pick their QB to build around. If the HC is a defensive minded coach, then let him pick the OC that fits his team beliefs/philosophy, and then let THAT OC pick the QB they feel would be the best fit for their offensive strategy. 

This is something the Bears FO have NEVER done. Instead, they continue to make the same mistakes they have been making for years. Overlapping the roster with terrible coaches and visa-versa.  Stop trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Start from fresh and do it right! 

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

If the next GM doesn't choose the right the HC and they choose the wrong QB.....then fire all of them and start fresh again. It's that's simple. But then we have McCaskey.... which I won't even get into.

[BearFromArgentina]

@JAF-N72EX asked to post most here so this is my take. For the most part, i think the issue with the Bears is that we like them this way, and the FO give the us (the fans) what we want. There is some "identity" constructed over the decades of the Bears being this monstrous defensive powerhouse, and the Bears keep repeating a management formula that leads to this but also leads to some of the poorest offensive display in the recent era. If the Bears want to have a good offence, we need to follow the "blueprint" as the above poster say.

Offense first, starting with a rookie QB and surrounding that QB with the necessary tools EARLY in his career because you need him to pan out fast. For two reasons, First, unless such QB is a generational talent, it would likely fail in the long term as a direct or indirect results of this early struggles.  As an example, I think Goff is still suffering in his mind from his extremely traumatic first year in the league. Not to mention what is going with Darnold, or even what transpired with Rozen. Those guys had potential but where put in extremely bad situations.Second, due to the issue with the salary cap mentioned above.

There is no guarantee of success at ll, but if the Bears do not change their roster management formula, this will keep going on. Yeah, i know some of this was tried with Trubisky, but not in the correct way. We are stuck with a offensive minded head coach that hates the running game as it gave him herpes, but with a young QB that depends hugely in its legs to build his game and have any resemblance of success. This management also spent two first round picks in a defensive star in is prime, knowing already at that point that Trubisky desperately needed much more help in his side of the ball i he were ever to succeed. I am not making excuses for him and it is likely that he would have been a bust anyway, but the whole situation was poorly managed.

Edited November 9, 2020 by BearFromArgentina

[JAF-N72EX]

28 minutes ago, BearFromArgentina said:

@JAF-N72EX asked to post most here so this is my take. For the most part, i think the issue with the Bears is that we like them this way, and the FO give the us (the fans) what we want. There is some "identity" constructed over the decades of the Bears being this monstrous defensive powerhouse, and the Bears keep repeating a management formula that leads to this but also leads to some of the poorest offensive display in the recent era. If the Bears want to have a good offence, we need to follow the "blueprint" as the above poster say.

Offense first, starting with a rookie QB and surrounding that QB with the necessary tools EARLY in his career because you need him to pan out fast. For two reasons, First, unless such QB is a generational talent, it would likely fail in the long term as a direct or indirect results of this early struggles.  As an example, I think Goff is still suffering in his mind from his extremely traumatic first year in the league. Not to mention what is going with Darnold, or even what transpired with Rozen. Those guys had potential but where put in extremely bad situations.Second, due to the issue with the salary cap mentioned above.

There is no guarantee of success at ll, but if the Bears do not change their roster management formula, this will keep going on. Yeah, i know some of this was tried with Trubisky, but not in the correct way. We are stuck with a offensive minded head coach that hates the running game as it gave him herpes, but with a young QB that depends hugely in its legs to build his game and have any resemblance of success. This management also spent two first round picks in a defensive star in is prime, knowing already at that point that Trubisky desperately needed much more help in his side of the ball i he were ever to succeed. I am not making excuses for him and it is likely that he would have been a bust anyway, but the whole situation was poorly managed.

And posts like this is exactly why I asked to you to start posting here more.

[Pool]

7 hours ago, JAF-N72EX said:

We need a fresh restart.  With the 2011 CBA, the new formula in the NFL is this simple. You have 4 years to build a team around a QB and win a championship. That's the new layout.

Find a QB in the draft that you feel comfortable building around while said QB is still playing on their 4 year rookie contract before you have to extend him and before they start eating up 13-17% of your entire cap every year on one player and essentially stopping you from making any major free agent moves to improve your roster in other areas of the team. 

Hire a GM and let him choose the HC. If the HC is an offensive minded coach, then let him pick their QB to build around. If the HC is a defensive minded coach, then let him pick the OC that fits his team beliefs/philosophy, and then let THAT OC pick the QB they feel would be the best fit for their offensive strategy. 

This is something the Bears FO have NEVER done. Instead, they continue to make the same mistakes they have been making for years. Overlapping the roster with terrible coaches and visa-versa.  Stop trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. Start from fresh and do it right! 

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."

If the next GM doesn't choose the right the HC and they choose the wrong QB.....then fire all of them and start fresh again. It's that's simple. But then we have McCaskey.... which I won't even get into.

1000% agree. It's maddening.

[Pool]

Or ya know, we could try this whole building a decent offensive line thing too. How many years has it been since we have had a decent O-line? 15? "Games are won in the trenches"-Albert Einstein.

[dll2000]

11 hours ago, Pool said:

Honest question here. It's been years since I've enjoyed watching Bears football. And typically it's one decent to good year for every 5 to 10 bad ones. I just don't have any  hope for this franchise to ever get things right and turn it around. Call it the cheapness of the McCaskeys, a bad reputation in league, or something in the water. This stuff just does not EVER change. It's been 30 freaking years since we have had a competent offense outside of a couple of seasons. Every week I watch other teams offenses who can *gasp* run and pass the ball and every week I get to watch the Bears struggle to get 3 yards. I'm just so sick of it. I quit watching this team halfway through last year, and I'm done watching them for the rest of this year. Prior to last season I hadn't missed one of their games in over 20 years. I've just had enough. It isn't remotely fun anymore. Idk maybe I just need sleep but I can't be the only one who feels this way. Anyways, rambling done. Thoughts?

I have said it in other threads.

You don’t consistently win in football by rotating HCs and GMs hoping to strike gold.  You do get lucky doing that from time to time.  

You build a top down program with a vision and coordination, like Steelers and Patriots and 49ers under DeBartlo Jr. Until he got booted.     Management/ownership, GM, HC all on same page.   

Most every one else is on the replace every one every 5 years plan and hope you get lucky during one of those stretches.  

[dll2000]

Your GM should know scheme and game as well as HC and know player fits for it.   He should know exactly what HC wants and needs .

This idea that a scout is separate from a coach that has developed is stupid.   What good is a scout that doesn’t know scheme?  All of my scouts would be able to step in and coach the offense or defense.  It isn’t rocket science.    

 And speaking of scheme if your scheme can’t morph into whatever your personnel or game plan demands it be (power or finesse), then you are too limited in your knowledge as a coach to be a coach.  

They can get lucky, so can 1 million posters blabbing about players on internet.   

Management should be removing obstacles for GM and HC and making place most attractive in world to FAs.  

[abstract_thought]

2 hours ago, dll2000 said:

I have said it in other threads.

You don’t consistently win in football by rotating HCs and GMs hoping to strike gold.  You do get lucky doing that from time to time.  

You build a top down program with a vision and coordination, like Steelers and Patriots and 49ers under DeBartlo Jr. Until he got booted.     Management/ownership, GM, HC all on same page.   

Most every one else is on the replace every one every 5 years plan and hope you get lucky during one of those stretches.  

The only reason those teams have a "program" is because they got lucky first. The Patriots were nothing before Belichick and Brady. The Steelers are a unique case given the ownership's involvement in the team.

[JAF-N72EX]

19 hours ago, dll2000 said:

Your GM should know scheme and game as well as HC and know player fits for it. 

This is looking for the unrealistic anomaly, that is Belichick, and not the norm. Good luck in finding this again. The Texans tried it with BOB and we all know how that worked out. 

A GM shouldn't be expected to know all of the intricacies of the system that a HC plans to incorporate to change things but rather HOW. 

19 hours ago, dll2000 said:

This idea that a scout is separate from a coach that has developed is stupid.   What good is a scout that doesn’t know scheme?  All of my scouts would be able to step in and coach the offense or defense.  It isn’t rocket science.    

Maybe in a utopia world of football but it's no where close to reality. 

If scouts were capable of being good coordinators then they wouldn't be scouts to begin with. They would be coordinators.  What you are suggesting is a very unrealistic utopia society in the football world.

SOME scouts MAY become coordinators at some point (based on the amount of knowledge and instincts they show during this time) but none of this means that they will be a good coordinator.  The amount of different responsibilities and accountability between the two positions are VERY different. Hell, most scouts don't even make it that far.

I would love to see a team with a good staff on both sides of ball AND have scouts who are fit for the coordinator job just waiting in the wings. It's not realistic man. 

The 90s Browns are the closest think that I can think of that even come close to fitting this description and not even that is even close to what you're describing. 

 

[BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW]

Now? Now it's enough. I like to stay pretty level headed on the bears, and while I'm not the most analytical fan, in sure not the most reactionary. But it's bad. It's bad in fundamental ways that were designed to be good.

Pace missed on trubisky, but it always was understood that it was a big but understandable miss. Every gm misses. However, going in to this season, with a struggling offense and paying that little attention to the ol is as big of a failure, at least in the context of making it a wasted season with a defense that is about to get old and expensive. The BEST case scenario for these personnel was average. The worst case scenario is, well, Sunday. Most of our starters would make awesome backups somewhere.

So what about Nagy? Seems like such a cool dude. Great time in club dub yes? I like him, but why is he here? To make us feel good when a spectacular defense shows up? So fun, but he was brought here to build an offense, and it's pathetic. I think we saw the best of it on 2018. He was winning, confident and build enough to throw out some creative plays. Maybe that is all he has, as right now he knows he doesn't have the players, so is trying different ways to play scared with the occasional dice roll. And they're sloppy, and look undisciplined, especially when they don't get to dance in the end zone.

Not sure what more is needed. The gm misses twice, and the coach can't do the thing he's supposed to be good at. It's going to set the bears back years, again. Because even if we get it right on a new hire, they're going to be broke and stuck with a bunch of older guys on big deals. 

[dll2000]

20 hours ago, abstract_thought said:

The only reason those teams have a "program" is because they got lucky first. The Patriots were nothing before Belichick and Brady. The Steelers are a unique case given the ownership's involvement in the team.

A great man often creates the program and it most often dies with him when he leaves.  I have seen it happen in a lot of programs.   When DeBartlo got booted in SF they went downhill quickly.   Take away a cornerstone and building will often fall.  

With proper training and management it can be continued as it has in Pittburgh.   Pitt started with Noll, but ownership was smart enough to keep his foundation going.