StLunatic88 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 5 minutes ago, HuskieBear said: *squits* blow more 4th quarter leads I love that some how you guys have completely ignored that the majority of all of those losses had to do with the Offense doing absolutely nothing when they had the ball in the 2nd half, 4th Quarter specifically. Just a whole bunch of 3 & Outs forcing the defense back out there to make big plays over and over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisoxguy7 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 It all just depends on how you divide the blame for the offense this season. -Getsy -Offensive Line -Skill position players -Justin Fields What % being Justin's fault is too much and makes you draft Caleb? Justin takes some blame, but over a 17 game sample, Getsy never showed signs of competency. The offensive line was inconsistent if not below average overall. Moore and Kmet were good. Behind them was nobody. The Bears are poised to do the thing that they do when they can't identify what the problem is: change too much. It's like doing a science experiment and changing more than one variable at a time. If we go into next season with: -New OC -up to 2 new starters on the OL -new WR2, new WR3 -New QB ...not only are we asking to struggle but we'll have a hard time pinpointing the issue when we do. When you have a such a huge scheme issue like we did with Getsy, that alone is enough for me to have a hard time evaluating the QB play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafreak Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 minute ago, chisoxguy7 said: It all just depends on how you divide the blame for the offense this season. -Getsy -Offensive Line -Skill position players -Justin Fields What % being Justin's fault is too much and makes you draft Caleb? Justin takes some blame, but over a 17 game sample, Getsy never showed signs of competency. The offensive line was inconsistent if not below average overall. Moore and Kmet were good. Behind them was nobody. The Bears are poised to do the thing that they do when they can't identify what the problem is: change too much. It's like doing a science experiment and changing more than one variable at a time. If we go into next season with: -New OC -up to 2 new starters on the OL -new WR2, new WR3 -New QB ...not only are we asking to struggle but we'll have a hard time pinpointing the issue when we do. When you have a such a huge scheme issue like we did with Getsy, that alone is enough for me to have a hard time evaluating the QB play. Getsy should have been fired going into the bye week. Instead we know no more than we did at the end of last year. You blame Eberflus for that? Poles? Both? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chisoxguy7 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 4 minutes ago, dafreak said: Getsy should have been fired going into the bye week. Instead we know no more than we did at the end of last year. You blame Eberflus for that? Poles? Both? I agree with you, it would be on Eberflus for me. He saw the offensive struggles just as well as the rest of us but chose to stick with Getsy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StLunatic88 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 7 minutes ago, chisoxguy7 said: The Bears are poised to do the thing that they do when they can't identify what the problem is: change too much. It's like doing a science experiment and changing more than one variable at a time. If we go into next season with: -New OC -up to 2 new starters on the OL -new WR2, new WR3 -New QB ...not only are we asking to struggle but we'll have a hard time pinpointing the issue when we do. When you have a such a huge scheme issue like we did with Getsy, that alone is enough for me to have a hard time evaluating the QB play. You could absolutely run into that problem, but I think that the OL and the Weapons were needed to be addressed even if Fields looked good. Its just apparent we need talent upgrades at certain spots. The trick is going to be deciding if changing the OC will be enough with those other 2 changes, or do we need to just scrap the whole thing on that side of the ball? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StLunatic88 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 minutes ago, chisoxguy7 said: I agree with you, it would be on Eberflus for me. He saw the offensive struggles just as well as the rest of us but chose to stick with Getsy. He didnt chose to. Ownership didnt want to fire anyone else after the William stuff. Those type of things matter to them (obviously) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankWilliams Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Adam Hoge says he thinks that the smart move at this point is to give Eberflus a contract extension, because it signals that this is a longer term plan, ensuring stability especially if they take a new QB at 1, and essentially its a commitment that we aren't bringing a QB in and then immediately jumping ship like we've done the past couple of cycles. Not sure I can get on board with that, but I see his argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dafreak Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 minutes ago, TankWilliams said: Adam Hoge says he thinks that the smart move at this point is to give Eberflus a contract extension, because it signals that this is a longer term plan, ensuring stability especially if they take a new QB at 1, and essentially its a commitment that we aren't bringing a QB in and then immediately jumping ship like we've done the past couple of cycles. Not sure I can get on board with that, but I see his argument. JFC, what a joke... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 7 minutes ago, TankWilliams said: Adam Hoge says he thinks that the smart move at this point is to give Eberflus a contract extension, because it signals that this is a longer term plan, ensuring stability especially if they take a new QB at 1, and essentially its a commitment that we aren't bringing a QB in and then immediately jumping ship like we've done the past couple of cycles. Not sure I can get on board with that, but I see his argument. Well, obviously I hate that, but it would address a problem for hiring OCs and how the holdovers perform next year. If you were a possible OC looking at the Bears job, I think your big questions are going to be a) are you set on what you want to do at QB b) what are the metrics for keeping my job next year as a first year guy? If they are open to draft or keeping Fields, an OC would still need real answeres on b. Like if they draft Williams and win 5 games but he looks promising, is ownership going to be OK with a head coach who gets a WORSE record in year 3 than 2, and a sub 30% win percentage? That said, this is one of many reasons this approach includes built in problems. Our best way out is if the Bears draft a QB and luck into a talent that can succeed with questions all around him, and there aren't a ton of other routes that don't have us discussing coaching next year. So, for not the first time, I am putting all my eggs for Bears fandom into "hope we get lucky against the odds" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankWilliams Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 minutes ago, BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW said: Well, obviously I hate that, but it would address a problem for hiring OCs and how the holdovers perform next year. If you were a possible OC looking at the Bears job, I think your big questions are going to be a) are you set on what you want to do at QB b) what are the metrics for keeping my job next year as a first year guy? If they are open to draft or keeping Fields, an OC would still need real answeres on b. Like if they draft Williams and win 5 games but he looks promising, is ownership going to be OK with a head coach who gets a WORSE record in year 3 than 2, and a sub 30% win percentage? That said, this is one of many reasons this approach includes built in problems. Our best way out is if the Bears draft a QB and luck into a talent that can succeed with questions all around him, and there aren't a ton of other routes that don't have us discussing coaching next year. So, for not the first time, I am putting all my eggs for Bears fandom into "hope we get lucky against the odds" Pretty much sums up my thoughts about it. Its a hard situation to be in, I'd rather they went all in for Harbaugh but at least in this sense we are introducing some assumed stability, presuming the OC gets a choice on keeping Fields or picking his top guy at 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 2 minutes ago, TankWilliams said: Pretty much sums up my thoughts about it. Its a hard situation to be in, I'd rather they went all in for Harbaugh but at least in this sense we are introducing some assumed stability, presuming the OC gets a choice on keeping Fields or picking his top guy at 1. Yeah, depending on which way they go at QB, this route is just about the most fraught way you could do, especially because if it doesn't work the criticism writes itself as it's very similar to how the Bears have failed in the recent past. Especially because there exists a relatively strong group of possible head coaches, a supposedly very good QB draft class (if they Fields it up) or a talented but flawed QB in Fields (if they draft a QB) On the upside, on a more personal note, this keeps my dream of an Eberflus face tattoo alive, and I'll parlay that with the following: New OC get's busted in tiger smuggling ring, George McCaskey psychotic break in a McDonalds ball pit in which he refuses to leave and Kenilworth police finally tazer him out after 39 hour standoff. Book it *******. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 4 minutes ago, beardown3231 said: Very real concern that could affect getting their candidate of choice. I think by keeping Flus for one year, they're at least keeping him for two years with a rookie. Oddly, this may incentivize Flus AWAY from keeping Fields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beardown3231 Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAR FACE DOWN ARROW Posted January 10 Share Posted January 10 1 minute ago, beardown3231 said: Well the difference this time is that Flus is getting a chance to pick an OC. How hard can it be to get his staff right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.