Matt Eberflus hired as Bears head coach

[Leomaz]

I doubt the OC leaves after one year if we have success. The thing that’s for certain is the Bears aren’t the Chiefs or any other team. They are a different franchise. Time will tell if they made a good decision or not but simply hiring a offensive guy isn’t change our team. You also act like we were game changers on defense. This whole team needs to be coached not just Justin. If Justin performs so good in 1 season that some team takes our O.C then I think that’s great. It means he is moving in the right direction. This game isn’t rocket science and these men can adapt to change pretty easily in my opinion. I think you guys are whining about nothing.

 

[Brownie]

 

[dbldrew]

They could do that but they won’t. They’ll have moved on with their new HC and will want the draft picks they could get. Like when Gruden went from Tampa Bay to Oakland.

they would demand draft pics and could accept the best offer from whatever team offered up the best deal, the point is that the power is with the team, the same can not be said for coordinators or assistants, if another team offers a HC position to another teams coordinator then there is nothing that the team can do to stop it.

 

[dbldrew]

Your premise is wrong because Bellicheck, Tomlin, Harbaugh, Carroll, and Vrabel show a team can still succeed when the OC moves on.

The point is you can have sustained success under either model and you havent offered any actual evidence that one model is more successful than the other.

I am asking you to show how a QB and team falls apart when the OC moves on because if it is the case that the QB and team still succeeds whether you HC is an O guy or D guy or ST guy then it really doesnt matter. Just hire whoever you think is the best guy.



Now do Bellichek. I will start you off. 7 SBs.

Its not wrong Remy its just a different philosophy, one that I prefer.. for the reasons I have given.
Again Remy this is a QB driven league with offensive biased rules. So its all about asset retention, and having a great OC would be a great asset to have for a league that is dominated by offense and QBs.. So please tell me how you can keep that great OC asset when your HC is a defensive guy?

Now if that HC was the offensive guy.. problem solved..

Thats my philosophy and my reasons for wanting to go that way.. its based on KC.. which has worked fantastic

You want to do Bellichek.. how has he done without the best QB in the NFL? 62-74 regular season record and 1-1 in the playoffs.. Obviously we have had success with a defensive HC.. Lovie Smith did good with multiple bad QBs and multiple OCs.. in fact his record is better then Bellicheks when he didnt have the GOAT.. 89-87 reg season and 3-3 post season record. So it can be done and lots of teams have done it.. I would rather go with an offensive HC.. thats my OPINION

 

[remydat]

Its not wrong Remy its just a different philosophy, one that I prefer.. for the reasons I have given.
Again Remy this is a QB driven league with offensive biased rules. So its all about asset retention, and having a great OC would be a great asset to have for a league that is dominated by offense and QBs.. So please tell me how you can keep that great OC asset when your HC is a defensive guy?

Now if that HC was the offensive guy.. problem solved..

Thats my philosophy and my reasons for wanting to go that way.. its based on KC.. which has worked fantastic

You want to do Bellichek.. how has he done without the best QB in the NFL? 62-74 regular season record and 1-1 in the playoffs.. Obviously we have had success with a defensive HC.. Lovie Smith did good with multiple bad QBs and multiple OCs.. in fact his record is better then Bellicheks when he didnt have the GOAT.. 89-87 reg season and 3-3 post season record. So it can be done and lots of teams have done it.. I would rather go with an offensive HC.. thats my OPINION

You are confusing things. My entire point is that it is just a different philosophy. You were trying to suggest it was better than having a DC as head coach. So I am saying the premise that it is better is proven wrong by guys like BB, Tomlin, Carroll, Harbaugh, and Vrabel.

If all you had said was you prefer it then I would not have responded. You were clearly trying to suggest it was the better way which is where the disagreement lies as you have no proof of it being better.

 

[Visionman]

Its not wrong Remy its just a different philosophy, one that I prefer.. for the reasons I have given.
Again Remy this is a QB driven league with offensive biased rules. So its all about asset retention, and having a great OC would be a great asset to have for a league that is dominated by offense and QBs.. So please tell me how you can keep that great OC asset when your HC is a defensive guy?

Now if that HC was the offensive guy.. problem solved..

Thats my philosophy and my reasons for wanting to go that way.. its based on KC.. which has worked fantastic

You want to do Bellichek.. how has he done without the best QB in the NFL? 62-74 regular season record and 1-1 in the playoffs.. Obviously we have had success with a defensive HC.. Lovie Smith did good with multiple bad QBs and multiple OCs.. in fact his record is better then Bellicheks when he didnt have the GOAT.. 89-87 reg season and 3-3 post season record. So it can be done and lots of teams have done it.. I would rather go with an offensive HC.. thats my OPINION

Really, does “just a different philosophy” deserve 40 pages of back and forth debate???

 

[dbldrew]

Really, does “just a different philosophy” deserve 40 pages of back and forth debate???

No it does not.. not sure why people are so upset about me preferring an offensive HC.. maybe the Nagy wounds are to fresh?

 

[dbldrew]

You are confusing things. My entire point is that it is just a different philosophy. You were trying to suggest it was better than have a DC has head coach. So I am saying the premise that it is better is proven wrong by guys like BB, Tomlin, Carroll, Harbaugh, and Vrabel.

If all you had said wad you prefer it then I would not have responded. You were clearly trying to suggest it was the better way which is where the disagreement lies as you have no proof of it being better.

I'm not confusing things.. I stated I wanted an offensive HC.. then I stated the reasons why I felt that way.

I also have stated multiple times I'm not making any predictions.. I just stated what I wanted and why I wanted it. Simple as that.

Well I guess thats not completely true.. I did make the prediction that if we get this great offensive minded OC that it will be short lived because he will get plucked for a HC job..
I also see you avoided my question to you about how would you go about keeping this great offensive minded OC?

 

[EDPeezy]

you guys are just repeating the same things over and over for like 20 pages.

I do find it weird that so many people disagree with this guy considering a large group here was dead set on an offensive coach as well. That was a pretty big point of emphasis for a very big majority of people here. But somehow nobody agrees with him. Even though most of did like a week ago. I get it though. You‘re trying to talk yourself into Eberflus. Even though a week ago it’s clear most of you wanted an offensive guy. And you let it be known repeatedly.

 

[dbldrew]

How many times in Kansas City had Reid taken his team to the Super Bowl before Mahomes? 0
How many times in 14 seasons with The Eagles had he been to the Super Bowl…..1
if Mahomes decide to quit tomorrow it would take many years before Reid made it back to the Super Bowl.
If Field is a great quarterback it won’t matter.

and how many times has Belichick made it to the superbowl without Brady? 0 in fact the best defensive HC in the NFLs record drops down to Matt Nagy territory without the GOAT..

You want to win a superbowl your going to need a great QB...

 

[stelz]

It's about continuity on the offensive side of the ball in a offense driven, points driven league in which the rules are geared toward the offense. It's easier for an offense to continue on in the same system, with the same primary offensive mind and play caller than it is to start over with a new primary offensive mind/system/playcaller.

If a team's HC is defensive minded, and they are successful and winning because of their offense, their OC/primary offensive mind/play caller is going to be going out on HC interviews. If he gets a HC job, he's likely to take the most effective members of his offensive staff with him to his new team for promotions, they are his guys, not the defensive HC's guys.

And then, the following season, there is the team with the defensive HC, coming off winning season, scrambling to come up with a new offensive staff in an offense driven, points driven league, where the rules are geared toward the offense. Unless that team is coming off a SB win, they are further from winning the SB, not closer to it, because their players are going to be learning a new system, "thinking and not playing," etc, etc.

This has happened twice with the Bears since Ditka. Wannie had the Bears best offense of the modern era in '95 with Ron Turner calling the plays. Turner left after 96 season for the Illinois HC job, in '97 the Bears took a huge step backwards. In John Fox's first year (6-10), Adam Gase coached a moderate uptick in Cutler's performance, and was plucked. The next year they took a huge step backwards, and finished 3-13. Neither the 1995 or 2015 Bears made the playoffs, yet their OC's were promoted elsewhere, and the Bears offenses immediately floundered.

 

[remydat]

I'm not confusing things.. I stated I wanted an offensive HC.. then I stated the reasons why I felt that way.

I also have stated multiple times I'm not making any predictions.. I just stated what I wanted and why I wanted it. Simple as that.

Well I guess thats not completely true.. I did make the prediction that if we get this great offensive minded OC that it will be short lived because he will get plucked for a HC job..
I also see you avoided my question to you about how would you go about keeping this great offensive minded OC?

Ok so you wasted two paragraphs saying you didnt suggest it was better only to then admit that yes you were claiming it was better.

I dont want to keepnthe OC. I want the OC to turn Fields into Brady or Wilson or Allen and then be rewarded by getting a HC gig. Then the QB coach likely gets promoted to OC keeps a lot of things and adds his wrinkles so that Fields can continue learning.

Being in the same system the whole time can cause stagnation I think guys like Brady, Wilson, Manning were helped by having new OCs coming in with fresh perspective while building on what came before.

and how many times has Belichick made it to the superbowl without Brady? 0 in fact the best defensive HC in the NFLs record drops down to Matt Nagy territory without the GOAT..

You want to win a superbowl your going to need a great QB...

But the D minded HC drafted and developed Brady while having multiple OCs so your point here is stupid. Reid didnt win any SB without Mahomes either.

BB hasnt played without Brady for an extended period of time yet but it took him only 2 years to make the playoffs without with the QB you were dick riding all year. A rookie no less.

 

[WestCoastBearsFan]

No, the only person who reported that Poles demanded and/or was given full autonomy was Jeff Hughes (Da Bears Blog). No one else has.

As to onebud, yeah, I don’t know. I’ve not been keeping great track of exactly who interviewed when and how many times. It’s possible they meant to refer to Poles’ second interview, not first, since I do recall that Eberflus interviewed last week and then again on Monday, a day before Poles was hired. Did they end up pushing back that Eberflus interview? I don’t recall.

No I’m fairly certain Jahns said Poles essentially said I want to choose the coach or I’m going to Minneapolis.

 

[dbldrew]

Ok so you wasted two paragraphs saying you didnt suggest it was better only to then admit that yes you were claiming it was better.

I dont want to keepnthe OC. I want the OC to turn Fields into Brady or Wilson or Allen and then be rewarded by getting a HC gig. Then the QB coach likely gets promoted to OC keeps a lot of things and adds his wrinkles so that Fields can continue learning.

Being in the same system the whole time can cause stagnation I think guys like Brady, Wilson, Manning were helped by having new OCs coming in with fresh perspective while building on what came before.

where is my quote did I say it would be better?

 

[remydat]

where is my quote did I say it would be better?

I said "suggest" which does not mean you said it explicitly. Claiming something would be short lived while something else would last for 10 years is clearly suggesting the latter is better.

I have no idea why you would pretend that was not your intent here.

 

[dbldrew]

But the D minded HC drafted and developed Brady while having multiple OCs so your point here is stupid. Reid didnt win any SB without Mahomes either.

that was with a conversation with Leomaz trying to make the claim that Mahomes was the reason for Reids success.. which is factually not true.. yes a great QB helped put a great HC over the top to win the superbowl, but Reid was extremely successful long before Mahomes was his QB

BB hasnt played without Brady for an extended period of time yet but it took him only 2 years to make the playoffs without with the QB you were dick riding all year. A rookie no less.

Yes that QB played well because he had an offensive genius as his OC.. will be interesting to see what happens to him if McDaniel's leaves..

Either way I'm sitting pretty.. If Jones plays like crap without McDaniel's it helps make my point in this thread, If Jones plays great then it makes my point in the Fields vs Jones thread...

 

[dbldrew]

I said "suggest" which does not mean you said it explicitly. Claiming something would be short lived while something else would last for 10 years is clearly suggesting the latter is better.

I have no idea why you would pretend that was not your intent here.

and where did I say that in this post where you said "only to then admit that yes you were claiming it was better"
Or that it would last 10 years?

I'm not confusing things.. I stated I wanted an offensive HC.. then I stated the reasons why I felt that way.

I also have stated multiple times I'm not making any predictions.. I just stated what I wanted and why I wanted it. Simple as that.

Well I guess thats not completely true.. I did make the prediction that if we get this great offensive minded OC that it will be short lived because he will get plucked for a HC job..
I also see you avoided my question to you about how would you go about keeping this great offensive minded OC?

your just getting confused with your own vortex here remy..

If you want to quote a post where I said something.. make sure you quote the post where I actually said it..

 

[remydat]

that was with a conversation with Leomaz trying to make the claim that Mahomes was the reason for Reids success.. which is factually not true.. yes a great QB helped put a great HC over the top to win the superbowl, but Reid was extremely successful long before Mahomes was his QB

Yes that QB played well because he had an offensive genius as his OC.. will be interesting to see what happens to him if McDaniel's leaves..

Either way I'm sitting pretty.. If Jones plays like crap without McDaniel's it helps make my point in this thread, If Jones plays great then it makes my point in the Fields vs Jones thread...

Ok so you disagreed with the comment about Reid and decided to make an even dumber comment about BB.

Think that QB played well because he has a D minded HC that puts the right people around him.

And yes if you take contradictory positions then you are bound to be correct on one of them. The problem is you are bound to be wrong on one of them too and you just come off as a bipolar nutter whose arguments contradict each other.

 

[remydat]

and where did I say that in this post where you said "only to then admit that yes you were claiming it was better"
Or that it would last 10 years?



your just getting confused with your own vortex here remy..

If you want to quote a post where I said something.. make sure you quote the post where I actually said it..

You are lost.

I literally just told you what the issue was.. you quoted it

Get the CEO HC that ALSO is an offensive guy means that Fields can stick with his system for the next 10+ years.. VS ANY success we have on O will be contributed 100% to our OC and the chance of Fields learning his 3rd system in 3 years goes up a lot..

This is an offensive league guys,that is driven by the QB that should of been the priority.

Here you say you want an OC minded HC so Fields can stay in the system for 10+ years. As opposed to Fields having to learn 3 systems in 3 years. Like stop fucking lying dude. You are clearly suggesting the former is better than the latter.

Well thats based on a massive turnaround with fields in 1 year. Even if it takes 2 years before the OC gets plucked.. or 3 years etc... I'm saying the best thing is to have it so your great OC NEVER gets plucked.. how can we do that? that great OC has to be the HC..

The rules are massive lopsided towards the offensive side of things. We can take advantage of that and protect one of the most important assets by making sure he can never get plucked or go with a defensive HC and run the risk of losing that great OC you had..

The problem with building around a Defensive HC is any amount of success you have is going to be short lived.

it would be like drafting a QB and only give him 1 year deals and allow him to test the free agency market every year.. if that QB has any amount of success he is gone..

Here you say a DC minded HCs success will be short lived.

Simple question. Based on the above, which are you suggesting is better? Be honest.

 

[dbldrew]

You are lost.



Here you say you want an OC minded HC so Fields can stay in the system for 10+ years. As opposed to Fields having to learn 3 systems in 3 years. Like stop fucking lying dude. You are clearly suggesting the former is better than the latter.



Here you say a DC minded HCs success will be short lived.

Simple question. Based on the above, which are you suggesting is better? Be honest.

not lost Remy ..

I said this..

I'm not confusing things.. I stated I wanted an offensive HC.. then I stated the reasons why I felt that way.

I also have stated multiple times I'm not making any predictions.. I just stated what I wanted and why I wanted it. Simple as that.

Well I guess thats not completely true.. I did make the prediction that if we get this great offensive minded OC that it will be short lived because he will get plucked for a HC job..
I also see you avoided my question to you about how would you go about keeping this great offensive minded OC?

and you quoted that post and said this..

Ok so you wasted two paragraphs saying you didnt suggest it was better only to then admit that yes you were claiming it was better.

in my above post I said no such thing that I just admitted to anything was better like you just claimed when you quoted my post..

Now your going back to other posts where I said locking up a great offensive mind for 10+ years..

If you want to talk about my reasoning for wanting to lock up a couch for 10+ years then go ahead and quote that, but you quoting this...

"I'm not confusing things.. I stated I wanted an offensive HC.. then I stated the reasons why I felt that way.

I also have stated multiple times I'm not making any predictions.. I just stated what I wanted and why I wanted it. Simple as that.

Well I guess thats not completely true.. I did make the prediction that if we get this great offensive minded OC that it will be short lived because he will get plucked for a HC job.."

And then clamed I said something in the above post that I didnt..
Again Remy you are vortexing yourself into confusion..