iamshack

Aww Shucks... wuh wuh wuh wuhhhhhhhh

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 11:27 AM) No he doesn't. He's an upgrade to what KC has had in recent years but he's just brutal in his game management, play calling and decision making. He has misused KC's strength (their running game) that has cost them at least 3 wins over the past two seasons. It's so frustrating to watch sometimes. Hah, the grass is not always greener. The old adage is true...no matter how hot the chick is, there is a guy somewhere that is sick of smelling her s***.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 11:11 AM) I understand but Trestman inherited what was viewed by most pundits as a potential playoff team. That Bears team was 10-6 and didn't make the playoffs due to Cutlers injury (largely). I think that context is important because we reportedly (and I still have never heard anything that has stated otherwise) had our pick of any of the coaches from that class. I agree defense struggled more and while I'll blame injuries and personell for some of it, I also have heard too many people say our schemes are weak under Tucker. In football, more than any other sport, coaching matters. Funny thing is I like the coaches Trestman brought in this year and the coaches that stink were the ones that Emery brought in (Tucker & DeCamillis). Well, for what it's worth, I was on the Chip Kelly and then the Bruce Arians train.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:54 AM) Think about this again... Harbaugh is 40-15 as a head coach in this league with a .727 winning percentage, having made the playoffs in each of his first 3 full season (including 1 superbowl appearance) and inherited a 6-10 team with a so-called bust in Alex Smith. Trestman is 11-13 with no postseason appearances and inherited a 10 win team. Well, Andy Reid is doing the same thing with KC as Harbaugh did with SF (in regards to Smith). Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say Harbaugh isn't a good football coach. But those signs you wrote of a few posts ago...I just think I am seeing them with Harbaugh too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 11:04 AM) It got him a whole lot of money and probably his 2nd job, so it seems like a good amount of weight. I don't think it gets you much from the fanbase, other than a few more years of patience? Just look at the difference between how the 1985 team and the 2006 team is thought of.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:54 AM) Think about this again... Harbaugh is 40-15 as a head coach in this league with a .727 winning percentage, having made the playoffs in each of his first 3 full season (including 1 superbowl appearance) and inherited a 6-10 team with a so-called bust in Alex Smith. Trestman is 11-13 with no postseason appearances and inherited a 10 win team. I don't think this is particularly fair. Yes, they had been 10-6 the previous year, but the offense was a disaster, and the defense was starting a steep decline due to age. 10-6 is not really an accurate indicator of what the Bears were at the outset of 2013.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:49 AM) I guess the simple question in reply is how much weight we put into "getting the super bowl but not winning it"? The simple answer is ask Lovie Smith.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:48 AM) I think a lot of the bigger media had questioned the move when it was made. The reality was an alternative option was there, which was to franchise the QB. In fact, a lot of people said why give Cutler that much money when you had McCown produce just as well and have you seen enough out of Jay to think that he is different than the pre-trestman Jay. I am not saying everyone thought that, but there were plenty that did. If I recall, the view of Cutler signing for so much money was not thought of as a good idea by all, not even a vast majority of national pundits. In terms of Harbaugh, this Niners team has had injuries to a ton of stars and most everyone would have expected a slow start given. Harbaugh inherited an awful team and turned them almost immediately into a perennial super bowl contender. He has had success with two different QB's. And when you refer to Reid, I believe I was adamant that he was option 1 through 10 for the Bears to hire. I wanted Reid more then anyone and was very clear about how great of a coach I thought he was. Was he ready to leave Philly, sure, but was he still elite, absolutely and while KC isn't great, he's done a heck of a lot for a team that isn't exactly loaded with talent and a lot of that has to do with strong coaching across the board. I just have a very hard time defending what the Bears have done. I think a lot of the warnings signs were already there. Whether we chose to see them or not, it wasn't like warnings signs weren't there and stuff came totally unexpected. I am an optimist by nature and I have been more negative about certain instances of this football team in the last two years then in any year with Lovie Smith. And I'm not saying we would be better / worse with Lovie, etc. Not getting into that, just looking at the current facts and we went from a roster generally perceived as being one to contend (and viewed as the top destination) to potentially having a not so good roster, with a QB whose cap hit far exceeds his value. I was one of those who asked "What is the difference between what Cutler would produce and what McCown would produce in this system, and is that really greater than what that difference will cost in terms of signing Cutler long term?" I honestly was willing to look at other alternatives, but given the situation we were in, and the way Cutler had been playing when healthy, I wasn't particularly upset when they gave him the extension. I agree there was a minority of others who held this view, however, it was just that - a minority. Had we let Cutler walk and resigned McCown, all hell would have broken loose. It's easy to imagine it not, given the 8 games we have played thus far this year, but the fact is it would have. Despite his flaws, Cutler is still EASILY the best quarterback we have ever had long-term. Is that a high threshold? Not particularly, but that history is exactly what made extending Cutler more of a necessity in most peoples' minds. As to Harbaugh, let's be realistic here...he didn't turn water into wine, did he? The Niners were coming off a decade of absolutely sucking, which resulted in some opportunities to reshape their roster through free agency and the draft. Not taking away from the roster Harbaugh helped build, but perennial Super Bowl contender? Well, I'm not quite ready to concede that.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:19 AM) And when your biggest move was giving a QB like Jay this much money. If Jay doesn't pan out and we stink, Emery has to go down with the ship as well. Fair or not, he has made some pretty big personell mistakes in his time. It's easy to criticize this move today. However, this move was not particularly questioned when it was made. The alternative was to franchise him and shift towards developing the next quarterback, but given our relative success with that over the years (as well as the general difficulty that is thought to entail throughout the League), I'm not sure that move wouldn't have been met with far worse backlash (at the time, as well as today).

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:18 AM) I don't really see how Emery was more so the next Belichick vs. the other guys you mentioned? Belicheck, prior to taking the Pats job, was extremely well thought of and had turned down previous coaching offers from what I recall. By the way, I wish we could have any of those coaches on that list you put out. I'd rank McCarthy last on that list of 3 guys though. You will point out the Steelers inconsistencies but in general, I like Tomlin as a leader and I like the physicality in which his teams play (and his record is still pretty good, including success in the postseason). He's also had to deal with the turning of the roster, etc, and it appears the players like playing for him, but at the same time, he doesn't put up with excuses, etc. Belichick was a decent coach but certainly not viewed as the next big thing or anything. And that's fine...obviously he had some incredible capacity for innovation, which, when paired with a HoF quarterback, has resulted in some incredible results. It is that sort of innovative capacity which I think Emery was looking for when he hired Trestman.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:14 AM) Easy. From whta I've heard, the front office doesn't like him. The players, while a few might not like him, seem to produce for him. Players don't like Belliceck a lot either but he wins and they put up with it. Harbaugh's biggest issue is the disconnect between him and the front office. Harbaugh has an excellent track record in the pros and college. Trestman has the track record of a guy that could never be a head coach. Just saying what the rest of the league thought for 10+ years and one organization took a chance and it appears such decision was a bad one. I've said from the beginning my concerns with him were on leading the organization and the more and more that comes out here it appears that is absolutely the case. I hope we see them come out and smash the Packers but I have zero optimism right now (and I'm an optimist). The Niners had put together an extremely talented roster and failed to get over the hump. They have lost some of that depth and are now 4-4. One game better than the Bears. They haven't played Seattle yet. Why are we pining for someone else's mediocrity over our own at this point? I know we need to look deeper than just this year's team's current record. I realize a coach can have a bad year and still remain a good coach. Just look at what Andy Reid has done with KC after 2012 in Philadelphia. That being said, I don't view Harbaugh as any being an incredible organizational leader. As you admitted, he seems to have issues with his own front office. He has behaved questionably on the sidelines at times. He is allowing a player alleged to have beaten a female to continue to play. He made the decision to elevate Kaepernick over Alex Smith, despite the latter's success. The jury is still out on the results of that decision, but they certainly are in question at this point. I confess I don't follow the Niners extremely closely, but I just don't see much there in terms of Harbaugh's leadership capabilities that would convince me to give up the necessary dollars and authority to bring him in right now.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:02 AM) But they were VERY strong before they "tuned him out." I'll take his success compared to what we have been through. Given the likely commitment that might require financially and in terms of authority, I'll pass. But reasonable people can certainly disagree.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 10:01 AM) I'm not sure a GM should get two cracks at an HC, especially when they fired a coach after a 10-6 campaign. I don't think there should be any arbitrary or inflexible rules, but what do I know. I do like the offensive roster he has put together, despite his decision to extend Cutler. Rating his work on the defensive end of the ball is a bit more complex. The defense was going to need a bit of an overhaul regardless, and the jury is still out on his restructuring of that, IMHO.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 09:48 AM) What NFL team doesnt eventually tune out the head coach? A long term HC in the NFL is an outlier at this point. Yeah, but that team is as big a mess as ours is at this point. Just doesn't seem like a great solution to me. I could certainly be wrong.

QUOTE (bmags @ Nov 3, 2014 -> 09:19 AM) The thing is, I'm kind of terrified the lesson the McCaskeys would have learned from the Emery experiment. I honestly have no idea what their takeaway would be. I hope it isn't "the Emery experiment," and more so "the Trestman experiment." I think Emery tried to hire the next Belichick instead of the next John Harbaugh or Mike Tomlin or Mike McCarthy.

Considering that we've heard SF has tuned Harbaugh out, why do we want to bring him here again?

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Nov 2, 2014 -> 01:34 PM) After what we saw from Weeden today, all those second guessers can politely shut the f*** up about saying he should have finished the game last week. He's terrible. Arizona is a little better than Washington.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 02:52 PM) You could most definitely see MLB force the Cubs to compensate the Rays in some manner they find sufficient yet reasonable. Perhaps it means the Cubs give up a player or two, but it's not going to be anyone of crazy significance, or perhaps they will get cash reimbursements or who knows. I think they should make them trade stadiums.

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 11:53 AM) Got laid off on Tuesday and just got an offer for a new job today. Man it's nice having marketable skills. Because he insisted you were fudging your hours?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 11:45 AM) The Cubs odds are always much lower than they should be, because so many more people bet on them for fun than any other team. Yeah, but at times certain books will still trust their own analysis despite having some exposure on a team. It's tough to figure out why the line is moving sometimes.

QUOTE (shysocks @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 11:37 AM) That's gotta be a reflection of all the action they're getting because of the hire, not an actual belief that their likelihood of winning increased that much. It's most likely a combination of both.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 30, 2014 -> 09:46 AM) Does it remind you to get out there and do stuff? I wish they had something that motivated you with non stop ridicule. Thats something I could get behind. This is why we got married, Rock.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 29, 2014 -> 09:58 PM) It's all cliche. So Maddon is regarded as a great manager. A genius. Big deal. All these managers are basically the same. They make moves that get torn apart. How bout Boche tonight. He should be lauded forever for the way he set that up. They get the lead and Baumgarner is ready to mow down KC for five more innings. Hilarious. Nobody could have orchestrated it better. Meanwhile KC has a perceived buffoon managing the team and they are one Alex Gordon sprint home from tying it and winning it in extras. It's all cliche I tell you. Maddon is just another man. He's no magic elixir. Players win games though I will admit being partial to one, Ozzie Guillen. One thing that impresses me about Maddon is he appears to be a very progressive, forward thinker. This enables him to understand and implement the analytical strategies of the organization more efficiently and effectively than perhaps some others. As others have said, I also think Maddon is excellent with young players and with shaping a particular culture. All of these qualities would be ideal for the Cubs, or any team that is looking to reverse a recent losing course through development of young talent.

I know I'd be excited if the White Sox hired him.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Oct 29, 2014 -> 03:11 PM) People are betting the over. I think it started at 53.5 or 54.5. That's 7-8 games better than last year. Assuming Rose is staying healthy, they win 60-62 IMO. But, you just can't assume that anymore. I'm betting he gets banged up at some point, Noah stays banged up for a while. Under for me. And I don't really care so long as everyone is ready to go come playoff time. I think this is in deference and respect to the kind of coach Thibs is as well.