The NFL Thread

'O Zio said:

I get that he's "tied" to the fate of Trubisky and I suppose has been given this coach hire as a final opportunity given that Fox supposedly wasn't "his guy" as they say. However, I'm not entirely convinced he should've been given this chance. Yes, Trubisky looks like he has a lot of potential and may well go on to be the franchise QB they've been desperate for for years, but even if he does, I'm not sure that that necessarily overrides all the other stuff he's done. He came into the job on the basis of wanting to build from the draft, and that's fine, but his record hasn't been THAT good. He's made some good picks, most notably probably Jordan Howard off the top of my head, and obviously Trubisky, but he's also made some bad picks too. Then when you look at the free agent market he's been absolutely woeful for the most part. Combine that with some of the baffling decisions to cut some key players as well and overall I'd say he's done OK at best, if not slightly below expectations even, but Trubisky has drummed up enoguh excitement/hype to distract people from the other failings.

OK so he inherited a bad roster and came in after years of mismanagement by others, but that defense applies to Fox as well does it not? The difference is Pace was the one who had control over the roster, with Fox having pretty much no input whatsoever if reports are to be believed. Like I say, I think the poor record was ultimately what made them ditch Fox but IMO Pace is equally culpable. I'm not necessarily saying they should fire him as well, just it seems like he's getting off very lightly almost purely down to the fact that he drafted Trubisky and I feel like giving him a 2 year extension the day they fire Fox sends out the message that Pace has been doing an outstanding job despite Fox fucking it up for him, which isn't really the case if you ask me. On the other hand, I've heard the argument that it'll help with head coach hires if the GM they're interviewing with is locked in for the duration of their proposed contract, which I can understand to an extent.

As you say, it will be an interesting 6 months or so one way or another. I'm still not entirely confident in Pace's ability to pick the right coach, even less so if there's interference from the non-football guys as seems to be the case, but I guess we'll see. Whatever happens we need to do whatever it takes to get at least one elite level WR in. As talented as Trubisky is, he's very inexperienced, even at NCAA level, and the Bears are setting him up to fail by giving him possibly the worst set of WRs in the NFL to throw to. When you compare that to what Watson has to work with at Houston it's not wonder he's looking the better player at first glance because he has people who can still get the catch and cover up for him even when his throws are off.

Click to expand...

Vinny_Sammways_left_peg said:

There is alot you say here that I wanted to debate on but considering it's been three seasons worth of Fox and he is gone, there isn't a great deal of use it would do either of us.

I will say your point about Watson is an interesting one. Watson took Clemson to how many bowl games? His record spoke for itself. I don't know how many people saw Trubisky being in front of Watson based on his total 13 game college career Vs Watsons star studded collegiate career. Draftniks perhaps? Will say though, had Pace drafted Watson and the same injury had occurred to him, considering what has happened with Kevin White, the Chicago media, let alone the fans would have pillored Pace, he may well have gone with Fox had that been the case.

It's interesting to envision what Pace saw in Trubisky and the coaching staff he now puts in place around him. They have to show improvement this year otherwise that hot seat Pace is kinda on will be even warmer this time next year.

Click to expand...

Dirty Ewok said:

The draft is lottery.

I am not sure we can say 100% that Trubisky is a bust yet but from a view of this year alone it isn't surprising that Watson had more success in Houston than Trubisky had in Chicago. Watson had a long track record of success and went to a Houston team that (mostly) had the pieces you would want for immediate success...an offense that wasn't going to need to rely on him because of the RBs and good receivers. Watson was (initially) being asked to "don't lose games"...be safe, don't make stupid mistakes, let the running game control the clock and the defence (before a series of injuries) win the game. It was the perfect set up for Watson to perform (similar to Prescot in Dallas the year before) and Watson has the talent to make the jump quickly. Trubisky had a tire fire in Chicago to step into.

But the which QB should be taken is a riddle that the NFL has struggled with for years. Remember the debate around Manning or Leaf? Manning was the golden boy out of high school and then was the golden boy coming out of college yet Leaf had a bigger arm and more "upside" in the eyes of some scouts.

in 2012 scouts felt that Russell Wilson (who had been a 4 year starter between NC State and Wisconsin) and had shown he was an accurate passer with good touch and a strong arm. But NFL scouts felt that RG3, Tannehill, Brandon Weeden and Brock Osweiler were all better selections than him. In 1983 Todd Blackledge, Tony Eason and Ken O'Brien were all thought to be better selections than Dan Marino.

Not to mention in 2000 Chad Pennington, Giovanni Carmazzi, Chris Redman, Tee Martin, Marc Bulger and Spergon Wynn were all more preferred QBs than Tom Brady.

There is a fair amount of guesswork (they can call it whatever they want but it is guesswork) in figuring out which player will succeed and which will fail once they make it into the league.

I am more amazed when teams like Cleveland can't seem to just luck into a good choice at QB with the number of chances they have had at it.

Click to expand...

werty said:

Raiders giving Gruden a 10 year, $100 million contract!

Click to expand...

WorcesterTHFC said:

I don't get the fuss over Gruden. He hasn't coached in the league for almost a decade, and his record, apart from the 2002 Super Bowl-winning season, is pretty mediocre. As he only took his team to a Conference Championship game one other season (the Raiders, who lost to Baltimore in 2000), 2002 has to be seen as a blip, albeit a glorious one for him and the team, which has played only two post-season games since - losses in the Wild Card games in 2005 and 2007.

Click to expand...

'O Zio said:

Agree. It's a very weird situation. If they want to take a punt on him after being out for so long, then so be it, but the fact still remains that you're taking a punt, so why the hell would you give the guy a 10-year contract? Just seems bizarre to me. Surely wait a couple of years and see if he's still got it before you go throwing all your eggs into one basket like that.

Click to expand...

werty said:

Probably needed to do something huge to get him to leave doing MNF.

Click to expand...

'O Zio said:

Agree. It's a very weird situation. If they want to take a punt on him after being out for so long, then so be it, but the fact still remains that you're taking a punt, so why the hell would you give the guy a 10-year contract? Just seems bizarre to me. Surely wait a couple of years and see if he's still got it before you go throwing all your eggs into one basket like that.

Click to expand...

werty said:

Probably needed to do something huge to get him to leave doing MNF.

Click to expand...

WorcesterTHFC said:

I don't get the fuss over Gruden. He hasn't coached in the league for almost a decade, and his record, apart from the 2002 Super Bowl-winning season, is pretty mediocre. As he only took his team to a Conference Championship game one other season (the Raiders, who lost to Baltimore in 2000), 2002 has to be seen as a blip, albeit a glorious one for him and the team, which has played only two post-season games since - losses in the Wild Card games in 2005 and 2007.

Click to expand...