Thread: The Speculation on a New GM Begins.........................

There's alot of talk on Chicago sports radio that the Bears are allowing Lovie to have sizable input in this GM search. And they're all in agreement that this is the wrong way to go about it, inferring that the Bears are mucking up this process ie : Lovie shouldn't have input in the guy who might have the ability to fire him. They argue about " who has the power ". I see the point but I disagree.

I don't think that 99% of GM's have ever had that kind of power. There's always a few above them who have input and bigger cards to play with. Hiring / firing is a joint decision.

The most important thing is improving talent eval imo .... not " who has the power ".

I will say this though. If a new GM wants to pick player A and gets over-ruled for player B........ and player A turns out better, that's the kind of thing that's gonna get old real quick.

And word is now, that JA was a consensus builder when it came to draft choices : he and Lovie and some others would be in agreement " we're gonna pick this guy ". If that IS the case .... then Lovie needs to admit that he's also had a hand in a lot of swings and misses, and probably should quit meddling (especially when it comes to the offensive side of the ball). Also needs to quit putting the D first - truly good O's shred defenses most of the time anyways no matter how 'good' they are. It's time to start putting points on the board ..... for entire seasons, not just some of the time.

Originally Posted by motownbear

I bet Ruskill gets the job

Betcha $1000 Bears Bucks he doesn't.

Originally Posted by Blue Horse-shoe

There's alot of talk on Chicago sports radio that the Bears are allowing Lovie to have sizable input in this GM search. And they're all in agreement that this is the wrong way to go about it, inferring that the Bears are mucking up this process ie : Lovie shouldn't have input in the guy who might have the ability to fire him. They argue about " who has the power ". I see the point but I disagree.

I don't think that 99% of GM's have ever had that kind of power. There's always a few above them who have input and bigger cards to play with. Hiring / firing is a joint decision.

The most important thing is improving talent eval imo .... not " who has the power ".

I will say this though. If a new GM wants to pick player A and gets over-ruled for player B........ and player A turns out better, that's the kind of thing that's gonna get old real quick.

And word is now, that JA was a consensus builder when it came to draft choices : he and Lovie and some others would be in agreement " we're gonna pick this guy ". If that IS the case .... then Lovie needs to admit that he's also had a hand in a lot of swings and misses, and probably should quit meddling (especially when it comes to the offensive side of the ball). Also needs to quit putting the D first - truly good O's shred defenses most of the time anyways no matter how 'good' they are. It's time to start putting points on the board ..... for entire seasons, not just some of the time.

Good post but some of this is wrong. No one even knows just how much input Lovie has so all of this is pure speculation on the part of certain talking heads. Yesterday in an interview with Tom Waddle John Clayton said that while it was unconventional in Lovie's case it made some sense. He doesn't think Lovie is a hard guy to work with at all and that it shouldn't become a problem with him complicating the process. I don't think Lovie and Angelo were as tight as they led fans to believe.

There also has been nothing said about Lovie having any personnel authority that stretches beyond what any coach normally has. In fact Ted Phillips made a point of stating that. Truth be told I think there was a hell of a lot more friction between Lovie and Angelo than they let on. That tweet Des Clark put up the other day indicated that things had become a mess over the past two years and that it was not a fun place to be. That's just the opposite of the united front they presented to everyone.

Lovie knows he has one year to turn things around or his ass may be gone too and I think he's just trying to protect himself against being setup for failure by a guy who wants him out and his own guy in. If Lovie isn't allowed some input they might just as well let Ruskell have it for a year and turn everything upside down after 2012 and I think that's what they're trying to avoid. This is a reload on the run strategy.

Originally Posted by soulman

Good post but some of this is wrong. No one even knows just how much input Lovie has so all of this is pure speculation on the part of certain talking heads. Yesterday in an interview with Tom Waddle John Clayton said that while it was unconventional in Lovie's case it made some sense. He doesn't think Lovie is a hard guy to work with at all and that it shouldn't become a problem with him complicating the process. I don't think Lovie and Angelo were as tight as they led fans to believe.

There also has been nothing said about Lovie having any personnel authority that stretches beyond what any coach normally has. In fact Ted Phillips made a point of stating that. Truth be told I think there was a hell of a lot more friction between Lovie and Angelo than they let on. That tweet Des Clark put up the other day indicated that things had become a mess over the past two years and that it was not a fun place to be. That's just the opposite of the united front they presented to everyone.

Lovie knows he has one year to turn things around or his ass may be gone too and I think he's just trying to protect himself against being setup for failure by a guy who wants him out and his own guy in. If Lovie isn't allowed some input they might just as well let Ruskell have it for a year and turn everything upside down after 2012 and I think that's what they're trying to avoid. This is a reload on the run strategy.

Valid points. I wonder about the Des Clark comment tho .... might just be sour grapes on some level coming from a guy who got cut. If the environment was so bad why do we hear the comments about how much the players love and want to play for Lovie ? And on Sunday, whatever problems one has with whatever coach , athletes are competitors so that crap gets forgotten for the 3hrs between the lines. Yes Martz was a problem .... but not to the point where guys went out expecting to lose cuz they were annoyed in practice that week.

Lovie this, Lovie that. He's tied into the organization, he's an easy coach to work with... really? People are buying this?

The whole thing is ass-backwards.

Cleaning house means cleaning house. You don't throw out the garbage and leave a steaming pile of dog crap on the carpet.