For Those Unhappy With the Hire of Emery.................

Doesn't sound like Emery knows how to judge a coach

http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/...0-31093926.jpg New Bears general manager Phil Emery fields media questions Monday at Halas Hall. (Phil Velasquez/Tribune Photo)

Steve Rosenbloom The RosenBlog 11:39 a.m. CST, January 31, 2012




Phil Emery got so revved up that he forgot reality. No, wait, Emery didn’t get revved up at his introductory news conference. Emery seems incapable of getting revved up.

So, maybe Emery was just so focused on offering snappy catchphrases about “leadership’’ instead of coming off as the guy in charge that he lost track of the truth. Or at least a clue.

Emery was asked whether he could fire coach Lovie Smith, which we know he can’t do until next year because that’s what team president Ted Phillips said because presumably that’s what Viginia McCaskey told him to say.

Or maybe new McChairman George McCaskey told Phillips that’s what mom said. Whatever, Emery has no authority over the coach this year the way real organizations works.

So, Emery was asked if a decision on Smith next year would be based on making the playoffs this season. Simple question. Direct. A lot more direct and a lot more lucid that Emery’s gobbledygook answer:

“I don’t look at it in terms of standards. We’re all evaluated every day on how we interact with people, how we provide leadership, how we use our talent and resources.’’

What. A. Crock. (So I guess you expected that on his first day of employment he'd try his hardest to alienate himself with his HC, the guy he needs to plot a 2012 turn around with, by saying that his ass is gone if he doesn't win. You're pissed because he didn't answer the question the way YOU thought it should be answered. You're an idiot you do know that don't you? Would you tell your editorial assistant she'd be fired if she missed a typo on your first day at work?)

Sorry, pal, but that’s not the case with a coach. Coaches indeed have a standard. It’s called the playoffs. Coaches are not evaluated every day on “interacting with people.’’ Wait, did Emery really say “interacting with people’’? What hooey. Like Smith is a Wal-Mart greeter.

No, coaches are not evaluated on interacting with people or leadership or using talent and resources. Coaches are evaluated on winning and losing. Period. Next.

Winning is the only barometer for coaches. Losing is unemployment. (What a brilliant deduction. If you hadn't said that I'd have never guessed that's why coaches and GM's get fired. Thank you ever so much for doing exactly what you accuse Emery of a little farther down the page. Playing us stupid! Pot meet kettle.)

Emery apparently has a problem speaking plainly at times, same as Jerry Angelo was always getting flagged for false starts on his clichés. Emery loves him some buzzwords, doesn't he? Yeah, he'll drop some “standards’’ and “expertise’’ on you, which is a professional way of telling Bears fans nothing.

Clearly, Emery views the media as the enemy because reporters are trying to find out things that Emery doesn’t want anyone to know. Fine. We’ve been hated by better people, but I get that.

Part of Emery’s plan apparently is to bore the media to death. Emery is channeling his inner Belichick in terms of meaningless blather. Better he should channel his inner Belichick in evaluating talent, but that’s thousands of mind-numbing non-answers away. (Belichick
is one of the most boring tight lipped coaches in the NFL but he wins because he doesn't tip his hand the way you think Emery should do just for your benefit. If you were doing any real investigative reporting rather than sitting on your ass typing this into your word processor you'd understand that using the Pats evaluation process is exactly what he proposes to do. Didn't he work under former Pats GM's or VP's?)

In the meantime, don’t play Bears fans for stupid. (I guess what you mean here is don't treat me like I'm stupid (this article is proving that you are). I don't feel like I've been played stupid at all and I'd be willing to bet I've been a Bears fan longer than you've been alive)

Just for yuks, let’s say Virginia McCaskey allows Emery to exercise his alleged contractual right to replace the coach and Emery fires Smith next year. Why do you think Emery would do that?

Do you think he would fire the coach for failing to “interact with people’’? Do you think he would fire Smith for failing to “provide leadership’’? Do you think he would whack Smith for failing to “use talent and resources’’?

No way. No freakin’ way.

Sure, Emery would blather on about those concepts. I guarantee that. But Smith would be fired for one reason: failing to make the playoffs for what would be the fifth time in six years.

That’s the “standard.’’ That’s the reality. I don’t know why Emery found it so hard to sound as if he was in the real world. (If you have all the answers already why did you need Emery to say it. Just because you wanted him to and you thought he should, LMFAO. He doesn't owe you a God Damn thing)

Wait, wasn’t Emery at the Naval Academy? Go ask those people if “interacting with people’’ and “leadership’’ and “resources’’ matter more than winning or losing when it comes to war. (Of course it does and you're an idiot if you think it doesn't. Officers provide leadership, platoon leaders use the resources made available to them and they all interact with one another in some way or another. Exactly what to YOU think wins or loses wars. Apparently you were never in the military. Let me guess, you probably "told" didn't you.)

The Bears are all about winning championships. The new McChairman said it. The old team president said it. Championships. Super Bowls. That’s the standard for the Bears.

Except for the new GM when he assesses the man holding the one position that can affect that outcome more than any other. So Bears. (In your reality Steve, not in anyone elses)




Copyright © 2012, Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i.../rating_on.jpghttp://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i.../rating_on.jpghttp://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i...rating_off.jpghttp://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i...rating_off.jpghttp://www.chicagotribune.com/hive/i...rating_off.jpg

I post a lot of Rosenbloom's columns because they're often times funny in a lightly sarcastic way and they provide a different viewpoint many of which I agree with. But for those who think I always agree I submit the above.

It's the biggest pile of horse shit I've ever seen this guy write. Rosenbloom proposes to tell us the way he believes Emery should have answered questions and they're question that he already knows the answer to and he tells us this. But somehow he has this insecure need to actually have Emery admit it. It's either that or he hates the Bears choice and wanted someone else as GM.

This reminds me of a scene in "The Godfather". The one time when Michael doesn't pay attention to his own instincts and inner voice. Insecurity creeps in for the first time since he hatched his plot and he requires an admission of the truth. Does anyone know which scene I'm referring to? It comes right at the end of the movie.

After standing as Godfather for Carla and Carlo's baby outside the church he says something has come up and sends Carlo back to the compound and tells the women that they'll join them in Vegas in a couple of days. When Michael returns home he finds Carlo making a call and Carlo quickly hangs up. Then Michael starts grilling him about how he set up Sonny to be assassinated. At first Carlo denies it but after Michael tells him he won't be murdered for telling him the truth, that he'll just be kept out of the family business, he admits that it was Don Barzini who approached him to set Sonny up. Of course Michael's way of terminating him from the family business was to permanently terminate Carlo.

Michael already knew the answer but somehow he needed to have Carlos say it. Was it insecurity that drove him to remove all doubt, or was it because Michael's hatred of Carlo was so great that he just wanted the pleasure of actually hearing him admit it before having him killed? I really don't think it had anything to do with removing doubt.

Crazy people do crazy things and no one could claim that arranging for the assassination of all of your rivals in one day was an act of sanity. Neither is Rosenbloom's insistence that Emery answer questions his way. He's an idiot.

"you can make some of the people happy all of the time,
you can make all of the people happy some of the time,
but you cant make all of the people happy al of the time."

Especially sports journalists who are covering a GM who is as boring as bread and butter in his inaugural news conference.

For those not happy w/this hiring; b/c of the 1st interview...get bent.

There's no way one can really judge the hire of Emery until around his 3rd year. This year's draft really isn't even a fair assessment of him either since he is not instituting his player grading scale ("the NE way") or even hiring new personal/scouts until after the draft (via B&B interview). So besides his final say in the war room its still – somewhat – business as usually for the current staff/scouts prepping for the draft.

As far as "not knowing how to judge a coach" ... it's all a BS pander for the naysayers by Rosenbloom. Lovie fully knows what's at stake this upcoming season and i'm sure behind closed doors Emery will lay out his expectations for the upcoming season. But I'm sure only an armageddon-like season is the only thing that would lead to Lovie going unsigned in large part due to the loyal backing at the top of the organization.

Fans, who up to this point, aren't giving this guy a chance are the same fans that jump off the ledge when we go 0-1 in the preseason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by draw2anderson35

There's no way one can really judge the hire of Emery until around his 3rd year. This year's draft really isn't even a fair assessment of him either since he is not instituting his player grading scale ("the NE way") or even hiring new personal/scouts until after the draft (via B&B interview). So besides his final say in the war room its still – somewhat – business as usually for the current staff/scouts prepping for the draft.

As far as "not knowing how to judge a coach" ... it's all a BS pander for the naysayers by Rosenbloom. Lovie fully knows what's at stake this upcoming season and i'm sure behind closed doors Emery will lay out his expectations for the upcoming season. But I'm sure only an armageddon-like season is the only thing that would lead to Lovie going unsigned in large part due to the loyal backing at the top of the organization.

---

Exactly. Like I posted before the Trib sponsored a poll about who liked or disliked the hire. At the point which I read it, with over 5000 people responding, 51% were opposed and 49% in favor. You're right, apparently this was written to appeal to that 51%. It would be ridiculous to come in with a heavy hand and shoot from the hip your first day on the job. I can't think of one top NFL executive who'd even think about doing it that way. Not even Bill Parcells.

So what if he isn't exciting as Ozzie Guillen in interviews and doesn't tell people to go whistle dixie like Jerry Angelo.

What matters is that he gets the job done and brings some Super Bowl wins to the city Chicago.

I think we all know just what Rosenbozo brings to the table. NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO. He's nothing more than ........ Marriotti V 2.0
I don't even find him amusing.
Simply annoying and not worth my time. He should simply ...........
:stfu:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omc1969

I think we all know just what Rosenbozo brings to the table. NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO. He's nothing more than ........ Marriotti V 2.0
I don't even find him amusing.
Simply annoying and not worth my time. He should simply ...........
:stfu:

---

Well, Rosenbloom and Morrissey are like two peas in a pod. They think they know everything and to hell with anyone else who has an differing opinion. But what can I say? What they get put into print and published online gets them mucho dinero and a hell of a lot of notoreity.