Dan Pompei's Mailbag: Q&A with Bears Fans

**soulman** · 01-28-2013, 05:19 AM

Reader Q&A: Dan Pompei's Bears mailbag

The Tribune's Bears columnist answers questions about Manti Te'o's NFL prospects, the draft and the new Bears coach.

Manti Te'o. (Getty photo / January 24, 2013)

By Dan Pompei, Tribune reporter 4:22 p.m. CST, January 24, 2013

I am sure you've getting this question a lot lately, but, if Manti Te'o falls to the Bears in the first round of the draft, should they make him Brian Urlacher's heir apparent? -- Donald Tursman, Los Angeles

If you are asking if I would eliminate Te'o from consideration because of his girlfriend hoax, the answer is absolutely not. The Bears, and every other team, have a lot of investigating to do before they can feel comfortable with Te'o. But my guess is eventually they will feel comfortable enough to give him a first-round grade, which his play certainly warrants. There is risk with virtually every draft pick, it's just a matter of what kind of risk and how much risk. The risk with Te'o either is that you are drafting someone who is completely gullible or someone who is a bit of a con artist, or maybe a little of both. I think in the end, most teams will be able to live with Te'o. And I think he would be a fine heir apparent to Urlacher.

As big of a need as we have for an O lineman, what if, by some quirk of fate, Tyler Eifert was available at No. 20. Do we automatically grab him? -- Bill Pazoles, Oak Forest

If Eifert were available, Bears would have to strongly consider it. I would say it probably depends which offensive tackles or middle linebackers are still on the board. If an offensive tackle with a superior or similar grade is there, he's the pick. If a middle linebacker with a superior grade is there, he would be the pick. Eifert, or Stanford's Zach Ertz, would be fine choices. But the other two positions are more vital to the success of the Bears.

Dan, If you were Phil Emery, (you look like a younger version), would you have interviewed that many candidates? Do you think he knew going in who he preferred? -- Jon, Livonia, Mich.

Thanks for the compliment, Jon. I would have interviewed as many candidates as I was intrigued with. And that probably would have been a pretty big number. I have heard Emery criticized for interviewing so many, but I still don't see what the downside was. Being too prepared? Having too much information? Being able to compare too many people? People and companies who specialize in hiring practices often advocate casting wide nets for key positions. And they should, in my opinion. I can assure you Emery did not have his mind made up "going in," or when Jimmy Johnson came out with his famous tweet, or until shortly before Brad Biggs broke the story that Marc Trestman was the man.

Why did Phil Emery interview Dave Toub for the head-coaching job when he knew all along that he would hiring an offensive guru? If he chose not to interview Toub, we might still have the best special teams coordinator in the NFL. -- Martin Ritt, Decatur

My guess is Emery would take offense to your question. He is a very sincere man. And a very thoughtful man. He was not interviewing anyone for show, or doing anyone favors. He was interviewing candidates because he thought they were legitimate, and he wanted to hear what they had to say. Was his preference that he hire an offensive-minded coach? I would say so. But that doesn't mean he was closing his mind to the possibility of doing it another way if the interviews led him in that direction.

Dan, I understand Phil Emery letting Dave Toub interview with other teams once he was eliminated from head-coach consideration. I don't understand letting him leave before announcing the new head coach, or finding out if Trestman might want to keep Toub. Toub is a proven, top-five coach in an area Bears fans know often decides games. The Bears need to get younger, and have only five draft picks this year. At the very least, shouldn't Emery have gotten some kind of compensation, even if just a seventh-round pick, for such a valuable asset? Why are the Bears helping K.C.? -- Mark Early, Arlington, Va.

Toub did not want to stay in Chicago after being passed over for the head-coaching job. Emery was doing Toub a favor by letting him leave. But he also was protecting the best interests of the organization. Would you really want to force someone to work for you when he didn't want to and risk having a disgruntled employee? Getting compensation from the Chiefs was not an option. The NFL's Anti-Tampering Policy for 2012 says this about trade compensation: "Except for Head Coaches and High-Level Club Employees (club presidents, general managers, and persons with equivalent responsibility and authority), clubs are not permitted to exchange draft choices or cash for the release of individuals who are under contract to another organization."

OK, it's a well-known fact that Kellen Davis didn't live up to Da Bears' expectations after receiving his two-year contract. When I think of what Tim Jennings did during the offseason to hone his catching skills working with the jugs machine got me thinking: Why not have Davis and even Matt Spaeth do the same? -- Chuck Durante, Guilin, China

Every player whose job depends on catching the ball spends a lot of time on the jugs machine. Jennings put in some overtime last year. I'm not so sure the jugs machine work is what turned Jennings into a ballhawk. I think he changed his mentality. His emphasis became going after the football instead of making the tackle. And he rededicated himself. Jennings' transformation was very unusual. You can't expect other players to duplicate what he did. All that being said, Davis could use all the jugs work he can get. More jugs work wouldn't guarantee he will be a better receiver, however.

I like the choice for coach, but I just saw the Bears' schedule for next year and it is very tough. It's going to be an accomplishment to be 8-8. The playoffs won't likely be coming for a while, even if Mr. Trestman is a genius. Your thoughts? -- Felipe Marks, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

The schedule is always tough. And you can't sit here in January and judge how good opponents will be in the fall. A lot will change between now and then. The Bears won 10 games last year. They easily could have won 12. I think a lot of teams that have to play the Bears are looking at the Bears as a team they could have trouble beating.

Does Mr. Trestman embrace Mr. Cutler, or will the new head coach try to find his own franchise QB after Cutler's contract is up? -- I'mDanToo, Minocqua, Wis.

Trestman would be foolish not to do everything within his power to make it work with Cutler. He has an opportunity to win now with an upper-echelon talent. Trestman probably never will work with a more talented quarterback for the rest of his career. The issue isn't whether Trestman will embrace Cutler. It's whether Cutler will embrace Trestman. If he doesn't, I believe the Bears will have a new quarterback in 2014.

I think the Bears should find a QB in free agency to push Jay Cutler from the bench. Someone he believes might replace him. I believe that Matt Flynn should be that guy. What are the chances the Bears make a run at Matt in free agency? -- Darrel, Missoula, Mont.

I don't believe Flynn will be available except through trade. It is possible the Seahawks will cut him, but he is under contract for next year. The only way I would make a run at someone like Flynn is if I thought he could be the eventual starter. Flynn's presence would create a lot of attention and tension, and it might not serve the team well. The Bears probably would be best served by bringing back Jason Campbell. I think that's probably what they will do, or try to do.

Why would the Bears hire a quarterbacks coach that failed in New York? -- John Reed, Aurora

Is there a quarterbacks coach who could have not failed in New York? Or is there a quarterbacks coach who has been around for any period of time who has not "failed" somewhere? You can't judge a position coach by how his player or players perform in relation to other players in the league. You have to judge them based on how those players perform in relation to their abilities, taking into account their circumstances. Matt Cavanaugh has been around a long time. He wouldn't have lasted 16 years as an NFL assistant if he were a clown. Cavanaugh is known as a coach who pushes quarterbacks hard and gets them to pay attention to details.

If the Bears sign or draft a left tackle, could J'Marcus Webb be moved to guard? It seems to me that he doesn't have the quickness to play outside but he could be a good run-blocker with his size. -- Dave Andre, Berwyn

Can't see that, Dave. Webb has prototypical size for a tackle. His arms are too long for guard. And he sometimes doesn't bend as well as he should and loses leverage. If Webb isn't a tackle, he isn't anything.

Out of curiousity, how many of the Bears' offensive linemen could start on other teams? Would any of them rank in the top 10-15 at their respective positions? -- epagnucc@yahoo.com

Lance Louis could start on a lot of teams and would, in my opinion, rank in the top 10-to-15 right guards in the league. Roberto Garza could start on a number of teams. On a good day, J'Marcus Webb could start on a number of teams. The problem is he doesn't always have a good day. If Gabe Carimi can get his strength and confidence back, he can start on a number of teams. The Bears' line might not be quite as bleak as it appears. But it still needs some upgrades.

Do you see any of the three best free agent tackles -- Jake Long, Ryan Clady, Brendan Albert -- hitting free agency without their club placing the franchise tag on them? Should the Bears pursue one of these three? -- Alex Navarro, El Paso, Tex.

Long has the best chance of hitting free agency. Clady has virtually no chance. Albert probably won't become a free agent, but his situation is a little hard to read because the Chiefs have a new general manager and head coach. But it would be foolish to let a good left tackle walk. I would say the Bears should pursue Long if they could get him at a reasonable price. And they probably can't. Long has not played up to his reputation the last couple of years, which explains why the Dolphins would consider allowing him to leave.

dpompei@tribune.com

Twitter@danpompei

Copyright © 2013 Chicago Tribune Company, LLC

**soulman** · 01-28-2013, 06:02 AM

I'm just gonna comment on two areas that to me are high on the priority list as far as my interests are concerned. That's QB and the OLine.

I think Phil Emery has done all he can to find the best marriage between HC and QB that he can and Trestman talked about the need for that type of a relationship to take place so you know that both are focused on turning Cutler into the top NFL QB that he's always had the potential to be. Matt Cavanaugh is also an experienced and knowledgeable QB coach. So Emery surrounded Cutler with the best he can provide him with in the way of help and coaching and there are no more outs, no more excuses. He needs to accept his responsibility as leader of the offense and step up. His future as the Bears QB depends on it.

Pompei seems to feel that the Bears will try to bring Campbell back which I guess shouldn't be a huge surprise. Emery made it pretty clear that he believes there's a need for vet depth behind Cutler and Trestman has worked with Campbell before he was drafted so just like Cutler there is some history there no matter how minor. The only sticking point for me will be what's it gonna cost vs a less expensive option if that even exists. I guess if he'd have thought McCown was good enough he's never have signed Campbell to begin with so it's not likely that will change. So I guess if he feels we can afford it Campbell may be #2 again and maybe that's not all bad just in case re-signing Cutler becomes difficult or even worse, not an option.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw Lance Louis as one of the top OGs in the NFL last year. I think he goes on to point out that at one time or another all of them played well last year but the game after game consistency was lacking. I'm gonna blame a large part of that on Tice's offensive schemes and his asking for and expecting things that either couldn't be done or assignments that were misunderstood. We actually did better playing Martz schemes than Tice's so that pretty much tells us where Tice rated.

We do need some help and some upgrading and I'm sure that will be taken care of this offseason but with some better coaching and an overall better offensive scheme I think all of those guys can improve, even Webb. Carimi needs to get his football strength and confidence back again and I think Kromer and the new strength coach will work on that. I don't think he was the wrong pick and I think he has some good football ahead of him.

If we could fill that need at LT with a vet who's more consistent than Webb and draft a good LG/OC prospect I think we'll be in good shape. Webb can be move to RT to compete with Carimi and no matter who wins that battle we'll have an experienced swing tackle. We need Louis back at full strength but if we get and OC like Jones and he can start then we have Garza back to fill one of the OG spots. James Brown has some potential to get much better and we can still add more competition either through FA or in the draft. I think Phil Emery is a much better judge of second tier talent with upside than JA could ever hope to be.

So that's all I'll comment on. I'll leave opinions on a MLB and TE for others to share their thoughts about.

**JustAnotherBearsFan99** · 01-28-2013, 07:22 AM

Out of curiousity, how many of the Bears' offensive linemen could start on other teams? Would any of them rank in the top 10-15 at their respective positions? -- epagnucc@yahoo.com

Lance Louis could start on a lot of teams and would, in my opinion, rank in the top 10-to-15 right guards in the league. Roberto Garza could start on a number of teams. On a good day, J'Marcus Webb could start on a number of teams. The problem is he doesn't always have a good day. If Gabe Carimi can get his strength and confidence back, he can start on a number of teams. The Bears' line might not be quite as bleak as it appears. But it still needs some upgrades.

My gut feeling is that we may have some decent OL players on the roster. Maybe not great, but decent enough to at least be solid backups. It will be VERY interesting to me, to see what a new coaching staff thinks about our existing players. We may be surprised by how they grade out a player or two who we thought were not very good, but the new coaches think ARE good. Players who were coached down under the Tice debacle.

I believe that if Tice were to have come back this year, he would have continued to move players around and screw them up. Lance Louis may have ended up a tackle. Carimi could have ended up anywhere. The only guy who would have been guaranteed a starting slot in his old position would be the untouchable Webb.

Under the new coaches, I expect them to grade out the talent - both existing and the new talent brought in through the 2013 draft and FA - and they will set players in ONE position. Guards will remain guards. Tackles will stay at tackle. The oline will be set early enough that the 5 players can learn to play at a high level as a unit. 5 players playing as 1 cohesive unit. Over time, the oline should be more and more solid.

This is basic Oline 101 coaching. Something that eluded Mike Tice.

**Riczaj01** · 01-28-2013, 09:42 AM

It will be a sad day if we waste any more cap or time on Jason Campbell as a backup, no bigger lie has ever been created then about the need of a "vet backup". What you need is a good backup. Young qb's can be good, if given time to be so. Vet backups are rarely good or they would have never been let go in FA.

I don't think the OL is as bad as it looked either, but I think there is a lot of work to do, and we still need a FA and rookie in the early rounds.

Davis needs work on the jugs; but might not make him better....semi tru, it won't make him better, he's just not that good.

I like most of the coachs/assistants so far. I'm glad only a very few are left from Lovie's regime and nothing so far tells me there will be a definate downgrade.

**soulman** · 01-28-2013, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

It will be a sad day if we waste any more cap or time on Jason Campbell as a backup, no bigger lie has ever been created then about the need of a "vet backup". What you need is a good backup. Young qb's can be good, if given time to be so. Vet backups are rarely good or they would have never been let go in FA.

I don't think the OL is as bad as it looked either, but I think there is a lot of work to do, and we still need a FA and rookie in the early rounds.

Davis needs work on the jugs; but might not make him better....semi tru, it won't make him better, he's just not that good.

I like most of the coachs/assistants so far. I'm glad only a very few are left from Lovie's regime and nothing so far tells me there will be a definate downgrade.

Apparently Phil Emery thinks the opposite Ric. We could have stuck with McCown for less than a mil but he felt we needed better. I'd like to see us spend far less than $3.5 mil though so we'll see what kind of price Campbell commands. The going rate for a #2 used to be around $2 mil and I think we paid a little too much for Campbell given what we got for our money but I'm not gonna blame Campbell for the lion's share of his woes last year.

The guy is a decent #2 and might be able to start somewhere else and you know that's what he's looking for. So we'll see what Trestman feels he needs. Maybe there's another guy who would do as well or better in Trestman's eyes but we sure as hell aren't going into the season with just Blanchard and McCown has already been found lacking once last year. So what's the answer.

You said it yourself. We need a good young QB but it takes time to get them to that point and that's time we don't have unless we can find a guy whose had most of that work done already by someone else. I'm all for other and less expensive options if they exists but if not I can live with Campbell. Trestman will have him far more prepared to run his offense than Tice did his.

**Riczaj01** · 01-28-2013, 10:52 AM

We don't know what Emery is going to do? So we don't know what he thinks. or did I miss the Campbell resigning?

No Campbell is trash, just like Orton and Rex and most former starters; which is why they are no longer starters, and not good backups.

How long did it take TJ Yates last year? How long did it take Kapernick? How long did it take Brady all those years ago? Or Wilson or any of the # of young qb's currently starting? What it takes is getting the right guy and actually trying to develop him w/the starter.

**soulman** · 01-28-2013, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

We don't know what Emery is going to do? So we don't know what he thinks. or did I miss the Campbell resigning?

No Campbell is trash, just like Orton and Rex and most former starters; which is why they are no longer starters, and not good backups.

How long did it take TJ Yates last year? How long did it take Kapernick? How long did it take Brady all those years ago? Or Wilson or any of the # of young qb's currently starting? What it takes is getting the right guy and actually trying to develop him w/the starter.

We know that he's not gonna get caught without someone who can take snaps and have a fighting chance of winning a football game and as it stands the only two guys on his roster that meet those qualifications are McCown and Campbell. But that's not to say he and Trestman may not find better and I think I DID say that Ric.

Kaepernick was around for a year and a half before he started. Yates played some last year as a rookie and not much at all this year but he was no All Pro and he threw as many picks as he did TDs. Actually his numbers weren't much different than Campbells so how does that make Yates a find and Campbell trash? Over his career Campbell has been a far more productive QB than Yates.

Brady didn't start until his second year either but I'll give you one on Russell Wilson. He had a tremendous year and was probably grossly underrated in the draft because of his size. If we can draft a guy like that in the 3rd round this year I'm all for it. Oooops, we don't have a 3rd round pick to spend on a QB do we? So one guy comes out college and makes waves vs how many have come and failed? I'd say I like my odds better than yours since you cherry pick only those who've had success. Orton got us to the playoffs his rookie year too so why is he now trash and worthless as a backup.

The bottom line here is that I'm neither advocating for or against Campbell but I am advocating for an experienced #2 QB. No more Caleb Hanie fiascoes thank you very much. It pretty much comes down to what Trestman believes he needs. If he asks Emery to keep Campbell around and it's affordable then that probably what will happen and that's all Pompei was saying. It nothing more than an educated guess based on some logic and knowledge of who the decision makers are.

What's your guess based on...emotion or that little devil on your shoulder that dislikes vet QBs?

**MPBears68** · 01-28-2013, 12:37 PM

This may be over-optimistic and wishful thinking but...with some OL upgrades, better scheme/coaching, and running a quick pass WCO, I am hoping that will make Cutler much less vulnerable this coming year and reduce his likelihood of injury. It's a risk, yes, but something to consider. I know you can never eliminate the possibility of your QB getting hurt and missing some time. But maybe just maybe if the above scenario is realistic, Emery can gamble a bit more by not having to invest so much $ in the second string QB.

Blanchard is not going to be ready to be a viable #2 (yet anyway). It's also not likely that we will draft a QB this year high enough to be anything but a multi-season project. There's a compromise here between risking a "Caleb Hanie fiasco" with an unready udfa and over-paying for a "vet backup" (both of which we have done recently). Basically three possibilities to secure the #2 spot with a guy who could plausibly "take snaps and manage a win" w/o being overly wasteful money-wise:

A) Campbell is willing to come back at a substantial pay cut (maybe could happen)
B) Another vet FA of half-decent caliber is willing to sign similarly (not much there I agree, so this seems unlikely)

OR

C) Why not just keep McC for a measly $900k and meanwhile task him and Cavanaugh to work big time with Blanch? We all know that MT is going to devote most of his time to Cutler as pretty much his personal coach. I know McCown is no star, no kidding. But he's an experienced game manager vet who's cheap and has been with the team for a year and a half. Yeah, it's a risk but less so than relying upon an udfa or late rounder to be your #2. And a lot cheaper than paying Campbell $3 million+. Meanwhile, see if Blanchard has anything and could be a viable 2nd stringer by 2014.

Just a thought and a middle ground compromise.

**soulman** · 01-28-2013, 01:13 PM

Personally I'd probably be more in favor of keeping McCown too but Pompei seems to be predicting right now that Campbell will be back. If that's the case I'm just laying out the rationale for doing it based on where I think Emery might be coming from.

I'd like it far more if we had a $2 mil backup than a $3.5 mil backup too but will Campbell sign for that little or can we find another who will because for whatever reason McCown didn't stick around last year. I think it's all up to Trestman and the balancing act they need to do with the cap. How much can we afford to pay for insurance against Cutler's injury?

But when Ric comes in and says that it's nonsense that a vet QB is needed then I have to question where that idea comes from. Maybe if Blanchard sticks around for another year and takes a few more snaps he may be able to play but right now I don't think so and no rookie draftee or UDFA is likely to be able to handle it either so an experienced QB IS needed right now.

Who that guy should be isn't up to me and I really don't care if it's Campbell or not. I'll just trust them to make whatever choice is best for the team but I do object when somebody calls Campbell trash. That he isn't and never has been.

**Riczaj01** · 01-28-2013, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by soulman

We know that he's not gonna get caught without someone who can take snaps and have a fighting chance of winning a football game and as it stands the only two guys on his roster that meet those qualifications are McCown and Campbell. But that's not to say he and Trestman may not find better and I think I DID say that Ric.

Kaepernick was around for a year and a half before he started. Yates played some last year as a rookie and not much at all this year but he was no All Pro and he threw as many picks as he did TDs. Actually his numbers weren't much different than Campbells so how does that make Yates a find and Campbell trash? Over his career Campbell has been a far more productive QB than Yates.

Brady didn't start until his second year either but I'll give you one on Russell Wilson. He had a tremendous year and was probably grossly underrated in the draft because of his size. If we can draft a guy like that in the 3rd round this year I'm all for it. Oooops, we don't have a 3rd round pick to spend on a QB do we? So one guy comes out college and makes waves vs how many have come and failed? I'd say I like my odds better than yours since you cherry pick only those who've had success. Orton got us to the playoffs his rookie year too so why is he now trash and worthless as a backup.

The bottom line here is that I'm neither advocating for or against Campbell but I am advocating for an experienced #2 QB. No more Caleb Hanie fiascoes thank you very much. It pretty much comes down to what Trestman believes he needs. If he asks Emery to keep Campbell around and it's affordable then that probably what will happen and that's all Pompei was saying. It nothing more than an educated guess based on some logic and knowledge of who the decision makers are.

What's your guess based on...emotion or that little devil on your shoulder that dislikes vet QBs?

Yates didn't loook all pro, but did lead that team to the playoffs, what part of all pro did you see out of Campbell or McCown the last few years, wait they didn't, they looked worse then a 3rd string rookie. Wanna know the difference between vets and backups? cap space that's it.
Neither is taking you far. It wasn't about 1 year or 2 years, it was about young verse vet, was Brady a seasoned vet? Or Kapernick? No, neither was Yates, but all were as good or better then the best vet backup former starters at the time, and cheaper.
Vet backups are as logical starters is a myth, they suck it's why they are no longer starters, and if you have no potential to be a starter, you have no real potential to be a backup to the starter.

Thread: Dan Pompei's Mailbag: Q&A with Bears Fans

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Dan Pompei's Mailbag: Q&A with Bears Fans

Posting Permissions