Bears 9.0: Thomas Brown HC audition, offseason/draft prep

[jnrjr79]

When pressed on who will have the final say in the decision on the next head coach if there's disagreement among Bears leaders, Warren indicated it would be Poles.

"We'll work that out," Warren said. "He's the general manager, he's the head of football operations, so he will have the final say if it ever got to that point. I'm confident we'll work through it."

Translation: ‘Poles has the final say, as long as he agrees with me’

Lol, so f-ing Bears-y.

[fleet]

I liked Brown's direct approach of taking everything 1 step at a time. He has a lot on his plate and if he delivers a couple of wins and they end up 6-11 but Caleb continues to progress I think that would be a good end to the season. I think he will get a fair shot to interview for the HC role and it should be a very competitive & through process, if you have any faith in Warren's statement about George letting them "throw all the resources needed" to find the right HC.

None, really. If there’s a cheaper alternative, the Bears will take it. The Bears aren’t the team to break the bank and also pay Eberflus. But at this point, if Thomas Brown is the floor, and he has shown upside ability to pull this team together and get their potential out, there’s not a super compelling reason to look any further if the Bears win a few of the remaining games. So, the cheap option aint all that bad in that case. I hope the Bears get the opportunity to take it. And so do the Bears, hope

[dougthonus]

I don't think the good ones do. There's currently 10 HC's with at least 5 years in the same job.

Yeah, maybe you are right, and I'm thinking too much of the NBA, though really elite coaches can stay for very long times, I'm not convinced that a good coach can't come in for 3-5 years and then kind of burn out, it depends a lot on the org too. Maybe I will rephrase it this way, if you had a guy you had high confidence in over 3-4 years but were scared he might burn guys out after that period of time, I'd be good with that guy.

[mack2354]

If we win 2 out of 3 of our remaining division games when those teams have proven to be good and our giving us their 100% effort fighting for playoff seeding/playoff spot, I'm not sure how you don't bring him back next year.

He basically would be proving he can do the job that everyone "hopes" another coach can do.

If we go 3-2 or worse while only winning 1 out of 3 games then I think there is a conversation to be had for bringing him back versus going in another direction. Going 4-1 or 5-0 should guarantee him the job going forward. It seems there is nothing he could do this season that would satisfy some posters. Strange.

Sent from my SM-A146U using RealGM mobile app

[Betta Bulleavit]

Read on Twitter

He might end up being a great coach... But in no way can the Bears hire him.

Why not? I’m not saying that we should or shouldn’t. But we definitely shouldn’t be taking anything off the table. If the team responds well to him and he presents the characteristics that we’re looking for, why not??

[Betta Bulleavit]

When pressed on who will have the final say in the decision on the next head coach if there's disagreement among Bears leaders, Warren indicated it would be Poles.

"We'll work that out," Warren said. "He's the general manager, he's the head of football operations, so he will have the final say if it ever got to that point. I'm confident we'll work through it."

Translation: ‘Poles has the final say, as long as he agrees with me’

Lol, so f-ing Bears-y.

Or maybe it is exactly what he said it is. It was a direct question to which he gave a direct answer. I’m not sure where all of the pessimism is coming from on that regard.

[jnrjr79]

Translation: ‘Poles has the final say, as long as he agrees with me’

Lol, so f-ing Bears-y.

Or maybe it is exactly what he said it is. It was a direct question to which he gave a direct answer. I’m not sure where all of the pessimism is coming from on that regard.

No, a direct answer would be "it's Ryan's final decision."

This may simply be an awkward answer and perhaps he means that, but saying "we'll work through it" suggests that he's not necessarily just going to green-light Poles's decision.

I'm not even mad about it - it's just amusing.

[Betta Bulleavit]

Lol, so f-ing Bears-y.

Or maybe it is exactly what he said it is. It was a direct question to which he gave a direct answer. I’m not sure where all of the pessimism is coming from on that regard.

No, a direct answer would be "it's Ryan's final decision."

This may simply be an awkward answer and perhaps he means that, but saying "we'll work through it" suggests that he's not necessarily just going to green-light Poles's decision.

I'm not even mad about it - it's just amusing.

I should correct myself.

It was as direct of an answer as he could have given to what was essentially a hypothetical question. I took it as though they will go through the process as a team but that the final call would be Poles’. And I’d like to think that’s the way it should be.

[jnrjr79]

Or maybe it is exactly what he said it is. It was a direct question to which he gave a direct answer. I’m not sure where all of the pessimism is coming from on that regard.

No, a direct answer would be "it's Ryan's final decision."

This may simply be an awkward answer and perhaps he means that, but saying "we'll work through it" suggests that he's not necessarily just going to green-light Poles's decision.

I'm not even mad about it - it's just amusing.

I should correct myself.

It was as direct of an answer as he could have given to what was essentially a hypothetical question. I took it as though they will go through the process as a team but that the final call would be Poles’. And I’d like to think that’s the way it should be.

It was not as direct of an answer as he could give - the one I suggested would be more direct.

But sure, he may just mean "hey, it's all moot if we agree on the guy, but if we disagree, we'll talk about it and it's ultimately Ryan's call." But it can also be read as "it's Ryan's call, but I might try pretty hard to talk him out of it if I don't agree," and given that Warren is Poles's boss, how do you think that might go?

It was just more than it needed to be, and in today's Bears media environment, fairly inevitable that people would pick it apart.

[Jcool0]

Read on Twitter

He might end up being a great coach... But in no way can the Bears hire him.

Why not? I’m not saying that we should or shouldn’t. But we definitely shouldn’t be taking anything off the table. If the team responds well to him and he presents the characteristics that we’re looking for, why not??

He is tied to last head coach. On top of that his experience is mostly bad. So you cant screw this up with Williams by risking it with such an unproven guy. You need new blood in the building.

[Betta Bulleavit]

No, a direct answer would be "it's Ryan's final decision."

This may simply be an awkward answer and perhaps he means that, but saying "we'll work through it" suggests that he's not necessarily just going to green-light Poles's decision.

I'm not even mad about it - it's just amusing.

I should correct myself.

It was as direct of an answer as he could have given to what was essentially a hypothetical question. I took it as though they will go through the process as a team but that the final call would be Poles’. And I’d like to think that’s the way it should be.

It was not as direct of an answer as he could give - the one I suggested would be more direct.

But sure, he may just mean "hey, it's all moot if we agree on the guy, but if we disagree, we'll talk about it and it's ultimately Ryan's call." But it can also be read as "it's Ryan's call, but I might try pretty hard to talk him out of it if I don't agree," and given that Warren is Poles's boss, how do you think that might go?

It was just more than it needed to be, and in today's Bears media environment, fairly inevitable that people would pick it apart.

Meh, it’s all semantics to me. If someone asks me a hypothetical question, I then have to give a hypothetical answer. His answer was one that basically said that it’s gonna be Poles’ call and that if there were disagreements, they’d work through them if that need were to arise. It felt pretty direct to me. But that’s just me.

[TheStig]

Is it just me but they should really fire Kevin Warren. He's not a football guy and he's going to be leading the coaching search and has been here for 2 years and doesn't even have a place he's committed to build the stadium. He comes across as the guy that just likes to run staff meetings. I've seen a few of those videos.

[biggestbullsfan]

Read on Twitter

Very bad look on ownership here

[Betta Bulleavit]

Is it just me but they should really fire Kevin Warren. He's not a football guy and he's going to be leading the coaching search and has been here for 2 years and doesn't even have a place he's committed to build the stadium. He comes across as the guy that just likes to run staff meetings. I've seen a few of those videos.

Why would this be a reason to fire him?

[Betta Bulleavit]

He might end up being a great coach... But in no way can the Bears hire him.

Why not? I’m not saying that we should or shouldn’t. But we definitely shouldn’t be taking anything off the table. If the team responds well to him and he presents the characteristics that we’re looking for, why not??

He is tied to last head coach. On top of that his experience is mostly bad. So you cant screw this up with Williams by risking it with such an unproven guy. You need new blood in the building.

Again, I’m not saying that he should be the hire. But him being tied to the previous coach doesn’t mean that he himself would make a bad coach. Heck, he was tied to the previous OC. However, our offense has been much more lively than it was at any point under said OC.

It’s like I said, if finding the best HC for this team moving forward is the chief objective, then we should not be taking anything off the table at this point.

[nitetrain8603]

Why not? I’m not saying that we should or shouldn’t. But we definitely shouldn’t be taking anything off the table. If the team responds well to him and he presents the characteristics that we’re looking for, why not??

He is tied to last head coach. On top of that his experience is mostly bad. So you cant screw this up with Williams by risking it with such an unproven guy. You need new blood in the building.

Again, I’m not saying that he should be the hire. But him being tied to the previous coach doesn’t mean that he himself would make a bad coach. Heck, he was tied to the previous OC. However, our offense has been much more lively than it was at any point under said OC.

It’s like I said, if finding the best HC for this team moving forward is the chief objective, then we should not be taking anything off the table at this point.

IMO, if he wins out or even goes 4-1, with the offense clicking, good time management, and the players actually do love him, I think he absolutely should have a shot. With that stated, a shot means an interview. I would like to hear how the Bears need to further improve the team from a personnel standpoint and what other coaches he would want to bring in.

He strikes me as a new age Lovie type, in a good way. But that could just be me. With that stated, I fully expect him to go 1-4.

[fleet]

He might end up being a great coach... But in no way can the Bears hire him.

Why not? I’m not saying that we should or shouldn’t. But we definitely shouldn’t be taking anything off the table. If the team responds well to him and he presents the characteristics that we’re looking for, why not??

He is tied to last head coach. On top of that his experience is mostly bad. So you cant screw this up with Williams by risking it with such an unproven guy. You need new blood in the building.

Read on Twitter

At this point.

[fleet]

The way the Bears botched this firing was not a nothing burger according to Hoge

https://www.sportsmockery.com/chicago-bears/chicago-bears-coaching-search-is-reportedly-in-trouble-already/

[TheStig]

Is it just me but they should really fire Kevin Warren. He's not a football guy and he's going to be leading the coaching search and has been here for 2 years and doesn't even have a place he's committed to build the stadium. He comes across as the guy that just likes to run staff meetings. I've seen a few of those videos.

Why would this be a reason to fire him?

Maybe we should let him run the draft next....

[TheStig]

Why not? I’m not saying that we should or shouldn’t. But we definitely shouldn’t be taking anything off the table. If the team responds well to him and he presents the characteristics that we’re looking for, why not??

He is tied to last head coach. On top of that his experience is mostly bad. So you cant screw this up with Williams by risking it with such an unproven guy. You need new blood in the building.

Read on Twitter

At this point.

I don't know. I still think Poles is bright and better than average. Warren is a middle manager. I have no faith in him other than to throw someone under the bus.