Bears

'Ridiculous' search? Maybe. Maybe not.

973749.png

'Ridiculous' search? Maybe. Maybe not.

The Bears coach search has now gone to at least 13 names, which is by any standard a lot. But maybe not by all that much.

The search firm entrusted with developing GM candidates in 2001 (culminating with the Jerry Angelo hiring) came up with a portfolio of 10, which Ted Phillips trimmed to three finalists.

After the Bears fired Dave Wannstedt in 1998, Mark Hatley was ordered by Michael McCaskey to begin a search for candidates. Hatley went on the road, talked to more than a dozen (including Bill Belichick, Brian Billick and Jim Haslett hows that for a list of ones that got away?), and eventually developed five candidates to bring to Halas Hall for final interviews: Gunther Cunningham, Dick Jauron, Sherm Lewis, Dave McGinnis and Joe Pendry.

The current search process is directed toward developing 2-3 finalists.

An old friend from my long-ago days in corporate work, a senior executive with vast experience in matters of hiring and interviewing, shared some observations on the Bears process so far looking for a new head coach.

Bottom line, he said, whether the Bears have someone in mind or not, 13 candidates is ridiculous! My former company clients, when retaining a search firm to look for a new executive, would usually look at anywhere between three and six candidates before they found the best candidate; on rare occasion the company would request to see additional candidates.

I also think the new GM doesnt want to make a major size mistake; isnt this his first major hire since he took over running the Bears?

This definitely is Emerys first major hire. He did hire some personnel staff but the most-major moves there were promotions of Chris Ballard and Marty Barrett from area scouts to directors of pro and college scouting, respectively.

This is from outside the organization. And as too many organizations can attest, a wrong hire is worse than a slow hire.

Bears' offense ranks among the NFL's worst analytically, new study finds

Bears' offense ranks among the NFL's worst analytically, new study finds

The Bears' offense was bad last year. I know that. You know that. The Bears (hopefully?) know that. 

But *extremely 30 For 30 voice* what if I told you just how bad they really were? Would you be interested in that? You wouldn't be? Sorry, got a quota to hit. 

In a fascinating new study written by Rotoworld's Hayden Weeks, the lack of modern wrinkles in Chicago's offense are made painstakingly clear. Weeks took an analytically-slanted look at every NFL offense, and friends, it's a rough read: 

4th Down Aggressiveness: 23rd
Pass Rate on Early Downs: 9th
Pass Rate While Trailing: 13th
Play-Action Rate: 27th
Downfield Pass Rate: 16th
Middle of the Field Pass Rate: 5th
Pre-Snap Motion Percentage: 30th
Outside Run Rate: 20th
Shotgun Run Rate: 5th
Offensive Pace: 22nd

Overall, Weeks ranks the Bears as the 22nd best offense in football based on the above metrics. If there's any hope whatsoever, it comes from his short write up of Nagy's offense – but still, temper your expectations: 

If I incorporated the front office, the Bears would be much lower, but I think Nagy holds his own in terms of in-game analytics usage. He’s just been dealt a horrible hand at quarterback and with the offensive line. Nagy opted for a decent pass rate on early downs (9th) and while trailing (13th), plus uses shotgun a lot and targets the middle of the field (5th). There are a few things holding him back from jumping into Tier 3, however. The Bears weren’t aggressive enough on fourth downs (23rd) and didn't use play action (27th) or pre-snap motion (30th) nearly enough. Maybe the quarterback change sparks change.

Bears: Use play action! Just try it! I promise you'll like it. 

Did Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes' mega-deal actually leave money on table?

Did Chiefs QB Patrick Mahomes' mega-deal actually leave money on table?

Patrick Mahomes forever altered the sports contract landscape with his landmark 10-year, $450 million extension that became official this week. It made all the sense in the world to lock up the 2018 MVP whose team could very easily be coming off back-to-back Super Bowl titles if not for a nail-biting loss to the eventual-champion Patriots in the 2019 AFC Championship game. But Brad Spielberger, who does extensive salary cap research and writing for OverTheCap.com, believes Mahomes could have massively cashed in again if he took a different approach to these negotiations

Coming in, we knew this was going to be a groundbreaking deal in some respects... I really didn’t think he was going to give up that many years of control – it’s basically a lifetime contract. Again, I know it’s maybe up to half a billion dollars, so it sounds crazy to maybe question his thinking there, but in 5, 6, 7 years down the road, he probably could have gotten another deal that would have made this one look small in comparison.

Every team in the league would love this deal… every front office in the NFL would say, the fact that they have this much time on this deal is the best part about it. Again, it’s a monstrous deal and there are outs at certain points so it’s not so strict as to say he can’t get out of it or he can’t work with it. If I’m his agent, I would push for 5 years, $200M fully guaranteed; let’s go mega-Kirk Cousins on steroids, let’s change the game, and then let’s see if we can sign a deal for $50M a year when that one runs out.

The scenario painted there is an interesting one, and might have allowed Mahomes to reset the quarterback market twice in a decade… but we’ll never know. For more from Spielberger, including how the Mahomes deal impacts the Dak Prescott and Deshaun Watson negotiations and what the Bears’ offseason moves tell him about the mindset of Ryan Pace’s front office, listen to the most recent edition of the Under Center podcast here or below.