The Tebow thing seems like Rex being pissed about him being on the team. "You want me to use Tim Tebow, I'll show you how that hurts us." Switching QBs in the middle of a drive (especially just to run a low-upside running play) is one of the dumbest things you can do. It's only a little less dumb than giving Sanchez a huge contract extension before the season.

All those guys had obvious physical skills, though, and just took time to learn how to play quarterback. Sanchez makes bad decisions, which would seem to be potentially correctable, but he also doesn't seem to have a particularly strong or accurate arm.

I'd easily rather have the decisionmaking than the arm, if given a choice.

I'd easily rather have the decisionmaking than the arm, if given a choice.

This, and I have this thought every time Cutler throws off his ####### back foot into triple coverage.

i have seen lots of qbs with less than mediocre arms get by on intelligence, accuracy and guts

jim mcmahon the last few years of his career

chad pennington obviously

boomer

brad johnson had what i thought was a joke of an arm but the guy would make plays

bernie kosar

Part of the decision making is recognizing that you don't have the arm.

Greg McElroy is the new starting QB for the Jets. He is still beating Tebow even in the NFL.

Greg McElroy is the new starting QB for the Jets. He is still beating Tebow even in the NFL.

Bit early for that. Tebow's already accomplished more in the NFL than McElroy is ever likely to.

The Jets are entertaining, I'll give them that.

I couldn't do anything but laugh after the fumble.

McElroy is not Sanchez or Tebow, so I'm all for him starting.

So, the be the 9,000,000th guy to ask this question: Why the *($# to you acquire Tim Tebow if you're not going to use him?

Was the idea "We'll keep him on the bench until he develops as a quarterback...oh *($# he's not going to develop as a quarterback..."?

So, the be the 9,000,000th guy to ask this question: Why the *($# to you acquire Tim Tebow if you're not going to use him?

Cause they're the Jets.

So, the be the 9,000,000th guy to ask this question: Why the *($# to you acquire Tim Tebow if you're not going to use him?

Was the idea "We'll keep him on the bench until he develops as a quarterback...oh *($# he's not going to develop as a quarterback..."?

i could be wrong, but i would think the acquisition was made without rex ryan buying into it, and if he decides who plays, and if he didn't want tebow in the first place, this would seem to be a likely outcome.

Acquiring a QB without your head coach buying into it seems like a terrible management decision. Not that anyone is going to argue that Jets management/ownership is brilliant.

just to have a bit of fun, i would not be upset if the eagles draft looked something like this:

1, luke joeckel, OT, texas A&M
2, khaseem greene, LB, rutgers
3, joseph fauria, TE, UCLA
4, tavon austin, WR/KR/PR/RB west virginia
5, travis kelce, TE, cincinnati
6, phillip steward, LB, houston
7, will davis, DB, utah state
7, dj hayden, DB, houston


i am fairly sure that i am woefully under-projecting some of these players, but as things stand now, i'd be pretty happy to get either greene or fauria in the 2nd round (where the eagles are currently scheduled to pick 35th), and i'd be happy to get any of the others in the 3rd round (assuming they're not projected to go undrafted).

with joeckel, he should be a plug-and-play tackle, and with the way the eagles look right now, that could be fairly necessary. if the eagles get him, the best case scenario would be a line of peters-mathis-kelce-herremens-joeckel, which looks pretty damn good if those guys come back healthy. assuming that any of them don't, the worst case scenario would be something like joeckel-mathis-reynolds-watkins-kelly, but even then, that joeckel-mathis combination on the left side of the line could be excellent in the run game.

and then at the skill positions, the eagles TE situation needs a significant overhaul. brent celek is now on concussion #62, and his body is 3/4 of the way to broken down. and clay harbor was just put on injured reserve with multiple fractures in his spine. personally, i don't think you can count on either of them. bringing in fauria gives the team a strong red-zone threat, and with travis kelce, the eagles have had a ton of success in drafting from cincinnati (celek, trent cole, and jason kelce (travis's brother) were all drafted from there), so i'll go with that.

and then tavon austin is an explosive playmaker at multiple positions. in the last 2 years, he's had 11 100-yard receiving games and a 300-yard rushing game, in addition to 4 kick return TDs. his size is an issue, but if you're getting him in the 3rd round, that's not much of a risk. if you add him to the depth chart at WR, that gives you something like jackson -> maclin -> avant -> cooper -> austin -> johnson -> mcnutt. there's some overlap between him and damaris johnson, but if they can play, it's not an issue.

and then on defense, the line shouldn't be much of an issue. even if you consider the veterans (cullen jenkins, mike patterson, and trent cole) to be question marks, that still leaves you with brandon graham, vinny curry and phillip hunt at DE, and fletcher cox, cedric thornton and derek landri at DT. that's not exactly a murderers row of pass-rushers, but if you bring back 1 or 2 of those veterans, and add another 2 guys in free agency, there's some good competition there.

at LB, adding greene and steward gives you two really aggressive playmakers. the two combined for 350 tackles, 16 sacks, 4 interceptions, and 11 forced fumbles this past year. i don't know whether all of that translates to pro-bowl LB, but at the least, you should sure up the coverage units. considering how much of a weakness the position was for the eagles last year, if you add greene and steward to ryans, kendricks, and chaney, that position could become a huge strength almost overnight.

and then at DB, davis and hayden have combined for 34 passes defensed, 9 interceptions, and 120 tackles this year. hayden has serious medical concerns, but if you get him healthy, he's a player.

So...going into the season, the Jets don't like Sanchez enough to commit to him, and thus acquire Tim Tebow. Then they don't like Tim Tebow enough to actually play him instead of Sanchez. And now they're looking to dump both.

Wow.

So...going into the season, the Jets don't like Sanchez enough to commit to him, and thus acquire Tim Tebow. Then they don't like Tim Tebow enough to actually play him instead of Sanchez. And now they're looking to dump both.

Wow.

And they can't trade Sanchez b/c they just signed him to a ridiculous extension this past offseason

I'm just struck dumb by the idea that after watching Sanchez crap the bed most of the season, the Jets coaching staff so fervently believe Tebow could be so much worse. How much more worse can you get?

That's because Tebow would be that much worse. At least Sanchez has played decently in half of his game.

On the NHL front, games though Jan. 14th are canceled.

The worst part is that the Jets schedule has been so easy that they won't even get a high pick.

On the NHL front, games though Jan. 14th are canceled.

and didn't they say that the "drop-dead" date was in mid january?


at this point, i think the way that this will play out is that on january 7th, the NHL and the NHLPA will get together for a 15 hour bargaining session ending with donald fehr announcing at a press conference that the two sides have reached an agreement and the season will start in two weeks...and then 20 minutes later, fehr will have another press conference where he announces that gary bettman has left a voicemail on his phone telling him there's no deal and the season has been cancelled.

I don't think it happens this season. The NHL has chance after chance to make a deal and haven't. I don't think the owners realized how limited their leverage is. There's multiple leagues that can allow players to earn a decent deal.

ah the jets. you beat my wins estimate but exceeded the expected clownshoes quotient

ha, ha.

ah the jets. you beat my wins estimate but exceeded the expected clownshoes quotient

ha, ha.

They're just like the GOP Harv.

Well except for beating the wins estimate part.

On the NHL front, games though Jan. 14th are canceled.

At least the Amerks are playing 3 times while I'm home next week.

Thom Brennaman is 50 times worse than Joe Buck or Jim Nance or any other bad play-by-play man. His voice makes him sound like every word out of his mouth is serious moralizing.

Giants look like a dead team walking. Everything's coming up Vikings today.

Yes, I think Vikings need just a win next week and any Giants losses, OR 2 Seahawks losses.
It helps them that though they lost to Redskins, they can't meet up at 10-6 because that would be a Redskins division title. I guess that could be a problem if they both go 9-7, however.

Heck of a season for Peanut Tillman

Heck of a season for Peanut Tillman

him and jj watt are having two of the most unique seasons in NFL history from a statistical perspective. tillman has 10 forced fumbles and 3 interceptions returned for TDs, while watt has 20 sacks and 15 passes defensed. if tillman only had the touchdowns or only had the forced fumbles, that would be an outstanding season. and if watt only had the sacks or only had the tipped passes, that, too, would be an outstanding season.

but the fact that each player is doing two things that are almost unprecedented in NFL history is just really fun to watch.

Another new proposal from the NHL to the NHLPA. I think this time, they will be able to negotiate the details and start playing in about 2 weeks.

Unless they don't.

If the NHL owners are ready to negotiate, and none of that "THIS REALLY IS THE FINAL OFFER. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT CRAP", that they're been trying to pull, then it might work. But I doubt it.

Larry Brooks ?@NYP_Brooksie
Talk within NHL of flipping Winnipeg and Columbus for this year only pending future realignment...

I assume moving the Blue Jackets to Winnipeg for a season. But I don't know how that makes sense.

I assume moving the Blue Jackets to Winnipeg for a season. But I don't know how that makes sense.

Less travel for Winnipeg, who are currently in the Southeast division.

I thought it meant the franchises were straight-up swapping. Like, the team that is currently the Winnipeg Jets would now play home games in Columbus. That would be more...interesting.

If the NHL owners are ready to negotiate, and none of that "THIS REALLY IS THE FINAL OFFER. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT CRAP", that they're been trying to pull, then it might work. But I doubt it.

Since they have apparently actually made some more concessions in the players' direction, despite all the previous bulls##t about final offer, let's hope so. I think the owners realize that simply cannot lose an entire season, and the next 3-5 days can get it done. But this is purely hope, conjecture and optimism. I sure as hell wouldn't bet a nickel on it.

I thought it meant the franchises were straight-up swapping. Like, the team that is currently the Winnipeg Jets would now play home games in Columbus. That would be more...interesting.

That would be pretty interesting. And it would be a terrible deal for Winnipeg.

That would be pretty interesting. And it would be a terrible deal for Winnipeg.

They really need to get Nashville into the Southeast, Minnesota in the Central, and Winnipeg in the NW. Unless they aim for a more radical plan of 4 divisions again. There's been a lot of expectation that there is an expansion in the next few years to get to 32 teams - which would make 4 divisions more likely then than now.

the nfl may have some of the worst rules, that was a fumble

The old Sanchez Special is back.

the nfl may have some of the worst rules, that was a fumble

The Andrew Luck one? Yeah, either a fumble or a lateral. I'm not sure how the Colts still have the ball.

Less travel for Winnipeg, who are currently in the Southeast division.

All former Atlanta franchises should be in the Southeast.

Cutler is not liking the lions players diving at his knees, nor should he

the eagles are going to finish this season with a 4-12 record, and their 4 wins will have been by a combined 6 points. i do not think this team will ever get enough recognition for how truly miserable they have been. there is literally not a single thing that they are good at. they are terrible at passing, at pass protection, at running (or at least at not fumbling), they're awful in the pass rush, awful in pass coverage, awful in stopping the run. and they are absolutely horrendous in all phases of special teams.

All former Atlanta franchises should be in the Southeast.

If would definitely make sense for Calgary and Winnipeg to be in the Southeast together. Edmonton, Minnesota and Vancouver would have to join them there though.

There don't seem to be a lot of Redskins or Cowboys fans here, but I'm getting pretty pumped for tonight's game.

With the Bears win, it's now loser-goes-home for both teams.

Mike Crabtree just went over 1000 yards receiving which makes him the first Niner to do that since Terrell Owens. I think that's pretty amazing.

David Akers has missed FGs of 40 and 44 yards already today. He has had a disastrous season.

Thought this was interesting; DC Metro will have extended hours tonight for the football game despite the fact that the metro station is like a bazillion miles away from the stadium. Meanwhile DC refused to extend hours for the Nationals when they went to the playoffs despite the metro station being right next to the stadium.

McCoy, the Metro charges event-holders for extended hours. The Nats were refusing to pay up, the Redskins had no problem paying up.

Mike McCarthy just threw a flag on an automatically-reviewed play and they're still reviewing it. Have they changed the rule since Thanksgiving?

They are saying that the "review was initiated" before the flag was thrown, which of course makes no sense since the review is automatically initiated. It's not a decision someone made.

Nice to see that Green Bay gets to play by different rules than the Detroit Lions...

Packers got lucky. It's a really dumb rule but considering it's happened twice this season, notably once on national TV, McCarthy should know better.

So does Smith's job ride on this game?

Oh wow. 9 yards short.

Bears suck.

It is a weird fluke how good the rookie kickers are this year.

855 (McCoy): Mike McCarthy's horrible coaching means the 10-6 Bears suck? OK.

------

849 (JJ1986): The officials didn't see McCarthy's flag until *after* the booth buzzed the referee to review the play. Since the review had already been initiated, McCarthy's idiotic action "only" resulted in a fifteen-yard penalty, but did not prevent the review from being enacted.

Schwartz's idiotic action came *before* the booth buzzed the referee to review the play on Thanksgiving, so it prevented the review from happening.

It's the way the rule is written, and I'm sure the competition committee will discuss it in the offseason.

That said, it is inexcusable for any head coach to throw a red flag on any scoring play or turnover.

EDIT: In response to 850, the review is most definitely not "automatically" initiated. Rather, the booth has to initiate it manually. It's just like any play that occurs after the two-minute warning or in overtime. "Every scoring play and turnover is reviewed" is the biggest falsehood being spoken by broadcaster this year.

------

853 (McCoy): Maybe. If Emery has a guy in mind, then yes. And if he does, then I'm OK with Smith getting fired.

But firing Smith just to fire him, I can't get on board with that. You're more likely to bring in the next Dick Jauron than the next Jim Harbaugh that way.

I absolutely think Emery needs to bring in a whole new offensive staff and/or philosophy, and by that I mean not letting Smith make the hire.

I'll say this in defense of Lovie: he never had a single game that he coached as poorly as Mike McCarthy's today.

This bitter Lions fan is happy the Bears are staying home. Packers and Vikings never bother me.

One last thing: If Phil Emery waited until the end of the Packers-Vikings game to decide Lovie Smith's fate, then it doesn't matter if Lovie stays or goes: the Bears are screwed for the next several years anyway.

Part of me wants to see the Cowboys win. Part of me wants to see them win and keep the status quo of a mediocre team trending the wrong way. Decisions, decisions.

One last thing: If Phil Emery waited until the end of the Packers-Vikings game to decide Lovie Smith's fate, then it doesn't matter if Lovie stays or goes: the Bears are screwed for the next several years anyway.

Yes. One game shouldn't be the deciding factor. Certainly one by another team.

I'm mildly rooting for the Cowboys because I think Romo is a ridiculously underrated QB and I'd like to see him win a big game when everyone says he can't. On the other hand, I really dislike them.

Romo doing everything possible to enhance his choker rep.

I'm mildly rooting for the Cowboys because I think Romo is a ridiculously underrated QB and I'd like to see him win a big game when everyone says he can't. On the other hand, I really dislike them.

This, but I'm still rooting for Washington. I like Griffin a lot.

Well, you're not going to fire a guy until after you know if your team is going to the playoffs or not. Coughlin was likely to get fired in 2011 but the Super Bowl run and eventual win saved his job.

I can't see how ownership and the front office are satisfied with Smith.

Well, you're not going to fire a guy until after you know if your team is going to the playoffs or not.

And I think that's an awful philosophy. Emery right now has to know what the strengths and weaknesses of the Bears are. He therefore should have a plan to improve the team. If that means Lovie stays on as head coach, fine. And if that means Lovie goes, also fine.

But the outcome of the Packers-Vikings game has no bearing on what makes the Bears a better team. And Emery needs to make a decision based on what makes the Bears better.

In that sense, the silver lining of the Vikings' win is that Emery will have complete freedom to do what he feels is necessary. He won't be faced with the conventional wisdom that you can't fire a playoff coach.

I can't see how ownership and the front office are satisfied with Smith.

And what I'm saying is that if this statement is true, why would the Packers-Viking game make them satisfied?

Well, you're not going to fire a guy until after you know if your team is going to the playoffs or not. Coughlin was likely to get fired in 2011 but the Super Bowl run and eventual win saved his job.

Yes it did. And this year the Giants are the same 9-7 mediocrity they were last year. A decision to fire Coughlin made prior to the last game of the season was justified. But they kept on winning, so they couldn't do it.

Well, the Giants had some impressive wins this year - killed SF and GB - and overall were a far more competitive bunch than last year's regular season team, fwiw. 9-7 ins and outs are more luck than anything else.

fyi

playoff sked set:

Sat:
CIN at HOU, 4:30pm ET
MIN at GB, 8 pm

Sun
IND at BAL, 1 pm
SEA at WAS or DAL, 4:30 pm

And what I'm saying is that if this statement is true, why would the Packers-Viking game make them satisfied?

I have no idea why it would or wouldn't.

The Bears now know their season is over and they won't be going to the playoffs. The ultimate goal of every team and a goal that the Bears thought they were in the running for is now lost to them this year. Thus there is no need to keep Smith around anymore. If the Packers win the Bears go to the playoffs and it would make little sense to fire the head coach a week before they play a playoff game.

Well, the Giants had some impressive wins this year - killed SF and GB - and overall were a far more competitive bunch than last year's regular season team, fwiw. 9-7 ins and outs are more luck than anything else.

Baby steps.

The Bears now know their season is over and they won't be going to the playoffs. The ultimate goal of every team and a goal that the Bears thought they were in the running for is now lost to them this year.

If the Vikings had lost, the Bears performance this season would not have changed at all, but their outcome would have. The evaluation shouldn't change because of that.

If the Packers win the Bears go to the playoffs and it would make little sense to fire the head coach a week before they play a playoff game.

Of course not. But if the Bears choose to fire Lovie now, then I think they should have also fired him had they made the playoffs. Just after it was over, not between the regular season and the playoffs.

EDIT: That said, in a scenario where the Bears came out and outcoached three or four playoff opponents in a row, then the evaluation of Lovie certainly could have changed (the Coughlin scenario). So the playoffs essentially would have bought him one last chance.

And of course, this only applies if Emery doesn't believe Lovie's the right coach moving forward.

------

If the Vikings had lost, the Bears performance this season would not have changed at all, but their outcome would have. The evaluation shouldn't change because of that.

Exactly.

If the Vikings had lost, the Bears performance this season would not have changed at all, but their outcome would have. The evaluation shouldn't change because of that.

And when all of humanity become perfect rational actors you might have a point, well, that and a really cool flying car powered by love and happiness.

Exactly.

How is it exactly when in your own edit you explain why Smith's performance could have changed with a Vikings' loss?

How is it exactly when in your own edit you explain why Smith's performance could have changed with a Vikings' loss?

Smith's performance up until now wouldn't have changed with a Vikings' loss.

It's certainly possible he could reach a new level of coaching were he given three or four more games. He might keep his job and become better in 2013, too.

But if the difference between firing and retaining was simply "did the Bears make the playoffs?", then I think it would be poor reasoning.

And when all of humanity become perfect rational actors you might have a point, well, that and a really cool flying car powered by love and happiness.

So because others are not rational actors, I shouldn't be? That is irrational.

Man, RGIII is fun to watch.

And Kyle Shanahan would intrigue me as the next Bears' head coach.

So because others are not rational actors, I shouldn't be? That is irrational.

I said you might have a point but I don't think you do because playing more games, which is what would have happened had the Packers won, could have changed how ownership and the front office viewed Smith.

Smith's performance up until now wouldn't have changed with a Vikings' loss.

Correct, thus his job was in jeopardy and the only reason he wasn't on the hot seat publicly all season long is because most people figure the McCaskeys are a bunch of cheapskates that won't pay for two head coaches.


But if the difference between firing and retaining was simply "did the Bears make the playoffs?", then I think it would be poor reasoning.

And that wasn't the question put forth. If the Vikings lose then the question would become does Smith's job ride on the Bears winning the WC, then it would become does Smith job ride on winning the next game after that, and then the next one after that, and finally the next one after that.

And that wasn't the question put forth. If the Vikings lose then the question would become does Smith's job ride on the Bears winning the WC, then it would become does Smith job ride on winning the next game after that, and then the next one after that, and finally the next one after that.

Right, and I don't like the game-by-game approach.

Now, if, following the Lions game, Emery's verdict was, "Smith is not the right coach for 2013," then a Vikings' loss shouldn't have changed that.

And if the verdict was, "Smith *is* the right coach for 2013," then a Vikings' win shouldn't have changed that.

The only way I could see the Vikings-Packers outcome changing things is if the verdict was, "Smith might be the right choice, I'd like to see a few more games, but if not, I'll fire him." In that case, I'd be fine with letting the Vikings-Packer game have any impact on the decision.

And Kyle Shanahan would intrigue me as the next Bears' head coach.

Don't let one year with a great rookie fool you.

When the Redskins win, three rookie QBs will be in the playoffs. Just need Beano to tell us how this is proof that a college team can beat a NFL team.

Right, and I don't like the game-by-game approach.

Now, if, following the Lions game, Emery's verdict was, "Smith is not the right coach for 2013," then a Vikings' loss shouldn't have changed that.

And if the verdict was, "Smith *is* the right coach for 2013," then a Vikings' win shouldn't have changed that.

The only way I could see the Vikings-Packers outcome changing things is if the verdict was, "Smith might be the right choice, I'd like to a few more games, but if not, I'll fire him." In that case, I'd be fine with letting the Vikings-Packer game have any impact on the decision.

So if they think Smith isn't the right guy for the Bears in 2013 and the Vikings lose and the Bears go to the playoffs and somehow win the whole thing they should still fire him anyway? Why? Doing that would probably be more destructive than simply keep Smith for one more year.

Don't let one year with a great rookie fool you.

Fair enough. That is why I said it would be "intrigu[ing]", though. I'm not familiar enough with him to know if it would be good or bad.

------

So if they think Smith isn't the right guy for the Bears in 2013 and the Vikings lose and the Bears go to the playoffs and somehow win the whole thing they should still fire him anyway? Why? Doing that would probably be more destructive than simply keep Smith for one more year.

Yes, but it's an interesting situation. Smith is a known commodity; he's a very, very good defensive coach who cannot build an offense at all. If Emery had made the concrete decision that Smith was not the best coach for 2013, then that means he has someone in mind who would be able to build a successful offense, which is the most important aspect of the modern NFL.

So if the Bears were to get lucky or hot and win the Super Bowl, that doesn't change those facts. So yeah, I'd still fire him.

Would that actually happen? Absolutely not. There would be way too much external pressure to retain the coach that just won a Super Bowl, even though you firmly believe someone else is more likely to do so moving forward.

Fair enough. That is why I said it would be "intrigu[ing]", though. I'm not familiar enough with him to know if it would be good or bad.

Granted there is no one stat that explains everything, but this should illustrate the impact of RGIII. Washington under Shanahan, rankings of FO efficiency, PFR Expected Points, Advanced NFL Stats EPA:

2010: 25/25/22
2011: 19/12/23
2012: 6/4/3

So if the Bears were to get lucky or hot and win the Super Bowl, that doesn't change those facts. So yeah, I'd still fire him.

Yes it does change the facts. For instance the guy he has in mind might not want to come after the debacle that would be removing Smith. The team itself might very well and probably would be in an uproar that could hurt the Bears on field performance for 2013 as well as influence the offseason transactions.

What the #### playcall?

Yes it does change the facts. For instance the guy he has in mind might not want to come after the debacle that would be removing Smith. The team itself might very well and probably would be in an uproar that could hurt the Bears on field performance for 2013 as well as influence the offseason transactions.

Very true. I'm speaking more from a principle point of view. (EDIT: Well, actually, it doesn't change the facts I laid out. Smith would still have the same flaws, and would not be the right coach moving forward for the same reasons.)

It's why I was saying the silver lining to the Viking win was that Emery now is completely free to go in the direction he believes helps the team in 2013 and beyond.

Romo being Romo.

Thanks for those figures, DA Baracus. You're convincing me Shanahan might not be a very good choice.

To be fair, the QBs before Griffin (McNabb, Beck, Sexy Rexy) were well below average.

Very true. I'm speaking more from a principle point of view. (EDIT: Well, actually, it doesn't change the facts I laid out. Smith would still have the same flaws, and would not be the right coach moving forward for the same reasons.

Yes it does change the facts. If Smith's team wins the Super Bowl it could very well mean he is the right coach moving forward since removing him might make it impossible to install the "right person" for the job and putting someone beside Smith in that job might hurt the Bears' chances at winning more than just keeping Smith there.

Question: was Kyle Shanahan a coach in Denver when Cutler and Marshall were there? Their history with Shanahan the Elder was why I was intrigued. Those were some awesome offenses.

Yes it does change the facts. If Smith's team wins the Super Bowl it could very well mean he is the right coach moving forward since removing him might make it impossible to install the "right person" for the job and putting someone beside Smith in that job might hurt the Bears' chances at winning more than just keeping Smith there.

To be pedantic, that's changing the situation, not the facts that were known when the decision was made.

And if the "right guy" is now unavailable, then keeping Smith is more attractive. But if the "right guy" still wouldn't come to the Bears, then he wasn't really the "right guy". I'm only a fan of firing Smith if Emery has a known list of guys he wants for good reasons, and knows that he'll be able to hire one.

Question: was Kyle Shanahan a coach in Denver when Cutler and Marshall were there?

He was in Houston then. Rick Dennison was the OC in Denver.

To be fair, the QBs before Griffin (McNabb, Beck, Sexy Rexy) were well below average.

This is true, but let's not forget that when he was in Houston he thought John Beck was worth a top ten pick. It's possible that he is actually a very good coach. I don't see it but I'm just some guy with a laptop. Mike McCarthy oversaw the worst offense in the league and then he got hired as a head coach. My point is that RGIII is the horse and Shanahan is the cart, not the other way around. I'll give him credit for installing a good deal of "college plays" into the offense and doing well with it. Ditto Darrell Bevell.

Question: was Kyle Shanahan a coach in Denver when Cutler and Marshall were there? Their history with Shanahan the Elder was why I was intrigued. Those were some awesome offenses.

He never coached in Denver. Before Washington he was in Houston and before that Tampa.

And if the "right guy" is now unavailable, then keeping Smith is more attractive. But if the "right guy" still wouldn't come to the Bears, then he wasn't really the "right guy". I'm only a fan of firing Smith if Emery has a known list of guys he wants for good reasons, and knows that he'll be able to hire one.

So the standard for deciding to fire someone is that the GM must somehow know that even if the old coach goes out and wins the Super Bowl the right person will still take the job and will still be the best option for the team despite what would happen by firing a Super Bowl winning coach? Does the coach also have to have a last name that sounds like unicorn?

And if the "right guy" is now unavailable, then keeping Smith is more attractive.

There could be as many as 10 NFL HC vacancies. I would think this would make a team less likely to fire its head coach since, well, desirable candidates have more options than usual.

There could be as many as 10 NFL HC vacancies.

And three of them will be filled by obviously bad coaches. Let the races begin.

Andy Reid is already prepared to go to San Diego. Man, just replacing with one Norv with another.

Andy Reid is already prepared to go to San Diego.

Good luck with that Andy. Reid supposedly wants that job. The Chargers supposedly do not want him.

Does the coach also have to have a last name that sounds like unicorn?

"What the... That's it! Einhorn is Finkle! Finkle is Einhorn! Einhorn is a man!"

Looks like I'm a ####### oracle. Running QBs dominating the NFL. The option completely embarrassing one of the best DEs in football (D Ware). So much for the NFL honks that said these offenses would never work.

It is a weird fluke how good the rookie kickers are this year.

Not really. There is no sport in America where first year pros dominate like they do in football. Every year rookies dominate and handfuls are immediately among the best in the sport at their position. Forget getting acclimated to the new playbook or competition. Just roll the ball out there and watch em dominate.