Quote:
Originally Posted by Grid
Nearly everyone who understands football will disagree with your hot take. Including the Packer Backer in this thread.
Aligning your GM & HC in contract length is a sign of stability and confidence. Everyone in the NFL world will tell you the same. Which is why even a first time HC like BJ knew it was important.
You can keep ignoring the facts all you want. The $80MIL in dead contracts, the lack of talent and all of the other issues Poles had to fix when he took the job just 3 years ago. If that fits your narrative, so be it.
While others, including the team, will look at the roster he built, the stability in contracts, and the new coaching staff he helped assemble. Unlike the one that was given to him when he was first hired. And view things differently.
Poles wasn't rewarded for his record. He was rewarded so he can continue to cook. Sooner or later the Bears had to end the cycle of tear down and rebuild. That has been going on for 15 years now.
If all of that is still lost on you, no one can help you here.
|
My take is there's no need to rush to give a guy with a losing record an extension with 2 years left on his deal. That's a hot take? I'm guessing most/all NFL GMs would agree with the Bears giving Poles the extension bc that gives themselves more leverage when it's their time to re-up.
I'm not anti-Poles. Like I've said multiple times, he's done more good than bad and I'm fine extending him next year if the team's trajectory keeps pointing up.
He's got 2 years left. Would he have stopped "cooking" if they didn't hand him new paper right now?
Also, I've always been in favor of aligning the HC/GM and I said that was the one of the positives in giving him an extension. You were the one who kept defending the Bears FO when previous GMs/HCs or HCs/QBs weren't on the same timeline.