Official 2025 NFC North Thread

[Siberian13]

Originally Posted by Grid

It matters because it shows he wasn't inapt in doing his job. If everyone in the league knew those were bad deals. And he still went and did it, that would prove he was doing a bad job. Not sure how you don't grasp that.

Kevin Warren is there to not let the front office make shortsighted "cheap" decisions. Its why they paid up for BJ, why they ate the money Eberflus was due and fired him midseason ETC.

Of course everyone would rather have a questionable decision turn in to a great move. Like your McNabb thing. But that isnt what is being discussed. Its the fact that Poles made the right moves, at the right time, even if they didn't work out.

You cant question his thinking. Like i said, everyone agreed at the time. But feel free to question the outcome. But that still has very little do with Poles. Sometimes things dont work out for various reasons.

And if you are asking me what the downside is for BJ, if the Bears lead him to believe Poles was not a lame duck if he was. Or giving that much power to a 1st time HC, and telling him he gets a say in the next GM.

GM's hire the HC, not the other way around. You need your front offense aligned with the coaches and players. As a Bears fan, I'd think you'd want to see some stability here. Unless you were happy with how often they have blown up the GM & HC roles over the past decade.

Those aren’t grid facts.

[Grid]

Originally Posted by hairysasquatch

Grid flailing in the face of logic. Also it's "inept."

Until we meet again! <exits in Skeletor>

The typo police are here. Ouch, you got me! What a burn!

Also, what is logical? Your thoughts on what the Bears should or shouldn't be doing? Or what the professional organization feels they should or shouldn't be doing?

Why would I be on the side of of what a known Bears hater thinks? And not on the side of what my team thinks? Whose logic are we going with here?

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by Grid

It matters because it shows he wasn't inapt in doing his job. If everyone in the league knew those were bad deals. And he still went and did it, that would prove he was doing a bad job. Not sure how you don't grasp that.

Kevin Warren is there to not let the front office make shortsighted "cheap" decisions. Its why they paid up for BJ, why they ate the money Eberflus was due and fired him midseason ETC.

Of course everyone would rather have a questionable decision turn in to a great move. Like your McNabb thing. But that isnt what is being discussed. Its the fact that Poles made the right moves, at the right time, even if they didn't work out.

You cant question his thinking. Like i said, everyone agreed at the time. But feel free to question the outcome. But that still has very little do with Poles. Sometimes things dont work out for various reasons.

And if you are asking me what the downside is for BJ, if the Bears lead him to believe Poles was not a lame duck if he was. Or giving that much power to a 1st time HC, and telling him he gets a say in the next GM.

GM's hire the HC, not the other way around. You need your front offense aligned with the coaches and players. As a Bears fan, I'd think you'd want to see some stability here. Unless you were happy with how often they have blown up the GM & HC roles over the past decade.

If they don't work for whatever reason, then they weren't the right moves.

Hindsight can (and should be) be applied when judging a GM. If the move works for whatever reason and you win, you're a genius and you deserve your flowers (i.e. Roseman signing Zach Baun). If it doesn't and the team loses, you're looking for work.

I don't want a GM who just does what "everyone else" thinks is right. I want a GM who fields a winning team that competes for championships. If those things overlap, fine. But just doing what everyone else thinks is good doesn't cut it - at least for me.

This is a results-oriented business. The Bears are 15-36 under his watch. That's horrible. Granted, I wouldn't fire him because I do like some of the moves he's made. But I'm also not going to reward him with an extension, either.

Also, isn't giving Poles an extension because BJ wanted it done also giving him a lot of power? Them being on the same timeline makes sense, but I just think giving Poles an extension without even so much as a winning season, was unnecessary. Weren't you ok with HC/GM not being on the same timeline? I recall voicing my frustration that the Bears kept overlapping HC/GM/QB in the past and you were quick to defend Mrs. McCaskey and Co.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

If they don't work for whatever reason, then they weren't the right moves.

Hindsight can (and should be) be applied when judging a GM. If the move works for whatever reason and you win, you're a genius and you deserve your flowers (i.e. Roseman signing Zach Baun). If it doesn't and the team loses, you're looking for work.

I don't want a GM who just does what "everyone else" thinks is right. I want a GM who fields a winning team that competes for championships. If those things overlap, fine. But just doing what everyone else thinks is good doesn't cut it - at least for me.

This is a results-oriented business. The Bears are 15-36 under his watch. That's horrible. Granted, I wouldn't fire him because I do like some of the moves he's made. But I'm also not going to reward him with an extension, either.

Also, isn't giving Poles an extension because BJ wanted it done also giving him a lot of power? Them being on the same timeline makes sense, but I just think giving Poles an extension without even so much as a winning season, was unnecessary. Weren't you ok with HC/GM not being on the same timeline? I recall voicing my frustration that the Bears kept overlapping HC/GM/QB in the past and you were quick to defend Mrs. McCaskey and Co.

I get why one would question the Poles extension without outstanding results, but as I've said on this thread a few times...the Bears were TERRIBLE top to bottom before he was hired in terms of roster talent. They had just enough talent to avoid being a 2-3 win team. If they didn't have Quinn and Mack (though Mack was half the season), they likely would've been a 2-3 win team. Today, I can objectively look at the roster and see the night and day difference the 2025 iteration of the Bears team. Other than D-Line, they might be better at every other position on the field. Every team, every GM has some swings and misses along the way. Whether it's injury, scheme fit, player aging...not every move is gonna be a winner. But he has helped turn the ship around in Chicago. To your point, it's a results based business...and one would think there is a little bit more pressure this year with the new (improved?) coaching, young QB in year two, all the trades and FA signings...but even a 8-9 or 9-8 season with threatening for the playoffs would vindicate the work Poles has done. To Grid's point, if they crap the bed this year they can cut bait from Poles and eat the money - he's not locked to the desk for 5 years.

[hairysasquatch]

Originally Posted by Grid

The typo police are here. Ouch, you got me! What a burn!

Also, what is logical? Your thoughts on what the Bears should or shouldn't be doing? Or what the professional organization feels they should or shouldn't be doing?

Why would I be on the side of of what a known Bears hater thinks? And not on the side of what my team thinks? Whose logic are we going with here?

My logic = whatever drives you crazy. It's pretty simple!

Until we meet again! <exits in Skeletor>

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by erock28

I get why one would question the Poles extension without outstanding results, but as I've said on this thread a few times...the Bears were TERRIBLE top to bottom before he was hired in terms of roster talent. They had just enough talent to avoid being a 2-3 win team. If they didn't have Quinn and Mack (though Mack was half the season), they likely would've been a 2-3 win team. Today, I can objectively look at the roster and see the night and day difference the 2025 iteration of the Bears team. Other than D-Line, they might be better at every other position on the field. Every team, every GM has some swings and misses along the way. Whether it's injury, scheme fit, player aging...not every move is gonna be a winner. But he has helped turn the ship around in Chicago. To your point, it's a results based business...and one would think there is a little bit more pressure this year with the new (improved?) coaching, young QB in year two, all the trades and FA signings...but even a 8-9 or 9-8 season with threatening for the playoffs would vindicate the work Poles has done. To Grid's point, if they crap the bed this year they can cut bait from Poles and eat the money - he's not locked to the desk for 5 years.

Like I said, I would keep Poles around at least another year because overall he's done more good than bad. That Carolina deal was a stroke of genius and if Caleb hits, it'll go down as one of the best trades in NFL history. I'm excited for this season and hope they do well.

Yes, the Bears can cut bait but just because they can doesn't mean they will. Historically they've been a cheap/frugal franchise. They'd have to eat Poles' money and then the GM/HC timeline would be off---again.

I guess big picture, this shows me they're ok rewarding mediocrity. Or at least, unproven performance. I don't think a franchise with championship standards and expectations hands out an extension with 2 years remaining based on Poles' performance thus far. Maybe there's some drama behind the scenes that we don't know about that forced the Bears hand. But on face value, this extension was unnecessary at this point in time.

[hairysasquatch]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Like I said, I would keep Poles around at least another year because overall he's done more good than bad. That Carolina deal was a stroke of genius and if Caleb hits, it'll go down as one of the best trades in NFL history. I'm excited for this season and hope they do well.

Yes, the Bears can cut bait but just because they can doesn't mean they will. Historically they've been a cheap/frugal franchise. They'd have to eat Poles' money and then the GM/HC timeline would be off---again.

I guess big picture, this shows me they're ok rewarding mediocrity. Or at least, unproven performance. I don't think a franchise with championship standards and expectations hands out an extension with 2 years remaining based on Poles' performance thus far. Maybe there's some drama behind the scenes that we don't know about that forced the Bears hand. But on face value, this extension was unnecessary at this point in time.

Poles has nudes of Virginia McCaskey??

[Grid]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

If they don't work for whatever reason, then they weren't the right moves.

Hindsight can (and should be) be applied when judging a GM. If the move works for whatever reason and you win, you're a genius and you deserve your flowers (i.e. Roseman signing Zach Baun). If it doesn't and the team loses, you're looking for work.

I don't want a GM who just does what "everyone else" thinks is right. I want a GM who fields a winning team that competes for championships. If those things overlap, fine. But just doing what everyone else thinks is good doesn't cut it - at least for me.

This is a results-oriented business. The Bears are 15-36 under his watch. That's horrible. Granted, I wouldn't fire him because I do like some of the moves he's made. But I'm also not going to reward him with an extension, either.

Also, isn't giving Poles an extension because BJ wanted it done also giving him a lot of power? Them being on the same timeline makes sense, but I just think giving Poles an extension without even so much as a winning season, was unnecessary. Weren't you ok with HC/GM not being on the same timeline? I recall voicing my frustration that the Bears kept overlapping HC/GM/QB in the past and you were quick to defend Mrs. McCaskey and Co.

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.

[Grid]

Originally Posted by hairysasquatch

Poles has nudes of Virginia McCaskey??

We all do. They used to send those out with our season tickets. Nothing wrong with a mature woman!

[oldgoldy97]

Rage intensifying

[Grid]

Originally Posted by oldgoldy97

Rage intensifying

I assume this is directed at me. Since I'm the only one that posted today. How can you take any of that as rage? Do you think I am mad Poles got extended? Or mad that someone doesn't think he should have been?

Weird post.

[Asian62150]

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.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by hairysasquatch

Poles has nudes of Virginia McCaskey??

Possible. But for years, I thought Paxson had nudes of Reinsdorf.

Another Chicago sports franchise that settles for mediocrity.

For the 3rd largest market with incredible fans, our teams have regularly let us down. Sadly, in many cases, they aren't even competitive.

[erock28]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Possible. But for years, I thought Paxson had nudes of Reinsdorf.

Another Chicago sports franchise that settles for mediocrity.

For the 3rd largest market with incredible fans, our teams have regularly let us down. Sadly, in many cases, they aren't even competitive.

To the bolded, I find it amazing that Chicago had arguably the best basketball dynasty post major expansion (1970), the best hockey dynasty of the salary cap era (3 Cups in 6 years, should've been 4), but when they bottom out, they bottom out HARD and stay there for a long time. White Sox are garbage, Hawks nearly as bad, Bulls have made it past the first round all of 4 times since their last ship in '98. Pretty crazy given the market...tho Jerry Reinsdorf is the primary culprit for two of those franchises.

[Grid]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

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.

As I already posted. This keeps the optics of him not being aligned with the HC out of the presses mouths. It removed the "lame duck" narrative. It boosts not only Poles, but BJ's confidence in the teams direction.

And yes, how well would you be doing your job if you felt someone was looking over your shoulder. Or you had to address rumors about your job security. I think this will help him "cook". It sure as hell wont hurt him.

And I never once defended previous regimes not aligning GM/HC. That is why I am trumpeting it when it actually happens. You say alignment is important too. Then complain when it happens.

GM Jerry Angelo hires Lovie Smith. Angelo gets fired.

New GM Phil Emery fires HC Lovie Smith, as that wasn't his guy. Hires Mark Trestman. Then John Fox.

New GM Ryan Pace fires HC John Fox and hires Matt Nagy

New GM Ryan Poles fires Matt Nagy. It was a loop.

Originally Posted by Asian62150

For the 3rd largest market with incredible fans, our teams have regularly let us down. Sadly, in many cases, they aren't even competitive.

Cubs are one of the best teams in baseball right now. And won a WS in 2016. Sox in 2005. Bears the NFC in 2006. Blackhawks 3 cups in 5 years. With the last one in 2015.

6 Championships in MLB. 11 in NFL. 6 in NBA. 6 in NHL. 3rd most of any city in the country. Now you are just riding off the rails...

[21Pittsburgh58]

You cannot have GM's with a short sighted vision of the future, especially when they're at constant risk of being fired.

Showing faith and giving an extension to someone THEY believe in, is the right move. The only way to know if it was the RIGHT move, is if the Bears at least become a playoff team.

[hairysasquatch]

Originally Posted by Grid

I assume this is directed at me. Since I'm the only one that posted today. How can you take any of that as rage? Do you think I am mad Poles got extended? Or mad that someone doesn't think he should have been?

Weird post.

For Grid, it's always all about Grid.

[Grid]

Originally Posted by hairysasquatch

For Grid, it's always all about Grid.

[hairysasquatch]

Originally Posted by Grid

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by Grid

As I already posted. This keeps the optics of him not being aligned with the HC out of the presses mouths. It removed the "lame duck" narrative. It boosts not only Poles, but BJ's confidence in the teams direction.

And yes, how well would you be doing your job if you felt someone was looking over your shoulder. Or you had to address rumors about your job security. I think this will help him "cook". It sure as hell wont hurt him.

And I never once defended previous regimes not aligning GM/HC. That is why I am trumpeting it when it actually happens. You say alignment is important too. Then complain when it happens.

GM Jerry Angelo hires Lovie Smith. Angelo gets fired.

New GM Phil Emery fires HC Lovie Smith, as that wasn't his guy. Hires Mark Trestman. Then John Fox.

New GM Ryan Pace fires HC John Fox and hires Matt Nagy

New GM Ryan Poles fires Matt Nagy. It was a loop.





Cubs are one of the best teams in baseball right now. And won a WS in 2016. Sox in 2005. Bears the NFC in 2006. Blackhawks 3 cups in 5 years. With the last one in 2015.

6 Championships in MLB. 11 in NFL. 6 in NBA. 6 in NHL. 3rd most of any city in the country. Now you are just riding off the rails...

Grid, I appreciate you bringing up past successes to take the focus off the present, but your numbers are skewed when you take into account the number of seasons Chicago pro sports teams have had over other cities.

Chicago has had like 450-500+professional sport seasons (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) and 29 chips. The Yankees alone have 27. LA as a city has 29 but they have had way less professional seasons and the Rams, Lakers, and Dodgers have been competitive or won chips in the past 5 years.

As I've said before, sports are a results-oriented business. I love my Chicago teams but in a "what have you done for me lately" industry, the results simply haven't been there.

[Fulmer4MVP]

So, does Teddy come back to the Lions again?

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...n-coaching-job

[Grid]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Grid, I appreciate you bringing up past successes to take the focus off the present, but your numbers are skewed when you take into account the number of seasons Chicago pro sports teams have had over other cities.

Chicago has had like 450-500+professional sport seasons (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) and 29 chips. The Yankees alone have 27. LA as a city has 29 but they have had way less professional seasons and the Rams, Lakers, and Dodgers have been competitive or won chips in the past 5 years.

As I've said before, sports are a results-oriented business. I love my Chicago teams but in a "what have you done for me lately" industry, the results simply haven't been there.

I brought up the present. I even listed the years. In the past 20 years, the Bears have won the NFC. The White Sox and Cubs both won the World Series. And the Blackhawks banged out 3 Stanley Cups. The Cubs are even one of the best team in baseball right now.

I know you are trying your best to throw shade on both the Bears and the sports scene in Chicago. Which is cringe, if you are in fact from here and a fan. Maybe you and that other Chicago guy who likes the Packers should hang out. I really dont understand why you are dying on this hill. Are you trying to get others to disrespect the city and teams as well? What is the end game here?

LA also has 2 NBA teams & 2 NFL teams. 3 NFL teams, if you include when the Raiders used to play there. They also lay claim to the 5 NBA titles the Lakers had, back when they were still in Minneapolis.

[Ninotores]

Originally Posted by Grid

I brought up the present. I even listed the years. In the past 20 years, the Bears have won the NFC. The White Sox and Cubs both won the World Series. And the Blackhawks banged out 3 Stanley Cups. The Cubs are even one of the best team in baseball right now.

I know you are trying your best to throw shade on both the Bears and the sports scene in Chicago. Which is cringe, if you are in fact from here and a fan. Maybe you and that other Chicago guy who likes the Packers should hang out. I really dont understand why you are dying on this hill. Are you trying to get others to disrespect the city and teams as well? What is the end game here?

LA also has 2 NBA teams & 2 NFL teams. 3 NFL teams, if you include when the Raiders used to play there. They also lay claim to the 5 NBA titles the Lakers had, back when they were still in Minneapolis.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but 20 years ago isn't the present. And why is throwing shade at a sports team cringe if you're from the hometown? You have every right to throw shade. YOUR type of fandom is WHY Chicago sports teams don't put in any effort in the office. You guys eat up, pay for and watch whatever slop they put out. It is completely acceptable to be frustrated at your team if you see the owners doing minimal to make them better. Like your team, that is fine. But bro, be honest about them. You're in denial about a lot of this stuff and painfully indignant.

You're a nice guy and I get people enjoy trolling you and getting a rise out of you. But you do it to yourself with such a narrow minded view. It's OK to say your teams are terrible. That doesn't make you less of a fan or mean you have to stop supporting them. It's being realistic.

That is the biggest reason I can't do the Bears. The fans claim every year is their year over and over and over and over. Stockholm syndrome. To think people said "we're going Super Bowl" with Justin Fields as QB, or Trubisky is comical. And back in 2017 I'm sure you were here defending them. You lose credibility when you refuse to see the weaknesses in your teams.

I like the Packers. I think they are going to have a rough year. They have a hard schedule. Love is a question mark after last season. And I don't know what to expect out of our receivers. Hoping the rookies pan out but we don't know and the guys being brought back led the league in drops last year. Does this mean I'm a terrible Packers fan? No. It means I support my team but have realistic expectations.

[oldgoldy97]

Originally Posted by Ninotores

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but 20 years ago isn't the present. And why is throwing shade at a sports team cringe if you're from the hometown? You have every right to throw shade. YOUR type of fandom is WHY Chicago sports teams don't put in any effort in the office. You guys eat up, pay for and watch whatever slop they put out. It is completely acceptable to be frustrated at your team if you see the owners doing minimal to make them better. Like your team, that is fine. But bro, be honest about them. You're in denial about a lot of this stuff and painfully indignant.

You're a nice guy and I get people enjoy trolling you and getting a rise out of you. But you do it to yourself with such a narrow minded view. It's OK to say your teams are terrible. That doesn't make you less of a fan or mean you have to stop supporting them. It's being realistic.

That is the biggest reason I can't do the Bears. The fans claim every year is their year over and over and over and over. Stockholm syndrome. To think people said "we're going Super Bowl" with Justin Fields as QB, or Trubisky is comical. And back in 2017 I'm sure you were here defending them. You lose credibility when you refuse to see the weaknesses in your teams.

I like the Packers. I think they are going to have a rough year. They have a hard schedule. Love is a question mark after last season. And I don't know what to expect out of our receivers. Hoping the rookies pan out but we don't know and the guys being brought back led the league in drops last year. Does this mean I'm a terrible Packers fan? No. It means I support my team but have realistic expectations.

[Grid]

Originally Posted by Ninotores

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but 20 years ago isn't the present. And why is throwing shade at a sports team cringe if you're from the hometown? You have every right to throw shade. YOUR type of fandom is WHY Chicago sports teams don't put in any effort in the office. You guys eat up, pay for and watch whatever slop they put out. It is completely acceptable to be frustrated at your team if you see the owners doing minimal to make them better. Like your team, that is fine. But bro, be honest about them. You're in denial about a lot of this stuff and painfully indignant.

You're a nice guy and I get people enjoy trolling you and getting a rise out of you. But you do it to yourself with such a narrow minded view. It's OK to say your teams are terrible. That doesn't make you less of a fan or mean you have to stop supporting them. It's being realistic.

That is the biggest reason I can't do the Bears. The fans claim every year is their year over and over and over and over. Stockholm syndrome. To think people said "we're going Super Bowl" with Justin Fields as QB, or Trubisky is comical. And back in 2017 I'm sure you were here defending them. You lose credibility when you refuse to see the weaknesses in your teams.

I like the Packers. I think they are going to have a rough year. They have a hard schedule. Love is a question mark after last season. And I don't know what to expect out of our receivers. Hoping the rookies pan out but we don't know and the guys being brought back led the league in drops last year. Does this mean I'm a terrible Packers fan? No. It means I support my team but have realistic expectations.

I 100% feed the trolls! That's the fun in all of this. Me bringing up the past 20 years of success, when someone wants to paint Chicago sports success as ancient history, is a fair rebuttal. I'd go as far as saying everyone that posts in here, yourself included, was around for each and every Championship I pointed out.

It is not like I am crowing over the 1940 NFL Championship. But the Bears did beat the hell out of the Redskins 72-0!

Bears fans do not claim every year is their year. Don't make it seem like we are the Cowboys fans. Bears fans are optimistic for sure. And they, like me, love riling up other other fan bases just like I am doing now.

Your post on the Packers is perfect. There is no hate. Grounded in reality with a dash of expectations. Spoken like a true fan. I am only ribbing Asian here, since they are going out of their way to say Chicago Sports suck The Bears suck. Their front office sucks. That is not fan speak IMO.

Say you are disappointed. But to throw shade on the very team you cheer for, is not fandom. Easy for you to say its OK for them to do that. As you hate the Bears. Naturally you will take their side.