Update: McCaskey addresses team - no Nagy firing after Thanksgiving

[BearsFanInMN]

That was my thought. I think the Fire Nagy chants at other events is a clear sign to Kip Dynamite, I mean George -and maybe the one thing that might make it happen. I think it’s classless and wrong to do it at Nagy’s kids games though.

Mitch was a highly regarded prospect and not his fault he was overdrafted, but I also look at his 2018 as nothing more than natural 2nd year progress due to picking up speed of game as only good games were first half of GB opener, Detroit, and bad Bucs team with a crazy elite D as main cause for success. He wasn’t developed by Nagy and we’ve seen nothing that Fields is being developed properly. Nagy keeping team afloat in years past looks like vet pride. He’s lost the team. Maybe it’s true we don’t get rid of him mid season because we haven’t in over 100 years, but if you don’t change and adapt then players are wearing leather helmets, playing only day games (no lights), and working 2nd jobs for healthcare and financial reasons. We have to adapt.

I'm not sure I understand the point here.
Adapt to firing coaches mid-season? Is there some recent trend towards teams finding success in doing this?
Usually the dumpster fire type teams that do this kind of thing remain bad, at least those that come to mind.

But if you're right, there should be some good examples you can provide of teams who have adapted in this way and found success.

What I was saying is if getting rid of Nagy is the right move for the team, then the fact that you’ve never done it mid season before should not be the reason you don’t. Not saying that’s a strategy for success.

[Moriarty]

Biggs has been covering the Bears for 20 years, first for the Sun Times and now the Trib. I know it's just opinion but unlike most of us it's informed opinion.
I saw the Pompei article a little earlier. Yes it resonated, partly because it seems so logical and obvious and partly because of my experience in and with large organizations tells me the tone is set at the top.

One of the main arguments against this idea is that the position is essentially the same as a GM. This piece argues against that.

A little more from Pompei ( I know I am not allowed to post the whole article)

What the Bears need is a president of football operations in charge of hiring, firing and supervising the general manager and the head coach. The roles of the general manager and the coach don’t have to change much — only the person they report to.

The president of football operations should be what they call “a football person.” That means he has spent his life’s work concerning himself with the players and plays that decide outcomes. Better if he was one of those players before becoming someone who oversaw them.

It is not a novel concept that a football person should be in charge of football. But it has not been that way at Halas Hall for close to 40 years.

He goes on to note that George Halas was a "football person", so was Jim Finks, since then we have had the McCaskey's and an almost uninterrupted series of mediocre to bad teams and seasons.

So if this is an overreaction it's pretty slow and late in coming.
Maybe I ought to get my reflexes checked.

While it's not novel that a football person is in charge of football ops, that person is just the GM in basically every org. Fancy titles aside, having a president of football ops above the GM would change the GM role. It would no longer be equivalent to other GM roles.

I've haven't researched all teams. I think this information can be tough to dig up. But my inclination is to be skeptical of that. I'd be surprised in there aren't plenty of GMs who report up to a Football Person who has the authority to occasionally step in and override or make a call as necessary.

[dave99]

Biggs has been covering the Bears for 20 years, first for the Sun Times and now the Trib. I know it's just opinion but unlike most of us it's informed opinion.
I saw the Pompei article a little earlier. Yes it resonated, partly because it seems so logical and obvious and partly because of my experience in and with large organizations tells me the tone is set at the top.

One of the main arguments against this idea is that the position is essentially the same as a GM. This piece argues against that.

A little more from Pompei ( I know I am not allowed to post the whole article)

What the Bears need is a president of football operations in charge of hiring, firing and supervising the general manager and the head coach. The roles of the general manager and the coach don’t have to change much — only the person they report to.

The president of football operations should be what they call “a football person.” That means he has spent his life’s work concerning himself with the players and plays that decide outcomes. Better if he was one of those players before becoming someone who oversaw them.

It is not a novel concept that a football person should be in charge of football. But it has not been that way at Halas Hall for close to 40 years.

He goes on to note that George Halas was a "football person", so was Jim Finks, since then we have had the McCaskey's and an almost uninterrupted series of mediocre to bad teams and seasons.

So if this is an overreaction it's pretty slow and late in coming.
Maybe I ought to get my reflexes checked.

While it's not novel that a football person is in charge of football ops, that person is just the GM in basically every org. Fancy titles aside, having a president of football ops above the GM would change the GM role. It would no longer be equivalent to other GM roles.

It's not so much what a GM does versus a President of Operations, it's getting George and Ted out of the football operation loop. This is how Pompei ends his article:

Finks had ideas back in the day, too.

Ed McCaskey once asked Finks what he should be doing.

Finks replied, “You’re an owner, Ed. Own.”

It is well past the time for George McCaskey to own, Phillips to concentrate on the business side of the Bears and for a president of football operations to make the primary decisions that determine what happens on Sundays.

That appears the only way for the organization to return to another tradition, one that ended in the 1940s: contending for a championship every year.

[The Cooler King]

While it's not novel that a football person is in charge of football ops, that person is just the GM in basically every org. Fancy titles aside, having a president of football ops above the GM would change the GM role. It would no longer be equivalent to other GM roles.

It's not so much what a GM does versus a President of Operations, it's getting George and Ted out of the football operation loop. This is how Pompei ends his article:

Finks had ideas back in the day, too.

Ed McCaskey once asked Finks what he should be doing.

Finks replied, “You’re an owner, Ed. Own.”

It is well past the time for George McCaskey to own, Phillips to concentrate on the business side of the Bears and for a president of football operations to make the primary decisions that determine what happens on Sundays.

That appears the only way for the organization to return to another tradition, one that ended in the 1940s: contending for a championship every year.

The supposed distinction being tried to made doesn't actually make sense though.

Owner hires a GM. GM runs football ops. Owner owns (or in the case of McCaskey delegates most to a CEO).

[The Cooler King]

While it's not novel that a football person is in charge of football ops, that person is just the GM in basically every org. Fancy titles aside, having a president of football ops above the GM would change the GM role. It would no longer be equivalent to other GM roles.

I've haven't researched all teams. I think this information can be tough to dig up. But my inclination is to be skeptical of that. I'd be surprised in there aren't plenty of GMs who report up to a Football Person who has the authority to occasionally step in and override or make a call as necessary.

Wikipedia keeps a pretty up to date list sourced by listed FO roles directly from team websites. If there are football guys above GMs they're apparently 100% behind the scenes.

[The Cooler King]

I've haven't researched all teams. I think this information can be tough to dig up. But my inclination is to be skeptical of that. I'd be surprised in there aren't plenty of GMs who report up to a Football Person who has the authority to occasionally step in and override or make a call as necessary.

Wikipedia keeps a pretty up to date list sourced by listed FO roles directly from team websites. If there are football guys above GMs they're apparently 100% behind the scenes.

I'll add the one part that's hard to tell is how involved an owenr is verse a non-owner President. For instance I'm fairly confident Shad Khan is a pretty involved owner, even though he has a team President too.

The other part that's not clear in many cases is which owners might more explicitly separate business from football ops and have a GM report directly to the owner instead of through a Pres/CEO. Though I frankly just charitably assume when the rubber meets the road, none of these pres/CEOs matter when it counts (hiring/firing).

But teams just generally don't have roles above or even to the side of the GM (even though many GMs do carry fancy VP titles and whatnot).

Finally, the NFL actually does care about team control due to Rooney Rule and blocking/promotion rules. It kind of necessitates a "one man at the top of the chain" setup. Call 'em whatever you want.

[The Cooler King]

Also it takes about 2 minutes to think about it.

How would McCaskey select this football person. Hold a lengthy search process? Interview several top and respected football minds from other organizations? Determine their fit with the organization?

Didn't I just describe the GM interview process? What changed?

Now there are two possible alternatives.

The Bears need to hire a retread. A guy who's done the top job before and has measurable results in the GM role. Okay.

Or

The Bears need to hire away the best currently employed GM they can and they will need to offer compensation to get it done. Okay. (this is basically what the deal with Finks was since he was brought up).

Either of those may be fair and defensible positions.

[dplank]

Also it takes about 2 minutes to think about it.

How would McCaskey select this football person. Hold a lengthy search process? Interview several top and respected football minds from other organizations? Determine their fit with the organization?

Didn't I just describe the GM interview process? What changed?

Now there are two possible alternatives.

The Bears need to hire a retread. A guy who's done the top job before and has measurable results in the GM role. Okay.

Or

The Bears need to hire away the best currently employed GM they can and they will need to offer compensation to get it done. Okay. (this is basically what the deal with Finks was since he was brought up).

Either of those may be fair and defensible positions.

I'm 100% understanding your point that you've been making on this for a while now, which is a simple logic statement that says at some point in a football teams organizational structure, you will have the owner/business side of the team choosing the chief football officer of the team. And whether you define that as a President of Football operations and have a GM report to that person, or just having a GM with all the responsibilities is basically semantics.

That said, I think I like the President of Football Operations + GM structure a little better. And yes, it does diminish the GM role. But here's why I like it:

If you separate the two, you can spread core competencies out and focus efforts on what you do best. Your President of Football Ops should be your top level strategic mind, long term thinker for where the franchise is going. He should have a heavy hand, if not completely own, the selection of HC and GM, with a strategy of ensuring the two are in sync with one another philosophically/strength wise. One amplifies the other. Your GM has expertise in pro and college personnel and owns player acquisition + cap management. And his talent eye/preferences line up with your coaching staff and team philosophy (unlike now, Pace assembled a team with most talent/spend on defense and then hired an offensive minded HC).

Not every great talent evaluator is also a great strategic thinker. And not every great football mind wants the "all in grind' that a combined President/GM role would require, so you can open up another talent pool that might otherwise not be interested. So I think you can improve your team structure by separating these roles and adding another high level football mind in the building, even though it's absolutely still true that a non-football person will have to make that key hire which carries many of the same risks as hiring just the GM role.

[mshu7]

The Bears should try to emulate the Baltimore Ravens organization. They are tough, physical and consistently successful year in and year out. Take a look at their front office page. I think it has many more people than the Bears. Pat Moriarty, St. VP of Football Ops, is the type of person the Bears should employ as their President of Football Ops. In fact, if I were George McCaskey, I’d get him on the phone and see what it would take to get him to come to the Bears.

https://www.baltimoreravens.com/team/fr ... ce-roster/

[Ditka’s dictaphone]

I read an interesting soccer article about coaching/management today.

When developing a football (sports) organisation you need “the 3 C’s”

Concept : I’m not sure the bears have a “clear concept”. Are we tough and physical? Are we mean and defensively tight? Are we free flowing high scoring open team? I don’t know. We don’t seem to know what kind of offense we’re aiming for. Are we a passing offense, a running offense? I think we’re lacking in a clear offensive concept. Defense, well that’s hard to tell but whatever it is we’re inconsistent. The bears need a clear concept running right through the organisation.

Competency: I think the bears fail on this too. Is everyone in the organisation performing at a high level of competence? GM? OC? DC? STC? HC? All lacking I’d say. You can’t be the organisation you want to be without highly competent individuals at every level.

Cash: Do you have the resources, and are you prepared to invest it, to achieve success? Will you pay the money to employ the most competent individuals? It’s not about a player cap, it’s about the organisation.

So I think it was an interesting article. I think it applies to the bears. I think blaming Fields or Dalton or any player is short-sighted.

Firing the HC will not solve the problems, just like signing a (potential) franchise QB will not.

The bears need a re-think. They need to hire the most competent individuals they can, they need to have clarity of concept and teach it all the way through the team.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

That said, I think I like the President of Football Operations + GM structure a little better. And yes, it does diminish the GM role. But here's why I like it:

If you separate the two, you can spread core competencies out and focus efforts on what you do best. Your President of Football Ops should be your top level strategic mind, long term thinker for where the franchise is going. He should have a heavy hand, if not completely own, the selection of HC and GM, with a strategy of ensuring the two are in sync with one another philosophically/strength wise. One amplifies the other. Your GM has expertise in pro and college personnel and owns player acquisition + cap management. And his talent eye/preferences line up with your coaching staff and team philosophy (unlike now, Pace assembled a team with most talent/spend on defense and then hired an offensive minded HC).

I'd disagree with you about Pace not lining up with Nagy. Yes he's invested more money in the defense (primarily at premium positions of pass rushers and playmakers in the secondary) than the offense, but in terms of both draft and offseason signings he's actually skewed towards offense.

Overall he's selected 3 offensive players against 2 defensive players on Day One of the draft, the ratio's 8:2 on Day 2 and 14:16 on Day 3.

Since hiring Nagy those ratios are 1:1 on Day One, 5:1 on Day 2 and 8:10 on Day 3.

In terms of significant free agents and trade acquisitions, there is still a bias in favour of offense especially after the first two seasons when Pace was rebuilding the worst defense in franchise history. In Nagy's first year Pace signed Allen Robinson, Taylor Gabriel, Trey Burton and got him Chase Daniels as a back up QB who knew his system and could help develop Trubisky. It wasn't until the Mack trade that he made a major signing on defense.

Since then Pace has given Nagy the likes of Mike Davies and Cordarrelle Patterson at RB, both of whom he failed to do anything of note with whilst they've been more productive both before and after their stints in Chicago. Pace got Nagy veteran QB Nick Foles last year and then Andy Dalton this year and neither has been able to put up points in this offense. He got Nagy TE Jimmy Graham, but Nagy barely uses him even in the red zone, and this season he got him Jesse James who's not close to his Pittsburgh-level production. Pace also got him multiple speedy receivers this offseason, but that hasn't helped. He hasn't completely ignored the offensive line either, bringing in Bobby Massie, Germain Ifedi and now Jason Peters to try to shore up the tackle spots although it is obvious more needed to be done.

Pace's problem isn't that he isn't aligned with Nagy, it's been that he's been too aligned with Nagy. Every move he's made has been to get Nagy what he's said he needs. The very productive Jordan Howard? A bad fit because he's not a threat in the passing game. Montgomery, Davies, Patterson... not utilised much in the pass game and two jettisoned. Tight Ends critical for this offense? Pace brings in an ageing 5-time Pro Bowl red zone threat and spends his top draft pick on Kmet. Neither did much with Nagy calling the plays and still go missing for extended periods. (Neither RBs or TEs were targeted once in the Ravens game prior to Fields getting hurt.) The offense needs speed at WR? This offense is loaded with speed, but it's still not explosive. Worst of all Pace has given Nagy 4 starting QBs and none have been successful.

Pace should have fired Nagy at the end of last season by which time it should have been abundantly clear to him that no matter which players he brings in at which positions, either through the draft or free agency/trades, Nagy is always going to be utterly incapable of getting his offense to work.

[The Cooler King]

Also it takes about 2 minutes to think about it.

How would McCaskey select this football person. Hold a lengthy search process? Interview several top and respected football minds from other organizations? Determine their fit with the organization?

Didn't I just describe the GM interview process? What changed?

Now there are two possible alternatives.

The Bears need to hire a retread. A guy who's done the top job before and has measurable results in the GM role. Okay.

Or

The Bears need to hire away the best currently employed GM they can and they will need to offer compensation to get it done. Okay. (this is basically what the deal with Finks was since he was brought up).

Either of those may be fair and defensible positions.

I'm 100% understanding your point that you've been making on this for a while now, which is a simple logic statement that says at some point in a football teams organizational structure, you will have the owner/business side of the team choosing the chief football officer of the team. And whether you define that as a President of Football operations and have a GM report to that person, or just having a GM with all the responsibilities is basically semantics.

That said, I think I like the President of Football Operations + GM structure a little better. And yes, it does diminish the GM role. But here's why I like it:

If you separate the two, you can spread core competencies out and focus efforts on what you do best. Your President of Football Ops should be your top level strategic mind, long term thinker for where the franchise is going. He should have a heavy hand, if not completely own, the selection of HC and GM, with a strategy of ensuring the two are in sync with one another philosophically/strength wise. One amplifies the other. Your GM has expertise in pro and college personnel and owns player acquisition + cap management. And his talent eye/preferences line up with your coaching staff and team philosophy (unlike now, Pace assembled a team with most talent/spend on defense and then hired an offensive minded HC).

Not every great talent evaluator is also a great strategic thinker. And not every great football mind wants the "all in grind' that a combined President/GM role would require, so you can open up another talent pool that might otherwise not be interested. So I think you can improve your team structure by separating these roles and adding another high level football mind in the building, even though it's absolutely still true that a non-football person will have to make that key hire which carries many of the same risks as hiring just the GM role.

The long term strategic thinker is the owner or possibly CEO/Pres. It seems every NFL team currently operate this way. It's also likely true that the GM also has to play a role in this and that is part of the role. That's why Ryan Pace might therefor petition ownership for an upgrade to Halas Hall. The GM isn't just a glorified scout and drafter. If their incentives don't seem to align its either on ownership for not aligning their incentives or simply a GM has considered the long term/short term thinking and simply come to a different conclusion on how to balance from the fan standpoint. It doesn't mean that strategic thinking isn't occuring or can't be managed from a single key executive role.

[dplank]

The long term strategic thinker is the owner or possibly CEO/Pres.

I mean long term, strategic thinker about football things only. A good judge of coaching talent. A good judge of player acquisition talent. A good culture/tempo setter and ultimate responsibility guy. The one guy who makes damn sure the GM and Coach are aligned (Pace can't "align himself" apparently)

Is it absolutely necessary? No. You can do it all in one role, many teams do, depends on who you have doing it frankly. But use your own logic here, what that likely means if it's all under GM is just more delegating on the talent acquisition side, so it kind of morphs into this structure anyways regardless of title. Look at Baltimore, they had Moriarty, Savage, and Ozzie all in the building at the same time for years. We have Ryan Pace and....who? I don't care what you want to call them or what title they have, I think we need more football only talent in our front office. More guys that played the game IMO as a check on some of these more political/organizational beasts that we have now. Nagy didn't play in the NFL, neither did Pace, yet they are our top two football minds in the building. I see that as a problem.

[The Cooler King]

The long term strategic thinker is the owner or possibly CEO/Pres.

I mean long term, strategic thinker about football things only. A good judge of coaching talent. A good judge of player acquisition talent. A good culture/tempo setter and ultimate responsibility guy.

Is it necessary? No. You can do it all in one role, many teams do. But use your own logic here, what that likely means is more delegating on the talent acquisition side, so it kind of morphs into this structure anyways regardless of title. Look at Baltimore, they had Moriarty, Savage, and Ozzie all in the building at the same time for years. We have Ryan Pace and....who? I don't care what you want to call them or what title they have, I think we need more football only talent in our front office. More guys that played the game IMO as a check on some of these more political/organizational beasts that we have now. Nagy didn't play in the NFL, neither did Pace, yet they are our top two football minds in the building.

I don't know the answer off hand, but I don't get the sense most front offices are littered with former players. They tend to go the coaching route. Seems to be looking for an answer to a solution here.

Anyways, yes if the argument is more delegation and whatever fine, but the Football Ops isn't some like special role when people suggest it. And the biggest thing would be tempering expectations of who the GM would then be. Because people will inevitably just start listing off guys who aren't gonna leave for another orgs number 2 role. Or other teams will just outright block it.

[spudbear]

I agree with dplank on the Bears getting a President of Football Ops. George McC seems to be that guy and owner as well, but he hasn't done either well. His momma is still the real owner and he seems to be her public "muscle" or presence when needed.

President of FO reports to the owner and has three departments reporting to him: GM, HC, Business Mgr. He may also be the PoC with the league in place of the owner.
The GM acquires the talent and has three departments reporting to him: Pro Scouts, College Scouts, Trainers/Health Professionals.
The HC shapes the talent and devises the plan of attack for each game, with assistant coaches reporting to him. Trainers/HP have dotted line to him.
The Business Mgr takes care of facilities (stadium, practice, office/admin), insurance, accounting, supplies/equipment and transportation. He has dotted line to owner.

President of FO reviews intermediate and long term strategy with owner, then works with his three departments to implement short term strategy to help realize the goals and changes strategy due to circumstances. Like having half of your high priced vet "tanlent" injured and on the sidelines.

[The Cooler King]

I agree with dplank on the Bears getting a President of Football Ops. George McC seems to be that guy and owner as well, but he hasn't done either well. His momma is still the real owner and he seems to be her public "muscle" or presence when needed.

President of FO reports to the owner and has three departments reporting to him: GM, HC, Business Mgr. He may also be the PoC with the league in place of the owner.
The GM acquires the talent and has three departments reporting to him: Pro Scouts, College Scouts, Trainers/Health Professionals.
The HC shapes the talent and devises the plan of attack for each game, with assistant coaches reporting to him. Trainers/HP have dotted line to him.
The Business Mgr takes care of facilities (stadium, practice, office/admin), insurance, accounting, supplies/equipment and transportation. He has dotted line to owner.

President of FO reviews intermediate and long term strategy with owner, then works with his three departments to implement short term strategy to help realize the goals and changes strategy due to circumstances. Like having half of your high priced vet "tanlent" injured and on the sidelines.

Eh, this is more or less trying to say that you want a hands off owner who hires a CEO which is basically the status quo (Ted has several direct reports on business side instead of one business manager).

And maybe it just devolves into a "replace Phillips" demand, which okay, but Phillips role is a business role and it is arguably that in every single NFL franchise. His replacement will be the best business person, not the best football mind.

I don't know who you have in mind for that president role, but 90% of the time I see it as someone who has zero qualifications to oversee the business side. It's just utter ridiculous proposals almost always.

[dplank]

I see value in having a person other than the GM hiring and firing the HC. As is, the GM can scapegoat coaching.

[Boris13c]

haven't had the time to look up the details, but the Bears need to make the time to actually study what successful teams do in regards to their operations

there are reasons some teams are good year in and year out even when they are turning over their roster ... I've been a Bears fan my entire life and the last true quality GM who took the time to build a Bears team was Jim Finks ... and that was a long time ago ... but he took a completely crappy Bears team and rebuilt it and the result was the 85 Bears team we all know and love ... Finks is who built that foundation

and Finks took abuse by the media, and some fans, for seeming to continue to use high draft picks on linemen ... eventually everyone understood the concept of building the line and the rest will follow ... and he stuck to his guns and made it work, and we all ended up thankful ... he never should have been allowed to leave (or been forced from depending on which story you read) Halas Hall ... and the Bears have simply never had anyone with that level of competence since

[The Cooler King]

I see value in having a person other than the GM hiring and firing the HC. As is, the GM can scapegoat coaching.

While on a high level this can happen, I can't find a current case where this has been done with a guy with an explicit football-ish background. It always is basically the owner or team Pres and almost every team Pres is unequivocally not a football guy in the vein of former player or player personnel exec, like described. But yea, the hiring process of coach and GM can be separately managed with potentially mixed lines up to a President type. Or the HC explicitly outranking the GM. But it's really never to another football guy and I don't think thats an accident.

The closest example is maybe Washington, but they hired Chico as coach, then Wright as Pres, then Mayhem as GM, all spread out by 6+ months and each seem to be very owner involved searches where report lines are unclear at best.

Washington is also perhaps a good case study from the Allen days. Hired an experienced GM in Allen. Eventually elevated to team Pres where he hired and pretty quickly fired a GM and took back de facto GM responsibility. Is there a case of a explicitly football guy Pres actually delegates to a true GM who actually maintains control. In any case, Snyders ownership isn't one to want to replicate.

Atlanta it's seemingly worked out where McKay ascended to CEO from GM (after also being GM in TB) and as far as I can tell has delegated well to GMs, but he was never really a conventional football guy either. Son of coach and law background before being a GM. So he was always more of an old school business/do everything GM than we think of today as the guy who raises through player personnel ranks as a talent evaluator.

So there can definitely be a fair amount of nuance to delegation and reporting lines, it seems pretty clear from evidence of other teams that the traditional football guy at top is gonna be what we know as the GM role. From a fan perspective I don't see how we'd approach a Football Pres who was a conventional football exec and not assign them 99% of blame or praise the same way we'd currently assign it the GM. We've just played with titles. Or created a Allen in Washington situation where the GM under the football guy Pres actually lacks the supposed authority they are given.

[The Cooler King]

haven't had the time to look up the details, but the Bears need to make the time to actually study what successful teams do in regards to their operations

Honestly, in the modern NFL era (salary cap, full FA) there's really only one team I can think of that has had consistent success not anchored with a HOF QB.

Now granted maybe there's a correlation/causation error I'm making and the great franchises are also developing those HOF QBs. And there's probably a lot of truth to that, but we do have pretty rare examples of a single franchise completing that action twice.

Beyond that, putting heavy emphasis on coach control seems to yield pretty good results. Even if we ignore the Patriots who's sucess always skew these things and there's lots of examples of placing emphasis or priority on the coaching hire and not necessarily going GM->Coach in org heirarchy.