Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

The Bears Should Consider Ruskell For GM. There, I Said It.

I'm not saying that the Bears are handling this job search the right way. In my opinion they should have fired Phillips and let the chips fall where they may. Maybe we would have a new GM and kept Lovie, maybe we would have the same GM and a new HC. But the new team president would have had decisions to make and could have made them his way. But that didn't happen.

So, I know this will go over about as well as last years post I had on why the Bears should draft a wide receiver in the first round. That one was resoundingly shouted down. But hear me out. Ruskell makes sense as the next GM for the Bears. The McCaskey's have already stated that both Lovie and Tim will remain in place regardless of who the next GM is. The brain trust of George and Ted have declared that whomever is named the next GM must be someone who completely backs Lovie. Short of naming Lovie both coach and GM (A job I believe Lovie can't handle because not many can) Ruskell fits the bill straight across the board.

The new GM has to be someone Lovie is comfortable with. Ruskell. The new GM has to be someone with experience and scouting credentials. Ruskell was the Tampa Bay's (Lovie connection anyone?) scouting director when they won the Super Bowl. The new GM will be limited by the success of the team next season. If they make the playoffs, he may keep his job. If they miss the playoffs? Maybe he gets to name the next new head coach but do you really want our new GM already eyeing other coaching candidates this year with Lovie already firmly entrenched for this next season?

Ruskell has a shaky draft history. That is true. But as my good friend Ed pointed out, the new GM will be limited by what he can do in a perceived "make or break" season for this entire team. Why mess with the chemistry that that perception comes with? In other words, why not have a GM who also gets just how much this next season means for the team moving forward? Ruskell. Plus Ruskell has had past successes. But he butted heads with Holmgren over some draft picks but he made some keen moves. You can read about them here.

Even if this years draft is a complete success what will that mean for the Bears? They get 2 or 3 picks that can actually start? And what will said picks actually contribute in one season? Probably very little. And free agency? Who knows how Ruskell will approach this compared to the other candidates available? But everyone sees the weaknesses and most NFL personnel know who's available so that comes down to money and contract negotiation and we still have Cliff Stein, one of the leagues best.

Bottom line is, whoever the Bears hire this year his tenure is tenuous at best. Why not grab the man who is already aware of that? The man who gets Lovie and poses no threat. If the Bears have a great season then we all play "wait and see" on the Ruskell moving forward. But if the seasons a disaster, or even a disappointment, clean house and start completely fresh. It isn't an ideal situation but since we screwed the pooch from the beginning why not see this through to the end?

This FanPost was written by a Windy City Gridiron member, and does not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of its staff or community.

Comment 30 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I'm Okay with That

as long as they rename the team the Chicago Buccaneers.

by Gaak on Jan 10, 2012 9:57 PM CST reply actions  

We're already the

Pantheramlions or whatever great name Smudgers gave us.

Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.

by Just Dave on Jan 10, 2012 10:14 PM CST up reply actions  

I said a very similar thing the other day

only with a little more of an “Oliver Stone” conspiracy theory approach to it. YOUR friend ed, was not kind about it, so expect to be admonished.

by BearFan611 on Jan 10, 2012 10:12 PM CST reply actions  

By the always reasonable and open-to-discussion Ed? Tsk, you people.

When I assume, I'm not "making an ass out of u and me"... I'm actually putting u between me and an ass.

by Spongie on Jan 12, 2012 3:10 PM CST up reply actions  

He speculated today!

And posted it! It was delightful.

Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.

by Just Dave on Jan 12, 2012 3:13 PM CST up reply actions  

If hiring

Ruskell means everyone from Phillips to the coaching staff gets fired after the season, then I guess I’m ok with it. But then, why not just clean house now?

i am not ok with Ruskell as our long term GM. He is awful.

And did anyone see Jensen’s puff piece on Ruskell? Who in the hell asked him to write that? It completely glosses over everything he did to ruin that franchise, and basically says that the Seahwaks were really good before he got there, Holmgren is a jerk, and he drafted a good linebacker.

Jensen is usually a solid reporter. That article was out of left field.

by tomas21 on Jan 10, 2012 10:37 PM CST reply actions  

We cant clean house now because

our dumbasses signed Lovie to an extension right before the season, which I never understood. Why couldn’t we wait to see how we did this year before resigning him? It’s not like Lovie would left if we wanted him back anyways

by Lweb23 on Jan 11, 2012 1:47 PM CST up reply actions  

I don't think it is a stretch to say Ruskell has a bad drafting record

Regardless of whether the Bears play well next year, the team will be saddled with Ruskell’s draft picks. I don’t think the team can afford another wasted draft, especially if they are rebuilding in 2013 or 2014.

I am one of Lovie’s biggest supporters, but I think the worst thing the Bears can do is give Lovie more power/responsibility. I think Lovie is one of those people who doesn’t realize when he is in over his head. He thought he could be a headcoach/defensive coordinator, and the team almost came apart at the seams. A lot of headcoaches have destroyed teams and their careers taking on GM responsibilities. I don’t think we know exactly what kind of input he has had on draft picks, but the consensus opinion isn’t very good. Lovie shouldn’t have any more input than he needs to have.

The Bears should bring in an outsider who can call out Lovie. The Bears and Lovie will both benefit from that arrangement. Even if next season doesn’t work out, that GM will be in a better position to address needs for 2013 than hiring a new GM in 2013-2014. Ruskell will just enable Lovie.

by BusterK on Jan 10, 2012 11:13 PM CST reply actions  

I agree.

I dont know why the new GM needs Lovies approval.

by Ryan21 on Jan 11, 2012 11:06 AM CST via Android app up reply actions  

Is it possible Ruskell has gotten an unfair rap?

I’m looking at Seattle’s drafts here

In 2005, he had the #26 pick, and drafted Chris Spencer, Lofa Tatupu, and Leroy Hill. That team went to the Super Bowl. Tatupu went to 3 pro bowls. Hill and Spencer were nothing special, but Hill was the starter for the Super Bowl year and the next few after that, and Spencer started a bunch of years as well.

In 2006, he had the #31 pick, and drafted Kelly Jennings, Darryl Tapp, Rob Sims, and Ben Obomanu. Jennings has been a solid starting corner. Tapp never carved out a starting role, but was a very solid role player who consistently had positive PFF grades. Sims became one of the better guards in the NFL, and Obomanu has stuck around as a #3/#4 WR.

Ok, I’m running out of steam, but in 2007 he had no 1st rounder (traded? I dunno), and so his first pick was 55th. He drafted Josh Wilson, who was a solid corner for Seattle for a few years before having a great season as Baltimore’s #1 corner last year. In the 3rd round, he got Brandon Mebane, a PFF favorite. He also drafted Will Herring, who was a solid rotation linebacker for a few years.

In 2008 he had the 28th pick and drafted Lawrence Jackson. Jackson didn’t do much with Seattle, but had a big year for Detroit in 2010 and was solid as a rotation DE this year. John Carlson looked like an up-and-coming TE before injuries struck. Red Bryant has developed in to an average to above average lineman. And Owen Schmitt and Justin Forsett have both contributed in limited roles.

In 2009 he had the #4 pick and whiffed on Aaron Curry. He did pick up Max Unger, who has developed into a solid starting center.

So that’s it. Ruskell has almost always had late picks, and imo he did pretty well from 2004-2008, and then had a bad 2009 draft. I think the criticism of some of his other moves – giving Shaun Alexander a massive contract, screwing up the Hutch offer sheet, over-reliance on an aging Hasselbeck and mediocre Seneca Wallace – is warranted. But I think most people agree he was a good draft scout for Tampa Bay, and I think he was mostly a good draft scout for Seattle too, one bad pick aside. I won’t say he’s the Bears’ best option, but maybe Just Dave is right that he’s better than people think.

by YaoPau on Jan 11, 2012 12:58 AM CST reply actions  

I dont wants Ruskell… that being said, as you have pointed out, he’s done fairly well, given the draft picks he’s had…the hindsight 20/20 picks that have turned out well, 31 others teams missed on those also.

I still like Curry, who enjoyed a bit of an upswing in Oakland, and it’s possible Carroll in SEA doesn’t know what he’s doing. He was overdrafted IMO but should be a solid LB in the NFL

Superman wears an Urlacher Jersey under his costume

by BearNecessities on Jan 11, 2012 1:09 AM CST up reply actions  

Curry was also the consensus "best player" in that draft.

Several pundits speculated that the safest thing Detroit could do was to draft Curry at #1. Hindsight shows what a terrible idea that would have been, but Ruskell seems to have missed the same thing everyone else missed in his evaluation of Curry.

Meanwhile, several other teams at the top of that draft would likely change their picks in a re-draft. Jason Smith has really disappointed as the #2 overall pick, and at a supposedly safe position (LT). The #3 pick, Tyson Jackson (DE), had no sacks as a rookie, and one each the past two years. Suffice to say, KC is not thrilled with that pick either.

After Curry went Mark Sanchez (5), Andre Smith (6), Darius Heyward-Bey (7) and Eugene Monroe (8), all of whom have had their problems and underperformed. The first productive pick in that draft, other than Stafford, was BJ Raji (9). After that were a couple other busts or underperformers, including Michael Crabtree (10), and Aaron Maybin (11). It’s not until picks 12 – 15 that you start seeing a bunch of productive players (Moreno, Orakpo, Jenkins, Cushing).

So all in all, that draft had lots of people fooled at the top end, some much worse than Ruskell.

by Orval Overall on Jan 12, 2012 9:36 AM CST up reply actions  

In all honesty
In 2009 he had the #4 pick and whiffed on Aaron Curry.

There were 32 teams that would have whiffed on Curry had they had that pick. Curry looked pretty legit coming out of college

"I'm too drunk to taste this chicken" - Colonel Sanders

It's all about THE []_[] baby!!!

~"Smile when u being attacked,laugh when they talking boutcha,wave when they hating on u and Pray when they leave u alone Somethings wrong!"~ Deion Sanders

At least FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER before you judge me fool

by suckmyditka on Jan 11, 2012 3:51 PM CST up reply actions  

the thing is...

I don’t think the bears should have to “settle” on Ruskell. There are much better options, and if they do decide to go with Ruskell, it shows George McCaskey hasn’t had a changed mentality like we all hoped when he fired angelo. It shows he just doesn’t want things to get stale.

keep this in mind: Ruskell drafted ONE pro bowl player in FIVE drafts, along with letting some of his best players walk (see Steve Hutchinson). No thank you.

by Nih1lus on Jan 11, 2012 1:22 AM CST reply actions  

Booooooooo

But in all seriousness, with the way this search is being conducted in Chicago, we may have no other option. So, expect the worst, but hope for the best.

Jay Cutler is our QB, and I for one am proud of that

by Erik Christopher Duerrwaechter on Jan 11, 2012 7:28 AM CST reply actions  

Shout this man down!

@OccupyJustDave
Seriously though, I fear Phillips is spinning wheels until he gets the go-ahead to hire Ruskell and keep him under his thumb.

If its free, take two.

by T.J. Shouse on Jan 11, 2012 9:11 AM CST via Android app reply actions  

No on Ruskell, but...

DeCosta passed. Reggie McKenzie willingly took the Raider’s job over the possibility of the Bears job. The point is that the McCaskeys have made this team so unpalatable that the team with the largest market in the entire NFL (NY splits, LA nada) acts like an expansion franchise and we have to “settle” for whatever leftover mediocrities are foisted on us by Ted Phillips trying to save his very incompetent touckas. I’m offended this column should have ever had a chance of being written — NOT directed at Just Dave, but at the utterly incompetent inheritors of this franchise.

Remember: they are inheritors. They have yet to prove, after 30 years, that they are owners.

by chidino on Jan 12, 2012 10:41 AM CST reply actions  

+1

This is the elephant in the room that most people don’t seem to get:

The point is that the McCaskeys have made this team so unpalatable that the team with the largest market in the entire NFL (NY splits, LA nada) acts like an expansion franchise and we have to "settle" for whatever leftover mediocrities are foisted on us by Ted Phillips trying to save his very incompetent touckas.

Since Angelo’s firing, we have all been able to witness exactly how unprepared and amatuerish this franchises’ upper management actually is. McKenzie didn’t even wait to get an interview with Chicago. Why would he not even wait to check out such a great opportunity in the biggest city in the midwest, with the largest market in the NFL?

Does it make sense to you?

by JimmyMack on Jan 13, 2012 4:56 PM CST up reply actions  

T.R. stinks . If he were picked for GM, we’d be looking at the " John Shoop " of GMs.

by Thump 1 on Jan 16, 2012 10:31 AM CST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Windy City Gridiron is the best independent site on the internet for breaking news, in-depth analysis, and hardcore discussion about the Chicago Bears

Community Guidelines

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Images-8_small
Why the Offensive Line will be fine.

Recent FanPosts

029_small
Solving a Crisis: Redzone Edition
Windycityflyer_small
SMD's Bottom 5
Images-8_small
Yahoo Fantasy Football Sign-up. Need contact info soon
Small
We may not know DT Nate Collins but the Chicago Bears do.
029_small
Is it time for a contract? Oh no, not another Matt Forte post...
Burlacher2_small
Is Winning Games a Specialty?
Burlacher2_small
Apparently, Defense Wins Championships...
Fox_small
Bad start for AJ Jenkins
Burlacher2_small
What's It Take to Win?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Windycity_small Adam T

189886_210123485665309_100000029768895_888721_5830650_n__1__small Dane Noble

Editors

Sackwatchcutler_small Lester A. Wiltfong Jr.

535321_3734130120778_1501804679_3253247_588486681_n_small David Taylor

Orange_shy_guy_small Steven Schweickert

Capture_small Kev H

Contributing Writers

Lincoln_small Sam Householder

Leprechaun_small Spongie

Polishsausage_small Steve Ronkowski

Icothgmts_small T.J. Shouse

Joe_20mantegna-bill_20swerski_small Superfans

P981d5c2_reasonably_small_small DaveGilbertNFL