I have one reason the Bears should say No to Tim Ruskell
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jan 12, 2012 2:30 PM CST
in From The Desk Of...
Email
PrintTim Ruskell was a Jerry Angelo hire. Not just a hire, but he was brought in ("allegedly")* to take over when Angelo stepped down. The two share a general managing philosophy, and if Angelo was fired because the Bears wanted the franchise to go in a different direction, they why the hell would they hire the guy, that the guy they fired, hired to take over for him when he retired? For all I know Ruskell is a football savant that had a clash of styles with then Seattle head coach Mike Holmgren. But I don't care. If the Bears hire him, it'll just be another in a long line of idiotic moves. If Ruskell was the choice, the Bears went about this entire thing all wrong.
If Ruskell ends up with the job, the Bears never should have fired Jerry Angelo. They should have went to him and worked out a mutual separation. Ted Phillips should have sat down with Angelo, informed him he thought the team needed a change, and asked him to resign. They could have had their Jerry Angelo appreciation press conference, introduced Ruskell, and went from there. Sure there would have been some backlash from the media and the fans with the change for the sake of change move, but it would have blown over rather quickly with the Mike Martz decision and subsequent offensive coordinator search.
There's always the chance that JA would have declined the offer to retire, but with him so close to the end anyway, he could have been coerced to go. If not, then they're sitting where they are anyway and no one would any wiser. Wait a minute, maybe that is what happened...
I don't really have a favorite among the candidates that are up for the job, I just know that Ruskell should not be considered at this time.
* It was pointed out to me by someone whose football acumen I respect greatly that the 'Ruskell was hired to replace Angelo' was pure speculation by the fans and media as nothing concrete was ever issued from the Bears regarding this matter. I'm tackling this subject from a perception is reality direction.
65 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
not everyone feels the same way I do
Here’s a flip side argument…
The Bears Should Consider Ruskell For GM. There, I Said It.
When Mike Ditka calculates pi it's decimal representation ends.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jan 12, 2012 2:32 PM CST reply actions
I totally agree...
If Ruskell was the choice, the Bears went about this entire thing all wrong.
The Bears did go about this all wrong which is why Ruskell should be the choice. But thanks for the linky.
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
You think that the Bears made one mistake, so you advocate that they then make another
There’s an old quote: “Never try to catch a falling knife.”
The Bears should hire the best GM candidate that they can, whether or not they played their cards right in the way that they let Angelo go.
And Ruskell is not that candidate.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 12, 2012 3:12 PM CST up reply actions
Ruskell understands the situation as it is now.
Ruskell is staying on anyway as is Lovie. They are already paying him to scout for them. If the Bears wanted to hire the best GM they could they shouldn’t have handcuffed him to Lovie. I don’t want someone new to come in and view next season as a wash while they wait to hire whatever coach they have their eye on. Not fair to Lovie, not fair to the team, and not fair to the franchise. Ruskell’s willing to work with Lovie, Lovie’s comfortable with Tim and Lovie’s not going anywhere next season. May as well keep it Lovie’s team all the way around for an entire season and see where that takes us. Maybe we’ll all be pleasantly surprised.
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
Right, because GMs are always hired with a one-year plan and a short-term point of view
“handcuffed him to Lovie”? “view next season as a wash”?
It’s the HC’s job to win the next game, to have a winning season. It’s the GM’s job to prepare the team for and enable the team’s success for the next 3 to 5 to 10 seasons.
I don’t know why you think that the new GM and Lovie and Ruskell can’t work together for the success of the organization next season, nor what exactly in Ruskell’s background inspires you to think that he’s the guy.
But if they keep Ruskell on as GM now, aren’t they doing it for only one season? If the new GM is handcuffed to Lovie next season, how is it any different in promoting Ruskell? And Ruskell’s knowledge of the Bears shouldn’t matter, being that it’s been acquired in less than one year.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 12, 2012 3:24 PM CST up reply actions
This team is in win now mode.
To begin looking long term might actually be short sighted. And what makes you so sure Ruskell will suck? Just because you associate him with Angelo? You know who else I associate with Angelo? Lovie Smith. Besides Ruskell is highly respected in the NFL, he has GM experience, and he knows the needs of this team as well as anyone. People want to cite his years in Seattle as a complete debacle but he had to work around Holmgren’s ego. Maybe a fresh start in Chicago will be just what he needs. I think people around here had already made up their minds about Ruskell before Jerry was ever fired. Give the man a chance. If next season sucks it will likely be more because we held on to Lovie too long than anything Ruskell will do with one draft. Plus, I don’t think next season will suck. I think this is a team headed in the right direction but now that becomes heavily dependent on just how good Lovie really is regardless of who they hire as GM.
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
You lost me in your second sentence
And what makes you so sure Ruskell will suck? Just because you associate him with Angelo?
You don’t know who I am nor why I think that, though I have touched on it in other posts. I lived in Seattle from 2001 – 2008, and while I remained a staunch Bears fan, the Seahawks became my second favorite ballclub. I had many long talks about football with Seattle fans during that time, oftentimes from seats in Qwest Field.
I witnessed exactly how that team was built, and how it decayed. Ted Thompson (now with the Packers) did the former, and Ruskell oversaw the latter.
As I quickly describe below, I see the Bears biggest needs as OL, WRs, backup QB, and to begin to rebuild an aging defense. Ruskell couldn’t find a WR nor QB, backup or not, to save his life in Seattle; the OL completely deteriorated on his watch; and his defense was nothing special.
Ruskell inherited a Super Bowl team, and the best thing that I can say about him is that maybe he staved off its inevitable decline for longer than Mike Holmgren would’ve if left alone. And that’s certainly not the future I want for my beloved Chicago Bears.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 12, 2012 3:50 PM CST up reply actions
I agree with much of what you said in your comments below.
I sorta meant the “you” generically. As in most Bear fan’s may be hesitant because of his association with Angelo.
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
next season is a wash for the gm? lol
the only way lovie being around next year affects anything is if lovie has a huge say in the draft and everything. thats “handcuffing” a gm not telling him he cant fire the head coach his first season whos defense is only capable;e of running one defense.
yea nobody would want the job
if ur reason is soley based on not being able to fire lovie then i think thats just dumb. plain and simple
Lovie will have a huge say in the draft.
Ted Phillips made that clear.
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
then base your arguement around that
not just the sole fact of lovie being there. lovie being the hc and lovie being co-gm are two different thing
Not if you listen to Phillips.
Or if you pay attention to Smith’s contract. He already has significant say in the draft and has control over his own coaching staff as well as having a say in who gets hired for the GM job. Realistically, Smith actually has more power than the GM who must bend to his will.
in•san•i•ty \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\ noun
1 : The practice of repeating the same action while expecting different results.
by Timothy Hockemeyer on Jan 12, 2012 8:40 PM CST up reply actions
Great points.
Which is why I think the Bears should consider giving Ruskell the job. We’re already paying him anyway, he knows the team needs, and he already has a working relationship with Lovie. I’m not saying this was the way the Bears should have handled this situation, but since this was the direction they chose to take? Ruskell makes sense as GM.
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
I also agree
No GM should be forced to work with a coach. I see Ruskell as an interim GM and given how the Bears have handled this whole thing, they need an interim GM.
What irritates me is that either we get stuck with Lovie and Ruskell for a few years, or we change GMs 2 years in a row. The Bears are destined to fail either in the short run or in the long run.
its one yr!
and if lovie does good then why should the gm fire him? you think if jackson makes the playoffs mckenzie fires him!! no chance. get real
Yes, Jackson was getting fired either way.
It wasn’t about team performance. It was about the new Davis cleaning out all of the old staff who saw how Al treated his kid.
I read a nice article on it earlier today, but I can’t remember where…
in•san•i•ty \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\ noun
1 : The practice of repeating the same action while expecting different results.
by Timothy Hockemeyer on Jan 12, 2012 8:41 PM CST up reply actions
Here it is...
Linky It’s a good read.
I like Mike Silver’s stuff. I don’t always agree with him, but he has some good insight and has a ton of inside sources.
in•san•i•ty \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\ noun
1 : The practice of repeating the same action while expecting different results.
by Timothy Hockemeyer on Jan 12, 2012 8:44 PM CST up reply actions
ok thats fine
so if the raiders had a qualified owner then jackson would still have a job
Pretty much.
that or had Al not been a complete jerkoff to his son, either one. But yep, that’s about the sum of it.
Every once in a while we should all get on our knees and thank God that the Davis family doesn’t own the Bears. One of the few families that can make you actually appreciate the McCaskey’s.
in•san•i•ty \in-ˈsa-nə-tē\ noun
1 : The practice of repeating the same action while expecting different results.
by Timothy Hockemeyer on Jan 13, 2012 6:12 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs
Ruskell = "Staying the course".
If you like recent history, then go with Ruskell.
If you don’t like recent history, well, the McCaskeys are still making prime money off you and don’t really care. Which is why changes that happen wholesale elsewhere are spread out over a five, six year period under this group. First they came for the position coaches. Now it’s Martz. Next by all rights (and should have been years ago) would be Lovie and the rest of the coaching staff.
[...]when Giants coach Steve Owen, a certified defensive genius, was asked how he planned to stop Nagurski, he said: "With a shotgun, as he’s leaving the dressing room."
C'mon, Lester, quit acting like Bears do things "rationally" and "logically"
This is Virginia’s show. The McCaskeys will do everything they can to keep their minions happy, even if it means the Bears never go to another Super Bowl again.
by NorthSideBearsFan on Jan 12, 2012 3:04 PM CST reply actions
Virginia is a babia majora.
"Losers always whine about their best. Winners go home and f**k the prom queen."
Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired.
Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired. Hired to fired to retired.
Hope I gave today’s mindf*ck of the day :)
Marc Ross 2012
Some interesting points of view on Tim Ruskell
A very interesting and enlightening discussion of the Steve Hutchinson fiasco:
http://www.fieldgulls.com/2009/12/1/1181497/the-rise-and-fall-of-tim-ruskell
I don’t necessarily agree with all of these points, or disagree, but it’s pretty well put together:
http://17power.blogspot.com/2011/02/top-ten-great-mistakes-of-tim-ruskell.html
I’m against Ruskell as GM for several reasons. The Bears biggest needs are OL, WR, backup QB, and to start rebuilding the defense.
Ruskell inherited an all-time great OL in Seattle, and it generally deteriorated on his watch. Seattle had useless WRs, and Ruskell traded a first-round draft pick for Deion “5 feet tall” Branch. Hasselbeck was aging, and the best Ruskell could do as a backup is Seneca Wallace.
For the Bears weaknesses at this point, Ruskell doesn’t seem like the guy to right the ship.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 12, 2012 3:42 PM CST reply actions
idc about the hutchinson fiasco
i care about evaluating players to draft.
You may not care
But people who care about Matt Forte might care. And people who care about an offensive line might care.
Part of a GM’s responsibilities is to evaluate and maintain the talent on the ballclub – to decide which players to keep, and when to re-up their contracts or to use other avenues (e.g. the Franchise tag). The fact that the Seahawks lost one of the best offensive lineman of the last decade on Ruskell’s watch is certainly a potential red flag on his resume.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 12, 2012 5:56 PM CST up reply actions
lol well he tried
i hope he wouldnt have given hutch that contract
Your response is overly simplistic given the complexity of that situation
Hutch has started 89 of 96 games since joining the Vikings. Chester Taylor rushed for 1216 yards and a 4.0 average behind Hutch in 2006, before they drafted AP.
Should they have signed Hutch before he hit the market? Could they have? Should they have used the Franchise tag rather than the Transition tag? What lessons has Ruskell learned from that situation? What would he do with Matt Forte if given the Bears job?
Maybe you don’t care, but other inquiring minds might want to know.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 12, 2012 6:09 PM CST up reply actions
the transition tag was fine
dude was getting his entire contract guaranteed. lol nobody in their right mind does that
well if forte sticks to his guns you slap the f tag on him and wish him a happy new yr. and you dont think twice about it
As I stated - overly simplistic given the complexity of the situation
The entirety of his contract was not guaranteed by Minnesota. However, because of the ‘poison pill’ put in the contract, it would’ve had to have been entirely guaranteed by Seattle.
Therefore, Seattle was put on the hook for a contract that Minnesota wasn’t actually offering him.
If you want to keep writing about this situation with Hutch that you supposedly don’t care about, you could at least endeavour to understand it completely.
I, for one, do care about what Ruskell did in that situation, right or wrong, and how it will affect his negotiations and transactions in the future – if he is indeed being considered for the Bears’ GM position.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 12, 2012 6:22 PM CST up reply actions
i understand the poison pill
no one in the world would have foreseen that. sooooooooooooooooo my previous post is what i still think
Okay, but you can't convince ME not to care
So I’m not entirely sure why you’re still responding.
You don’t care what a potential GM candidate would do about a situation with a very talented free agent. You “care about evaluating players to draft.” Bully for you!
But let me make this perfectly clear to you – I do care.
I don’t want Tim Ruskell to be the next GM of the Chicago Bears. But if he is interviewed for the position, he sure as hell should be asked:
“What, if anything, would you do differently in the situation with Steve Hutchinson?”, and
“What would be your course of action with Matt Forte?”
If you disagree that he the situation needs to be analyzed and the questions asked, if he’s a candidate, then I’m not sure what more I can write. And if you do agree that the questions should be asked, I’m not sure why you’re still writing.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 12, 2012 6:52 PM CST up reply actions
lol dude
i acknowledged what you said. i think how he handled that situation was more than adequate
rofl Now I understand your initials
Trite Response MacReady lol
roflmao
Thanks for adding so much to the discussion!
lol
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 13, 2012 1:54 AM CST up reply actions
just because i dont think it entails the enormous
level of complexity as you do. not sure what you dont understand about that.
i already said that i thought how he handled hutch was fine. and i said to put the tag on forte if he keeps up with his demands. im not gonna write a freaking research paper
let's play nice everybody
When Mike Ditka calculates pi it's decimal representation ends.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jan 13, 2012 10:42 AM CST up reply actions
Trite: hackneyed or boring from much use : not fresh or original
idc, lol dude = trite
So you disagree because you don’t care. That’s original? You really needed to point that out? kewl, dood.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 13, 2012 11:13 AM CST up reply actions
that was my first response...........
did you read what i wrote after. i stated what i thought about the two situations
Lets hope he learned from his mistakes
because he’s going to be one of our talent evaluators this season no matter who they bring in as GM.
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
Agreed
I they wanted to make Ruskell GM, they should have never fired Angelo. But, did the Bears really have a plan in place before they fired Angelo? I think it was probably a quick, unplanned decisions by McCaskey and Phillips.
A quick decision isn't necessarily an unplanned one
Sure, maybe when the Bears were 7-3 against a very tough schedule, riding a 5-game winning streak with a cakewalk ahead of them, they weren’t going to fire Jerry Angelo (even if they had considered the possibility last offseason or early in the season).
But the wheels came off with the injuries to Cutler, Forte, even Chris Williams, and the Bears’ lack of depth was horribly exposed. It became evident very quickly that Caleb Hanie shouldn’t be a #2 on any team, that the Bears WRs couldn’t help Hanie in any way and were actually hurting him (e.g. Roy Williams dropping a tying TD pass in the final minutes against the Chiefs), and the Bears OL would have made any non-top-10 NFL QB a liability anyway.
So when everything went to hell in a bucket, they made the decision that Angelo had to go. Maybe it was because the same problems that they experienced last year, or the last few years, still hadn’t been corrected, even though Jay Cutler, Matt Forte, the defense, Robbie Gould, and yes, possibly even Lovie Smith, all did their damnedest to cover those holes.
And a quick decision isn’t by definition a bad one, either. The jury’s still out, of course. But I think that in the situation they were in, a quick decision may’ve been better than a slow one.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 12, 2012 4:41 PM CST up reply actions
Angelo was Phillips' scape-goat
Do you think Ted Phillips knows how to plan his moves and successfully run an NFL franchise – based on the history that he’s shown us?
Ted Phillips should have been the one to go – and his successor (assuming that person was more qualified than Phillips) would have evaluated Angelo and the rest of the organization’s personnel. As this thing is playing out now, I would have rather seen them just keep Angelo and wait until his contract ran out – and then find the best GM available – as opposed to both Keeping Phillips and promoting Tim Ruskell.
I suppose there's more than one perspective on any history, right?
But the decade before Phillips was promoted was a fustercluck, as I’ve pointed out in a different thread. Mayor Daley wouldn’t even answer the phone when Micheal McCaskey called. The Bears had made the playoffs once since Ditka was canned, probably due to sheer luck as their record was 9-7 that year. Wannstedt was in control of many personnel decisions because the Bears simply didn’t have a GM; at least he and Rod Graves were a two-headed, one-brained monster.
Phillips hired the first GM since Jerry Vainisi, and Angelo was a pretty good hire. He certainly could have been much worse. The Bears have won 4 division titles in that time, and have hosted the NFC Championship game twice in 6 years. And less than 5 years after Phillips was promoted to be the first non-family member to run the organization, the Bears were playing in a new stadium. So I suppose he simply hasn’t been successful enough, right? Because there are certainly some successes there. Look at it this way – if Aaron Rodgers suffered a torn MCL one year ago, and Jay Cutler didn’t, Phillips would in all likelihood have a Super Bowl Championship on his watch. In which case, I’m sure you would be arguing that he needs to be fired because the Bears were successful despite him.
I don’t know why Bears fans are knashing their teeth over Phillips being the team president. In looking around the NFL, the vast majority of team presidents are either lawyers, financial officers, children of owners, and/or figureheads. The real football power in the Bears’ organization resides in the GM position, and that’s the one that needs to be filled with a football guru.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 13, 2012 10:53 AM CST up reply actions
Using your logic
Then why not have the GM report directly to McCaskey?
Why even have Phillips involved in the evaluation process? After all, when the team fails, he’s just going to say “let’s fire the GM that I hired, because it’s all his fault” right?
My point is that Phillips can’t (shouldn’t) have it both ways. If he’s going to hire someone to run the operations, then he needs to be accountable when they turn out to be a poor choice, like Angelo was. Or when he gives Lovie a 5 year guarenteed contract extension, at $5 million a year – and then we miss the playoffs 4 out of those 5 years. Otherwise, let him go or move him to an office job where he can do whatever it is that he’s most comfortable with. Or does Phillips get excused because you’ve cited numerous other team CEO’s around the league who are also accountants, etc?
My one reason is that Lester thinks it's a bad idea.
OK, 2 reasons, he’s not the best man available to get the job done that this franchise needs done.
That being said, there is no guarantee that Ted is gonna do what’s the best for the franchise. I completely agree this was handled poorly. We could have demanded Angelo’s resignation and not looked like a bunch of keystone cops trying to plug the hole we created on our own.
Note to Ted Phillips: Have a plan ahead of time next time you fire someone. This also applies to George McCaskey.
Being a meatball not only makes me delicious, but it also makes me all warm inside.
by Suffering from Chicago Sports on Jan 12, 2012 4:59 PM CST reply actions
nice
When Mike Ditka calculates pi it's decimal representation ends.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jan 13, 2012 9:24 AM CST up reply actions
so people want this guy?
i learn something new everyday
I can summarize this article into one word:
Similarity.
If George McCaskey and/or Ted Phillips really wanted Jerry Angelo out, then why would they fire him and then promote Tim Ruskell to GM? The two of them shared quite a few similarities regarding team building and scouting. Jerry had this whole belief where you should rank players and draft choices based on how bad they can be, compared to taking risks and figuring out how high of a ceiling said players have. Key evidence: his reluctance to draft a WR any higher than the 2nd round. Ruskell shares this idea, and would be not just an action of desperate stupidity, but of a failure to understand one of the basic principles to managing a business. And that is; When you fire someone, you look to go a different course, not to STAY on the current course.
Jay Cutler is our QB, and I for one am proud of that
by Erik Christopher Duerrwaechter on Jan 12, 2012 7:02 PM CST reply actions
Way more than one word there dude.
How do you know Ruskell shares Angelos ideas? Because they worked together? And if they are really looking to go a different course why keep Phillips to begin with? Or for that matter, why are the keeping Ruskell?
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
ECD stick to one word?
When Mike Ditka calculates pi it's decimal representation ends.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jan 13, 2012 9:24 AM CST up reply actions
I dnt quite understand the idea Firing JA was a spur of the moment thing
I think this was always a possibility depending on how the season went. Everything went to shyt they talked about it monday and fired him tuesday. They then thoroughly researched people for a week THEN released their list of candidates that will b brought in for interviews. Its a smart business move to not rush to judgment and make sure you have the right guy before you hire a GM. Ruskell wasnt included in the list of candidates to interview so i take it for what its worth. He’s not a candidate. Stay off and away from the ledge people
See me on Twitter follow me @ EddieCheeze, Catch me on FB friend me Eddie Cheeze, See my group on youtube listen to us Hood Platinum, want me ta kill a track email me Cheeze2k11@gmail.com....Im errwhere
by EmmCeee on Jan 12, 2012 7:59 PM CST via Android app reply actions
if ruskell is made GM
I’ll just be hibernating until the 2013 season.
BUT
You would think Ruskell would already have been made GM after all this time but the Bears have the 4 candidates and I hope one of them becomes the new GM, highly unlikely Ruskell is GM.
Then why have they kept him?
Phillips made it clear they won’t be letting Ruskell go.
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
same thing happened
With the cubs once Theo got hired and bought in his crew. interim GM randy bush still remained but will now contribute in a different way to the organization. Pretty sure Russell can still prove himself useful in other areas besides being a GM. Happens all the time when a complete revamp isn’t done
by beartopia on Jan 13, 2012 2:00 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
I with you Lester...
and no matter what the Ted Phillips apologists will say, the fact that Ruskell was not IMMEDIATELY shot down as a GM candidate is a HUGE red flag. The Bears can feel Ruskell has a role and simply say they are focusing on hiring a GM, but they let it slip that Ruskell MIGHT be a candidate. That, IMO, shows they are not prepared for what they are doing. Besides, if firing JA were such a well planned decision, why wasn’t it done on Monday like virtually every other football team does. They had a post-season press conference where they defended their poor finish as still having promise for next year and then waited a day and then fired JA and Martz. What it comes down to for me is there is a long list of poor decisions being made by the Bears organization that give me no reason to believe the same Bears will suddenly start making good ones.
There's a fine line between stupid...and clever!
+1
Phillips has no business running an NFL franchise. It’s okay to say I don’t know enough about football to be making talent evaluations and hiring decisions about “football” people. But it’s fool-hardy to pretend that you know what you’re doing, on top of not having a plan to succeed. Phillips and McCaskey had no clue what they were doing, other than that “someone” had to take the fall for the Hanie debacle and ensuing late-season collapse. The fact that Phillips wanted to guarentee Lovie another year and elevate his power (while spreading speculation that Ruskell is a candidate to replace Angelo) shows me that Phillips is afraid of bringing in someone new who might further expose his ineptness.
Angelo was clearly made to be the scape-goat and Phillips is going to bring in a “yes man” who he’s comfortable will not stir the pot and show everyone what a football novice he is. Plus, elevating Ruskell may be cheaper in the short-term vs. paying “market value” to hire a “hot” candidate with a new energy and vision for the direction that this organization needs to take.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on Windy City Gridiron
Related FanShots on Windy City Gridiron
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
