Tim Ruskell makes the most sense for GM
by LRT on Jan 20, 2012 7:11 PM CST
Email
Print
It's true. Let me tell you why I think so. But first, let me assure you before I go on, that I have only just today come to this belief. Two days ago I was firmly in the anti-Ruskell camp. Yesterday I had come to the realization that it could be him and if it were, well, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Today, while looking up the history of Tim Ruskell for myself, discovered that the guy just quite simply has a bad rap.
We all know Ruskell's main two negatives against him:
- Association with Jerry Angelo
- Unsuccessful tenure (after SB year) as GM for the Seahawks
You'll hear those in nearly every conversation about Ruskell, but you don't hear about the positives.
He helped build the Tampa Bay Buccaneers defense of the late 90s and early 2000s, the one that carried the Bucs to a SB win in 2002 (well that and Gruden's knowledge of the Raiders offense). He was the Director of Scouting and then Director of Player Personnel for a team that drafted the likes of Warren Sapp, Ronde Barber, Al Harris, Derrick Brooks and DeAngelo Hall. The defense he helped build worked the Cover Two so well it was nicknamed the Tampa Two. He worked on that defense with Lovie Smith, who was linebackers coach during that time.
That part is key, the working together. Because he wasn't so lucky in Seattle. It worked out that first year due to Mike Holmgren being under lockdown. For the first time since he was hired as GM/HC in 1999, Holmgren was just the head coach. His sole responsibility was coaching the team on the field while Ruskell was in charge of the personnel decisions. And they went to the Super Bowl. Holmgren's ego exploded and the very next season started trying to get the power back that he had lost. It got so bad that after Ruskell traded for Jason Babin, Holmgren refused to play him. Babin played in 4 games for the Seahawks in 2 seasons.
Holmgren finally lost that battle in 2008 and left to go play with the Browns, but the damage was done.
Ruskell was fired in 2009 and came to work with some familiar faces in 2010. He took over as Director of Player Personnel. The DPP is often the first contact with agents of draft picks and free agents. Did we acquire anyone special in 2010?
The first full year that Ruskell put into the DPP role was this one, and I think our draft shows it.
Ruskell has worked with Lovie in the past to build a great defense, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that our defense saw a turnaround in 2010 after he came aboard.
I think he’s unfairly maligned. Too many look at a corner of his career and make a judgement. You have to step back and look at the whole picture.
That picture tells me, Tim Ruskell makes the most sense for GM of the Chicago Bears.
I would not be opposed to a two-year deal to match what's left on Lovie's contract. It's clear Phillips and McCaskey are giving the reigns to Lovie to see if he can get us a Super Bowl win. Why not give him the guy he has successfully worked with in the past, who doesn't just know his philosophy but shares it?
This FanPost was written by a Windy City Gridiron member, and does not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of its staff or community.
33 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Maybe
Hub Arkush on 670 THESCORE said something along these lines today or yesterday. Essentially, he said that Ruskell
has a GM record and overall history better than other candidates.
I like the Chargers guy myself.
by myronaiii on Jan 20, 2012 8:59 PM CST via mobile reply actions
raye
in 2007 once the other main guy next to aj smith left their drafts have been shite. he went to buffalo. so ppl are saying raye didnt really do much
Care to back that up with something deeper than a one syllable word?
No to Ruskell because he’s Ruskell. Great response.
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
But it might not be a wrong response.
In fact it seems like a very appropriate and reasonable response. Especially in contrast to my typical response to this particular topic, which quite often happens to be pure rage and blindly trying to headbutt anything that moves. But yeah, I think baseballguru589 might have it right this time.
Bearsh!tt!n It ain't obscene- I'm a Bears fan that likes hittin and exclamation points.
Totally agree.
Can’t believe no one else has posted this. Everyone is completely Angelo gun shy and therefore totally Ruskell biased. Plus this guy is someone who Lovie is comfortable with when the current joke that is the ears management has already declared that the next GM MUST be someone who can kowtow to Lovie and his position as HC/GM defacto. Since the Bears screwed the pooch on this from the get go (should have either cleaned house or remained status quo) they’d may as well as lie in the bed they made. If Lovie is going to be THE MAN, then let him be THE MAN and hire a “GM” he’s comfortable with. Let the future of the Bears lie completely in Lovie’s hands. And as for the rest, we’ll see….
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
Also agree with this...
it’s the same scenario when they fired Ron Turner. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think Turner was great, but his first trip with the Bears he did have one of the more prolific offenses (granted for Bears’ standards) this team had with Eric Kramer. We had missed the playoffs 3 years in a row and it was a win or go scenario for Lovie/JA. Bringing in Martz was a fiasco waiting to happen and for those who’ll say “but we made the playoffs”, that had far more to do with Urlacher coming back and Peppers joining the team than anything the offense did.
Then, like now, the Bears would have been better off staying the course and really putting all they had into that next season but instead they chose to pacify the fans with a sacrificial firing (Turner then, Angelo now). If this ownership really wanted to be a championship caliber team over a long period of time, they would see that the moves they’ve made since the early ’90s have brought them to mediocre most of the time, really bad some of the time, and a few decent years sprinkled in, so a complete overhaul of their strategy is in order.
Obviously, they’re not in that mode and continue to limp along because they think some magic bolt of lightening is at some point going to strike Lovie Smith and turn him into the next Belichik, Parcells, Lombardi, etc. Or as my other stated, and more likely theory claims, until someone can find the pictures of Virgina, Ted, and Staley the Bear in compromising positions that Lovie must have, we’re stuck with these goofs.
We can do better.
I don’t think there’s any way that he has earned the top job here. But I’m not opposed to the new GM retaining his services.
Bearsh!tt!n It ain't obscene- I'm a Bears fan that likes hittin and exclamation points.
No to Ruskell
Fine, I’ll concede the fact that he helped build a great D in Tampa. But let us not forget Angelo was there too and how did that turn out? Furthermore, Tampa did not have a great offense. If memory serves me correctly that Superbowl was billed as an Explosive D (Tampa) vs and Explosive O (Raiders). Ruskell has a terrible track record at building any kind of credible offense. As such I do not want him as our GM. Does our D need youth and depth sure it does. But our offense needs help now. Our line is porous and WRs will not the worst in the league or not far from it. AND I do not want to go with the wait and see approach. If we intend on cleaning house why not do it this year? Why let Culter learn another offense this year, have his OC and HC canned to learn another offense next year? This is just plain stupid.
I don't think
that Ruskell is the worst of the GM candidates, but that’s mostly because the Bears don’t have a very impressive list.
I maintain that the Bears won’t be able to get anyone great, so they’ll probably have to settle for Ruskell. They may end up doing an Emery/Ruskell hybrid.
No offense
But this is a TERRIBLE case for Ruskell. To try to draw a correlation of his hire to the 2010 defense is just wild. Claiming he can work with Smith because they were in Tampa at the same time is a ridiculous reach. Smith was only a position coach at the time. And let’s not forget that we JUST fired someone that fit that description as well! The facts are the facts – Ruskell failed in Seattle and there are no clear signs that he’s improved all that much now. The jury is still out on our resent drafts and acquisitions. Bottom line is that if you can justify going with Ruskell, why in the hell did you fire Angelo?!
None taken
I don’t see how it’s wild, though. His job made him the first contact with Pep’s agent. Peppers was the big free agent that season with several teams wanting him. Ruskell helped make it happen. Fact.
I don’t think it’s a reach, either. They worked together in Tampa, and have been doing so together in Chicago for the last two. Again, fact.
As for firing Angelo, I disagree with it. I think it was outright stupid to fire Angelo but keep Lovie. I agree with Bearsfan611, it – like the firing of Ron Turner – was to pacify the disgruntled mob that forms when things don’t work out.
In short, in life, as in a foot-ball game, the principle to follow is: Hit the line hard; don't foul and don't shirk, but hit the line hard!" Theodore Roosevelt
Whoa. Hold up!
Lovie Smith was the one that flew out to NC to meet with Peppers before they agreed to the deal later that day. Tim Ruskell was NOT even part of the organization YET. The Bears’ previous DPP was Bobby DePaul, who got fired shortly before the start of free agency. Ruskell, however, did not officially join the team until April 30th of that year, almost 2 full months following the signing of Julius Peppers.
Here’s the breakdown in chronological order:
February 15th, 2010 – Bears fire longtime DPP Bobby DePaul. (link)
March 5th, 2010 – Bears sign Julius Peppers.
April 22nd, 2010 – NFL Draft.
April 30th, 2010 – Tim Ruskell hired as new DPP. (link)
"Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win."
by GriggsBriggs on Jan 21, 2012 12:13 PM CST up reply actions
Name one other team that had Ruskell on their GM shortlist...
crickets chirping***
Now ask yourself, why do you think that is?
by Silence_Dogood on Jan 21, 2012 1:29 PM CST via mobile reply actions
Please don't compare Belichek and Russell.
That isn’t a good argument at all.
by PolishSausage.Ditka.Bears. on Jan 21, 2012 8:12 PM CST up reply actions
yet there are commonalities
I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren
by lookingdeadred on Jan 21, 2012 8:40 PM CST up reply actions
Why not?
Why isn’t it a good argument?
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 23, 2012 1:31 AM CST up reply actions
Because
After Belichick’s first “failure” he was groomed to be a head coach by a HALL OF FAME head coach. Teams wanted him. Who has been grooming Ruskell since he was fired? Jerry Angelo?
by Staleystan595455 on Jan 23, 2012 5:01 AM CST up reply actions
He wasn't unpopular
I mean he took a horrible roster in the browns and had them number one in rushing defense one year with a playoff birth, not easy.
Plus he must have been a hot commodity seeing as how the Patriots traded a first rounder to get him. Would you have been cool giving away a first rounder for Ruskell? You can’t compare them at all we would be settling with Ruskell, Belichick’s hiring was a dynamic, division changing power move.
by Staleystan595455 on Jan 23, 2012 4:55 AM CST up reply actions
Alliance to Jerry Angelo
nuff said..
Hoping that Peppers does the belt dance over Rodgers crumpled on the turf
Ah yes, Jerry Angelo
the anti Midas.
Above all; keep 'em guessing, never let them lose their sense of confusion.
No.
NO.
"With all due respect, and I mean with ALL due respect...that idea ain't worth a velvet paintin' of a whale and a dolphin gettin' it on."
by CurtisEnisFan on Jan 21, 2012 4:34 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
Insane.
The guy that’s basically responsible for us not having a reliable #2 behind Cutler, and you want him as GM? They should have fired him at the same time they fired Angelo. He’s Angelo’s mess.
What?
Rex’d
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 23, 2012 1:29 AM CST up reply actions
Edited Title:
“Tim Ruskell Makes the Most Sense for GM…If You Like Pool Jumpers and Players With Red Flags”
"With all due respect, and I mean with ALL due respect...that idea ain't worth a velvet paintin' of a whale and a dolphin gettin' it on."
Huh?
Wasn’t that Angelo? Who were the pool jumpers and red flags Ruskell drafted? And how’d the only draft Ruskell have a part in here turn out? Pretty good, if you ask me. In fact, I’d call it one of the best of the last decade in Chicago.
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 23, 2012 1:31 AM CST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts 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
