Tim Ruskell is a bad fit, and a bad idea in general
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 22, 2012 4:36 PM CST
Email
Print
I've read some defenses of Tim Ruskell here at Windy City Gridiron, and I would find them quite funny if they didn't concern the GM position of the Bears. (Some of this posting has been taken, or distilled, from some comments that I have made in other threads).
For example, there's this post, which apparently considers an association with Jerry Angelo to be a bigger negative that a terrible record as GM at Seattle (and it even tries to mitigate that terrible record by qualifying it as only ‘after SB year'):
We all know Ruskell's main two negatives against him:
1. Association with Jerry Angelo
2. Unsuccessful tenure (after SB year) as GM for the Seahawks
And the logic behind most Ruskell defenses seems to be that since the Bears already made one mistake (keeping Lovie, and possibly Ted Phillips), then promoting Ruskell isn't as big a deal:
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?
I'm sorry, nothing personal, but that logic sucks. Because, in the opinion of a Ruskell-backer, the Bears didn't do things perfectly already, they may as well make another potential mistake because it won't make a huge difference in the long-run? Hogwash. And these defenses of Ruskell also don't analyze Ruskell's history as GM, which is there for the taking. Why not? Because it sucks, that's why.
Tim Ruskell is being evaluated against other candidates who have never been GM in the NFL. In this evaluation, we are able to take into consideration Ruskell's performance as GM, whereas for other candidates this isn't possible. Is that fair? I don't care. Because I think that to ignore or try to ameliorate Ruskell's crappy performance as GM for the Seahawks simply because other candidates have never been a GM would be a colossal mistake. We have his entire history to analyze, and we should.
Moon Mullin and Hub Arkush view him as the most qualified of the candidates. That's an over-simplification of the matter, because he's actually the most experienced of the candidates, and not necessarily the candidate who fulfills the most requirements for the position (e.g. someone who has a strong history in the draft). And, to recall an old adage, we should never confuse activity with progress. Simply because Ruskell has been a GM in the past doesn't mean that he was any good at it, nor made the team better, let alone that he will make a different team better in the future.
In reading over the needs of the Chicago Bears this offseason, at least per many posts and responses here on WCG, there seems to be an overall consensus on these positions: WR, OT, CB, and backup QB. In his prior job as GM of the Seahawks, how was Tim Ruskell able to fill these particular positions over a period of five years (five drafts and offseasons)? Let's take a look:
Dominant, or at least #1, WR: As I've written in other comment threads, Ruskell couldn't find a #1 WR to save his life in Seattle. He traded a first-round draft pick to the Patriots for Deion Branch and then, if that wasn't bad enough, signed him to a 6-year $39 million contract extension with $23 million coming in the first three years. Ruskell said Branch was appealing because he is a ``known commodity that we know fits our system." Branch played in 51 games over 5 seasons for the Hawks, and never had more than 53 catches for 725 yards. He was traded back to the Pats for a 4th-round pick.
Ruskell's attempt to find a WR on the open market resulted in signing T.J. Houshmandzadeh to a five-year $40 million contract with $15 million guaranteed. TJ irritated everyone, even Matt Hasselbeck, and was released one year later.
Offensive (hopefully Left) Tackle: Even though Walter Jones was getting long in the tooth when Ruskell took over in 2005 (Walter's 9th season), he never had any (apparent) plan in place to replace him. In 37 draft picks over 5 drafts (2005-2009), Ruskell selected ONE OT - Ray Willis (4th, #105, 2005) - a journeyman, at best.
Backup QB: Same type of story here as OT. Matt Hasselbeck is getting old and gradually missing games, and the best that Ruskell could do for a backup plan was Seneca Wallace. Ouch. Wallace was last seen starting 3 games for the Browns this season, with a 51% completion rate, 65.4 rating and 5.3 yards per attempt. The 2005 draft is particularly notable in this respect, as Ruskell selected QB David Greene (Georgia) in the 3rd round, with the 85th pick in the draft, and then selected Leroy Hill at #98 (3rd) and Ray Willis at #105 (4th). With pick #106 in the fourth round the Chicago Bears selected Kyle Orton, who would have made a damn fine backup to Matt Hasselbeck, if I do say so myself.
Cornerback: This is probably the one area where Ruskell can't be completely maligned as he picked Kelly Jennings (1st, #31) and Josh Wilson (2nd, #55) with top picks in consecutive years for the Seahawks. They're both still playing, but neither could be considered a stud nor lock-down corner, and they're both on different teams now. Jennings was traded for a 7th-rounder, Wilson for a conditional pick.
How about the rest of Ruskell's draft history, apart from these particular positions? In those aforementioned 37 picks, Ruskell identified exactly one player who has made a Pro Bowl - Lofa Tatupu. Ruskell re-signed Lofa to a 6-year, $42 million contract extension with $18 million guaranteed. Lofa was a damn good player for a while, and had his career unfortunately affected by an injury. He was released before this past season because he would not take a pay cut, and no other team in the NFL saw fit to pick him up, so he didn't play at all, at the age of 29.
The other 36 picks from 2005 - 2009? Not even a single Pro Bowl appearance among them. That is hardly the record of a candidate who should be strong in the draft, yet it manages to make Jerry Angelo look like a genius as he identified Devin Hester, Corey Graham, Matt Forte and Johnny Knox in the same timeframe. Sure, Hester, Graham and Knox made the Pro Bowl as special teams players, but no Ruskell choice could do even that.
I am also particularly worried about the situation with Matt Forte, given Ruskell's history with free agents. As detailed above, he threw over $15 million in guaranteed money at Deion Branch, TJ Houshmandzadeh and Lofa Tatupu, yet allowed Steve Hutchinson to hit the open market with the Transition tag. Regardless of whether the outcome of the Hutchinson saga was beyond the ability of a competent GM to predict, it does have to be taken into consideration against some of the other players which Ruskell did proactively sign long-term.
And one of these signings included a star RB - Shaun Alexander. In 2006 Ruskell made Alexander (then 29 years old) the highest-paid RB in NFL history by signing him to an 8-year $62 million contract, with $15 million guaranteed and $15 million paid in the first year. Ruskell released Alexander 26 months later. According to Ruskell, "The contract was set up that you wanted to get at least three years, so we didn't get there. That part is disappointing." So - to put it bluntly - I simply don't trust Ruskell with the ‘keys' to the Forte situation.
One particular draft day of Ruskell's caught my eye in doing some quick research for this post. In 2008, Ruskell traded down in the first round with the Cowboys. Then, he traded up in the second round with the Baltimore Ravens. I didn't remember this particular Seattle draft, even though I was still living there at the time, as my mind was elsewhere (I was actually visiting my future home of Krakow, Poland that week). But the results of this draft are quite enlightening.
The Cowboys selected CB Mike Jenkins with Seattle's pick (#25). Jenkins made the Pro Bowl in 2009 and has proven to be a better CB that any that Ruskell selected in his time as GM (see above). The Seahawks selected DE Lawrence Jackson, who now plays for the Detroit Lions, with the #28 pick.
In the second round that day, the player that Ruskell was targeting when he moved up from #55 to #38, by giving a 3rd-round pick to the Ravens (#86), was TE John Carlson. Carlson had been a serviceable TE before his scary injury in Soldier Field during last season's playoffs and his season-ending shoulder surgery this past August. But in moving up those 17 spots, Ruskell chose Carlson ahead of Matt Forte (#44), DeSean Jackson (#49) as well as the player that the Ravens eventually took in Seattle's original spot - Ray Rice. Ruskell passed on two Pro Bowl RBs and a Pro Bowl WR/KR/PR during the same offseason when he released Shaun Alexander (and during his never-ending search for a #1 WR), in order to select an average TE.
Hopefully, this entire post and those before it will be rendered moot when the Bears hire Phil Emery or Jimmy Raye in the near future. I've heard the same rumors as others on WCG that Emery is in the driver's seat not only for his strong drafting and scouting experience, but because Raye has never actually been in the ‘Draft Room'.
Regardless of who the Bears choose, Tim Ruskell should not be anything more than a courtesy interview. If the new GM chooses to let him go, I won't care in the least. In fact, I would offer him nothing more than a demotion back to the scouting department, as I don't believe he has shown any ability to locate talent outside of a college campus, let alone to evaluate or rank that talent.
This FanPost was written by a Windy City Gridiron member, and does not necessarily reflect the ideas or opinions of its staff or community.
67 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice write up.
Personally I would like to see Marc Ross brought in, but I am also okay with Phil Emery.
However if Russell gets the nod my faith in the Bears as a franchise would plummet; hopefully his interview was just a courtesy.
E.F.K.
by DaBearBus on Jan 22, 2012 7:44 PM CST via Android app reply actions
The aggravating thing
For me thats arisen out of the “hire Ruskell” movement is the theory that if he or the team stink next year then fire him, clean house, start over. Really? People are okay with a subpar GM hire because they think the FO would do next year what they could’ve done this year? The FO has to make a decision on a GM- they can’t punt and say “we’ll try out Ruskell for a year then see”. The new GM will dictate the next ten years for the Bears, so I don’t understand the desire to wuss out with Ruskell, a former GM who should stay a former GM.
If its free, take two.
by T.J. Shouse on Jan 22, 2012 9:03 PM CST via Android app reply actions
Actually, the thought is that....
The FO could do next year what they can’t do this year. Which is to hire the best candidate.
Unfortunately, the idea that there is no hesitation by the best candidates for the job is very possible. Do you wonder if McKenzie, who is a friend of Lovie Smith’s, took the job in Oakland because he had control over the coaching staff he worked above? The decision to release Hue Jackson was his, reportedly. He wouldn’t have had that option here.
By keeping Smith, the FO limited their candidates.
Whether you argee with the argument or not, the Bears would have more options available to them (and presumable the options who, themselves, have the most options and are thus the best candidates) if the coaching situation wass’t a deal-breaker for the Bears.
The idea behind Ruskell is silly if the idea is that Ruskell is a throw-away for a throw-away year. I agree completely.
But I actually advocate hiring Ruskell if the team won’t hand GM powers over to Smith himself. Why?
Because the team has already made ANY GM hired subservient to Smith. Call it whatever you want, but this is Jerry Angelo all over again. Bringing in a new GM to preside over a coach with more power than he has causes issues. But aside from that…..
Keeping Smith was the teams ultimate confidence in the man (unless you believe it was entirely for contract reasons). If that is the case, then bringing in a new GM who would presumably either have his own opinions squelched or be resigned to be the second best interpreter of Lovie’s opinions is counter productive. Smith is obviously the best person for that job. So why not just dissolve the GM spot, as it had been for years before Angelo? Saving that, then promoting someone from within, who would already have a better understanding of what Smith wants and what he needs, would be the best course of action if you actually want to succeed with Smith in charge.
In other words, My argument isn’t that to “punt” (though, I would ask why the FO can’t do that? Who says? It’s not like wasting one year matter to your ten year plan) but to support Smith to the fullest. If the Bears FO is going to support him to the point of hiring an outside GM who must conform to Smith, then screw pleasing the fans with a GM hire and instead give Smith full power and support by either giving him the GM duties or promoting someone who already is in the system and knows Smtih best.
I don’t believe in wasting years. That’s why I wouldn’t have retained Smith in the first place. But if you are going to support Smith, then give him the best chance to succeeed under his own system. Either give him the powers of the GM in full or promote someone from within who would understand Smith’s needs far more than the candidate on the outside looking in would.
That is the argument. Not the straw man that is “Hey, we’re already throwing away the season, so let’s try this guy”. Nobody who is a fan wants to see the Bears fail next year.
Assuming Ruskell is supported as a “punt” is insulting to the fans who support the idea as well as to Ruskell and Smith. I don’t want 2012 to be a throw away year. I want a Super Bowl ring for the Bears. And I believe that, with Smith in the HC spot, the best option would be Smith as GM. But I also believe that hiring a GM is a PR move by the Bears to placate the fans.
Hiring Ruskell isn’t appeasement or giving up on the year. Hiring someone from the outside is. It’s setting up another Angelo vs Jauron situation. Or Ruskell vs Holmgren, if it suits you better. And, to me, it just feels like hiring Ross or someone else is more about trying to shut the fans up than it is about trying to win football games. You don’t hire a GM who is beholden to the HC and expect it to work. You do it because you expect it to shut the fans up and keep them shelling out money.
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 22, 2012 10:29 PM CST up reply actions
Whoops....
Should have read “the idea that the is hesitation by the best candidates,” not “there is no hesitation.”
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 22, 2012 10:31 PM CST up reply actions
It's entirely possible.
There’s not a whole lot of examples of GMs hired without the authority to bring in their own coach. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t possible that it could work out just fine. That’s the thing about it. there is no black and white here. Just shades of gray that each of s is trying to disseminate.
My point is that there is merit to the argument for Ruskell beyond the argument that it is just giving up on the next season. Smith should be given the opportunity to succeed on his own merits. By keeping him the Bears FO has essentially said that Smith succeeded as much as possible in spite of Jerry Angelo (an argument that is just another “shades of gray” debate that has plenty of merit to both sides) and his bumbling. I don’t pretend to know whether Lovie Smith is worth keeping. But I do believe that when the GM goes, so should the coach…..unless you plan on giving those powers to the coach.
It’s also important to note that Ruskell is being judged by the OP solely on his record as half-a-GM in Seattle where Holmgren spitefully helped sow the seeds of Ruskell’s and Seattle’s downfall. It completely ignores the successes he had that got him to that point as well as the fact that the best draft Chicago had since Lovie and Jerry started sharing draft responsibility may well have been the 2011 draft, where Ruskell helped.
It’s also interesting to note that Ruskell has never actually been a GM. He was President in Seattle. Not GM. That Seattle position might have been a bit over his head, but he earned it through solid work as asst GM to Rich McKay. So, effectively, people are arguing the same argument as one that would mean that Scott Linehan or Dave Wannstedt or Mike Tice or Rod Merinelli would all suck as assistants because they sucked as head coaches…..it’s ridiculous.
Ruskell had mitigating factors working against him as the President in Seattle. That doesn’t by any stretch of the imagination mean that he wouldn’t be good as a GM, when he clearly did a fine job in Atlanta as the asst GM and was great in personnel and scouting jobs prior to that. Good enough to earn him a President of Football Operations gig.
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 1:00 AM CST up reply actions
Good point. I was unaware that he was only the President and that Holmgren very well could have screwed him over
by tanking the development of the team.
I think it would be the same situation
Yes, I oversimplified things by calling Ruskell the GM in Seattle. You’re right, his title was in fact President, which was quite a strange setup, if I recall correctly.
But, ultimately we must assign the results to him, as he was the one making the decisions and speaking to the media about them afterwards. That is fair – because if TJ or Branch had busted loose for 1500 yards and a Super Bowl MVP, we would also be attributing that success to Ruskell.
The problem with the internal-struggle theory as to Ruskell’s ineffectiveness in Seattle is that I don’t understand how it would be any different now. He’s hired as prime football decision maker into a situation with a Head Coach who has experienced some playoff success with the ballclub and wields power with ownership. He can’t overcome any power struggles that may have happened, and a playoff-caliber ballclub generally declines to crap. Gee, am I describing the Seahawks or the Bears?
I think that pertaining to an entrenched HC, history is no indication that he would thrive with the Bears, either. And the example of Bill Belichik is an anomaly, in my opinion. For every Belichek there are 5-10 Dave Wannstedts or Rod Graves.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 23, 2012 3:13 AM CST up reply actions
Also: Do we have any indication that Lovie and Ruskell can work together?
Just because Ruskell has been there two years already really means nothing. He was brought in by Angelo – which may or may not matter to Lovie. Who knows?
Sure, Lovie doesn’t seem like a bitter old bastard, but I don’t think any of us know the inner workings of Halas Hall – Angelo’s departure was certainly a surprise. And the local media won’t help us out. They’re all too afraid of keeping their position with one foot in the door and an ear on the wall.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 23, 2012 3:40 AM CST up reply actions
It means something because Angelo wouldn't have kept him if Lovie disliked him and it interfered with work.
They are at least tolerable. We must also remember that Ruskell took power and positioning away from Holmgren and that is not the case with Lovie.
Truest words ever.....
I don’t think any of us know the inner workings of Halas Hall
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 2:24 PM CST up reply actions
Oh, and my two cents on Ruskell and Smith?
If Smith has power over who the GM will be, and all indeications are that he does, then why would Ruskell even get a interview if Smith didn’t like the idea? If the Bears FO is trying to promote an image of Change than the only way Ruskell getting an interview makes sense is if it was something Smith himself wanted.
Otherwise it’s just bad PR for no reason.
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 2:28 PM CST up reply actions
Exactly
One of the main reasons used to support Ruskell was “…well, and right after the Superbowl, Holmgren’s ego blew up, and the two always had a power struggle…”
Isn’t he being put in the exact same position here?
"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 23, 2012 8:42 AM CST up reply actions
Any and every GM would be being put in the exact same situation here.
In this case, Ruskell has the most experience with Smith than any other candidate. But you do make a good point, either way.
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 2:26 PM CST up reply actions
I'd say there's one key difference between Ruskell's Seattle problems and his possible hiring in Chicago.
Lovie Smith vs Mike Holmgren. By all accounts, Holmgren resented the Seahawks takin power away from him and giving it to Ruskell.
Meanwhile, Smith is a part of the hiring process in Chicago and that would seem to indicate that, unlike Holmgren, Smith is OK with Ruskell or he likely wouldn’t have gotten the interview in the first place. Bad PR isn’t generally done for the sake of bad PR, after all.
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 2:31 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed
Don’t get me wrong, I did a little dance when the “JA firing news” hit, but the way it went down didn’t seem planned at all. So, if the key is finding someone for GM who Smith will be “comfortable” working with, then why even fire JA to begin with? This whole “new GM” process seems kind of “half-assed”,unless the purpose of the JA firing was simply to make him be the scapegoat for the real problems – Smith and Phillips.
Again, I was never a JA supporter, but it seems like he would have been the best candidate to work with and support Smiths’ philisophies, goals, etc. If the issue was simply JA’s draft ineptitude, will promoting Ruskell provide a significant upgrade in that area? Ruskell is already director of personnel, right? Hiring an outside candidate may give us a better “drafter”, but then you’re brining in an “unknown”, who may, or may not work well with Smith. The way this whole thing went down just reaffirms to me that Phillips and the McCaskeys don’t seem to have much of a clue – and they have way, way too much trust and confidence in Smith.
remains to be seen
but this draft was pretty good
TL DNR
"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 22, 2012 10:17 PM CST reply actions 2 recs
Seriously blaming him for TJ Housh? He was the most obvious commodity at WR this year and you think a better Gm would really see the difference to not sign him?
Also, Alexander? The guy had a record setting season and you are blaming for making him the highest paid back…
Has Hutchinson been lights out since his first couple years in Minny? Finally, I sight Leroy Hill has another serviceable LB until he showed his bonehead ways.
The guy has drafted decent LBs.
I agree I would rather have other people, but you are blaming him for moves he HAD to make or that pretty much any GM would make.
But 31 OTHER GM's DIDN'T make those moves.
And most of them still have jobs. At least, the franchises that are not consistently on the bottem of the NFL barrel. H*ll even the Lions were able to get to the playoffs in about three years of getting rid of Matt Millen. There is a correlation there.
The fact is the Seahawks should have outright OWNED the West the past couple of years IF Ruskell had left the team with a full pantry so to speak. The fact that they made the playoffs as a 7-9 team that was horribly under-talented is not something to celebrate. Except for the fact taht the Bears got to wipe the floor with them. Which was amusing.
Don’t bring up the Saints, as they have proven the last few years the saying of,“You live by the Blitz, you will die by the Blitz.”
I think getting Spags MIGHT get them into the NFC Champ round next year.
Cacti are prickly.
by crackedcactus on Jan 22, 2012 11:54 PM CST up reply actions
That initial argument is pointless and irrelevent.
Matt Millen provided the base for that team by providing them with their best player and a few other pieces. (Not saying he was great, but the Lions wouldn’t have gotten there without his input).
I will bring up the Saints since they were a great team and the Seahawks were built to beat them and Ruskell’s players were a decent part of that team.
This is off-topic but Spagnuolo will do nothing to make that team Championship caliber since the offense is what needs improvement and TJ won’t lead them at Qb.
Ruskell has never been GM.
He was President of football operations with the GM tag added to the end of it. He may have had the "title, but he may also have been in over his head given that his first job was Pres.
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 1:03 AM CST up reply actions
Blaming him for moves? Who else would we assign responsibility to?
First off, if those moves were mistakes, then Ruskell does deserve the blame. I’m not sure who you would say is responsible for signing the 29 year old RB to an 8-year contract? Maybe Squatch, the Sonics mascot?
Second, I did my best not to try to judge those moves on their face, but to put them into context of what the Chicago Bears need. Did I blame Ruskell for signing TJ? Or did I state the facts, along with an editorial that TJ irritated everyone in Seattle (which was widely reported and the reason why he was let go one year later.)
What I tried to do was to show how Ruskell is a terrible fit for the Bears current needs.
Can he find a true #1 WR? He wasn’t able to in Seattle.
Can he find a stud OT? He wasn’t able to in Seattle.
Can he even find a backup QB? He wasn’t able to in Seattle.
Oh, and how about that situation with Matt Forte, the Bears star RB? Well, Ruskell made some high-profile FA mistakes in Seattle, including giving Shaun Alexander a contract that was far too large.
Personally, I don’t really care that the Seahawks failed so spectacularly on his watch. But why would we expect things to be completely different this time? Why would we assume that Ruskell can fill the Bears’ needs when he couldn’t fill some of those very same needs for the Seahawks?
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 23, 2012 2:33 AM CST up reply actions
Let us see....if he didn't sign Alexander it would have been one of the biggest disasters ever.
An 8-year contract would not matter since Shaun wouldn’t serve out the length so he wouldn’t have to pay out most of it. 15 million is peanuts for the output he had to that point and what some backs are paid. (I guess you are in the group that said the Vikings should have paid AP that cash either) Just like Minny was forced into the deal, Ruskell was here.
My point with TJ is that you say he can’t sign WRs but he obviously can since he signed the best on the market (a guy that tied the league in receptions the year before) . It also isn’t his fault that the best WR on the market didn’t produce. I also said that nearly every GM would have taken TJ in a heartbeat and wouldn’t have known about his behavior. Not an indication that Ruskell can’t get a WR considering he was able to lure the best to Seattle.
He’d be a poor fit in the sense he could actually lure a WR here…..
Hard time seeing how you can really blame him for signing the most prolific pass catcher from the year prior to do the job of……pass catching.
Pin that on 2/3s of the NFL for that failure as well.
3/4 here.
Matt Forte is not in danger of being overpaid here, so why are you worrying?
If you have a problem with Ruskell for those failures, you won’t find anyone to make you happy. Draft history is hard to dispute, but blaming him for (again I say this) moves that 30 of the 32 NFL GMs would have performed in his position is a poor argument at best.
You won't attribute failure, but you would attribute success, right?
Okay, so Ruskell gets a pass on those moves because, hey, any one of the other 31 teams would have done the same exact thing in that situation. No sweat.
But if the players Ruskell signed had carried them to a Super Bowl victory, you and I and everyone else would be attributing that success to him, right?
The buck stops….where, exactly? You’re willing to assign some blame to Mike Holmgren, but give Ruskell a pass? And if that’s the case, how would the internal-power-struggle situation be any different in Chicago?
Do we have any indication whatsoever that Lovie and Ruskell can work well together? Would Ruskell mollycoddle Lovie and let him play aging veterans until they’re wheeled off the field? Would he be willing to take calculated risks, trade veterans, and make thrifty and valuable free agent signings?
I just don’t see any indications in Ruskell’s history that he would be a great fit at this point for the Bears, outside of their scouting department. In fact, I’d go so far as to say he’d have to completely shake his old M.O. to be the least bit successful.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 23, 2012 3:20 AM CST up reply actions
I didn't give him a pass, I am simply defending moves that he had to make or that everyone in the NFL would have made.
Nowhere did I defend his draft prowess….and I would attribute his success with the obvious moves like I do with Angelo when he signed Peppers.
Lovie doesn’t appear to be the type to sabotage a team to screw up his future like Holmgren might have done.
I think that might actually be the dictionary definition....
….of ‘give a pass to someone’:
I am simply defending moves that he had to make or that everyone in the NFL would have made.
;-)
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 23, 2012 3:29 AM CST up reply actions
UI think his point is that Ruskell deserves credit for the failures but....
the level of failure is greatly exaggerated. Every GM in the league has failures. I can cherry pick enough to make every one of them look like an abject failure. The question isn’t did he have failures. it’s really more in the vein of whether or not they were common mistakes that high level GMs make or whether they were failures of the Matt Millen variety.
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 2:38 PM CST up reply actions
if 31 other teams would have done the same thing
tehn its hard to hold it against him. if someone makes a move that everyone loves or agrees with and the player just doesnt produce then i fail to see how he was at fault.
It was a failed aquisition.
But one that commonly occurs and isn’t really much of a smudge on a record.
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 2:39 PM CST up reply actions
Seriously blaming him for TJ Housh? He was the most obvious commodity at WR this year and you think a better Gm would really see the difference to not sign him?
Also, Alexander? The guy had a record setting season and you are blaming for making him the highest paid back…
Has Hutchinson been lights out since his first couple years in Minny? Finally, I sight Leroy Hill has another serviceable LB until he showed his bonehead ways.
The guy has drafted decent LBs.
I agree I would rather have other people, but you are blaming him for moves he HAD to make or that pretty much any GM would make.
by Shuggs on Jan 22, 2012 10:41 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Rec'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 1:15 AM CST up reply actions
This was a great post.
I think it’s a joke that Ruskell is even a serious candidate for this job. Bottom line, we should be able to do much better than this guy, regardless of what other positions on the team are/aren’t filled. Is there an anti-Ruskell petition online somewhere that I can sign?
Bearsh!tt!n It ain't obscene- I'm a Bears fan that likes hittin and exclamation points.
by Bearsh!tt!n on Jan 22, 2012 11:15 PM CST reply actions 1 recs
Yep...
It’s right on the same site as the Bill Belichick shouldn’t be an NFL Head Coach after what he did in Cleveland petition that New England fans were circulating back in 2000. Cause we all know that once you’ve failed, regardless of the situation you “failed” in, you can never be any good.
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 1:06 AM CST up reply actions
This reply offended my intelligence.
By this line of logic we’d easily win a couple Superbowls if we could just replace Cutler with a 6th round draft pick.
Bottom line, we should be able to do much better than this guy, regardless of what other positions on the team are/aren’t filled.
Bearsh!tt!n It ain't obscene- I'm a Bears fan that likes hittin and exclamation points.
No, your own reply offended your intelligence....
You took a simple argument and decided to draw it out to its most extreme conclusion.
I simply suggested that very successful people in the league have had some failures. One failure in an otherwise stellar career doesn’t mean a person is doomed to repeated failures.
The depths you chose to draw the argument out to in order to make it seem absurd is on you.
And how do you know Ross or anyone else will actually be much better than Ruskell? I’m pretty sure that none are more impressive than what Ruskell was when he was brought on as a gm…..no, wait, as President with a GM tag at the end.
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 2:45 PM CST up reply actions
Oh man, this is even worse... now it's getting absurd.
Take a deep breath, dude. All I am saying is that, “We can do better than Ruskell.” But now that you mention it, maybe the Bears can videotape their opponent’s practice, too.
Bearsh!tt!n It ain't obscene- I'm a Bears fan that likes hittin and exclamation points.
So you can't support your argument.
Got it.
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 8:45 PM CST up reply actions
So, hey, any time both of you want to chill out is fine by me.
BH, Tim’s point is that one failure doesn’t preclude any future success. And whether we like it or not, Ruskell does have something none of the other candidates has – experience at the “general manager” position.
Weekend contributor and official editorial lackey/waitstaff at Windy City Gridiron
If a people-avoiding gaming hermit is on Twitter, I should be too. Follow me!
by Steven Schweickert on Jan 24, 2012 8:23 AM CST up reply actions
I've been chilled out since the day I was born...
The title of the fan post that I commented on was, “Tim Ruskell is a bad fit, and a bad idea in general.” I still agree with fan post and I guess the Bears do, too. Peace and love to all, Go Bears!
Bearsh!tt!n It ain't obscene- I'm a Bears fan that likes hittin and exclamation points.
by Bearsh!tt!n on Jan 24, 2012 11:05 AM CST up reply actions
No I think you were right
It was a joke and the bottom line is he was never going to get the job. He was brought in by his friend Jerry as a favor because NOBODY else in the league had taken a flyer on him in any capacity for two years.
by Staleystan595455 on Jan 24, 2012 4:39 PM CST up reply actions
What?
Ruskell resigned in Seattle on December 2, 2009 and was hired almost five months later by Chicago on April 30th of 2010. How does being unemployed for less than one offseason become “NOBODY else in the league took a flyer on him in any capacity for two years”?
And, of course the Bears never thought there was any merit to hiring Ruskell as GM. They just wanted to create some negative PR while wasting some time for themselves by interviewing him for the job.
Nice logic.
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 24, 2012 8:07 PM CST up reply actions
Lol
Why are you so hostile dude you take comment sections way too seriously. I had the amount of time wrong but honestly did you hear anything before he was hired about him being a sought after commodity? We weren’t exactly fighting with other teams for his services.
And yes there is the such thing as a courtesy interview I didn’t just make it up and it isn’t my logic. The reason I believe they gave the interview is because there is no way to guarantee the guy they hire is going to want to keep him on his staff.
Ted Phillips said he wanted to narrow the talent gap and you don’t do that by hiring a guy who has a shoddy talent evaluation history. Plus ted said he wanted candidate from outside the current FO. He was never going to get the job.
by Staleystan595455 on Jan 24, 2012 10:28 PM CST up reply actions
Just a few thoughts...
When Belichick resigned from Cleveland, nobody was beating down his door. In fact, his next job was to be hired by an old friend to be a secondary coach/Asst Head coach by buddy and former boss Bill Parcells.
Did that make Belichick a poor hire later?
Now, I disagree that the Bears brought Ruskell in for a courtesy interview. It doesn’t make sense, especially considering the PR heat they were inevitably going to take, especially with the fans. Besides, why would they care if Ruskell (who was only hired because he was a Angelo flunky and has a poor talent evaluation history, right?) had his ego stroked by the interview process? They just fired the guy who brought him in, right? They didn’t even let Angelo resign or retire. So, why would they worry about courtesy laid before a poor talent evaluator with ties to the man they want to distance themselves with?
Or….it could be that they know they have a problem on their hands with the top candidates when the top candidates know they have to start their tenure tied to a coach they may not want. Ruskell is already subservient to Smith and makes a great backup should one of the second tier candidates left who might actually consider putting themselves in the same position Angelo screwed himself into in 2001 and Ruskell screwed himself into in 2005 not decide they want to risk being the next Tim Ruskell. Ruskell has a talent evaluation background that includes being part of drafting guys like Warren Sapp, Ronde Barber, Al Harris, Lofa Tatupu, Derrick Brooks and others who’ve totaled more than 50 pro-bowl nods.
Now, as to shoddy talent evaluation history……again, I say What? He earned a team president job due to a great talent evaluation history. He brought good talent to Seattle and helped them get to a Super Bowl. He brought players like Jason Babin to Seattle so egomaniac Mike Holmgren could sit him on the bench. The team won three division titles and four playoff games in Ruskell’s five years after winning three of each over their nearly 30 years prior to his arrival He was also part of getting Tampa a Super Bowl ring.
Ruskell’s ineptitude is greatly over-exaggerated. He was screwed in Seattle by a Head Coach with too much power who was angry that Ruskell came in and took a little of it. Prior to that he was the hot commodity in the league and the team he presided over (Seattle) won the division crown 60% of his tenure and won more playoff games in his time there than they had in the entire history of the team prior to his arrival.
Context brings things around a bit.
And I trust Ted Philips word on only to a point. The problem is that they have screwed themselves by keeping Smith. Whether you think Lovie deserved it or not isn’t relevant. The problem is that the top candidates will take positions that they can create their own destiny rather than having it tied to someone else’s head coaching hire.
I also can’t find any link to Philips saying it had to be an outside hire. He did say he wanted someone with a talent evaluation background, but I can’t find anything saying it had to be someone from outside Halas Hall. I’m not calling you a liar, mind you. I just can’t find it anywhere.. Do you have a link?
Either way, I disagree that he was never a legitimate candidate. I don’t think he’s out of the running even now. Don’t get me wrong, I think that they want to go elsewhere because fans want them to go elsewhere. But if they were serious about change, they wouldn’t consider another former employee who’s best trait seems to be working hard (that always scares me when the best thing anyone can talk about in an executive is his work ethic. Most in the league have a fantastic work ethic or they wouldn’t be there).
And sorry if I’m a bit hostile lately. this whole thing is such a dog and pony show that it’s ridiculous and it has my barbs up. Listening to all the “Phillips isn’t a football guy” and “Ruskell is a no talent hack” stuff gets old when you’re watching people cheer on guys who’ve never done the job. I see it this way. Ruskell did a better job than most of the candidates in the same lower level positions (including his work in the Bears 2011 draft, BTW) and was hobbled in his one shot, yet others who have done an equal or lesser job in the same positions and have had no experience in the GM office are somehow great talents. Ruskell was once that guy….until he got stuck between Mike Holmgren and his diminished power.
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 25, 2012 8:24 AM CST up reply actions
One last thing...
Haven’t the Bears upper echelon already proven that they have no eye for FO talent? Can’t we just hire someone with a proven track record (and I’m not talking about Ruskell here) rather than taking another chance on some young gun or older retread that the Bears think they see something in (with the same set of eyes that found something in Jerry Angelo and the rest of the talent evaluation department that’s kept us in mediocrity since Jim Finks left?
Is there really some shame in baiting someone out there with a proven record into Halas Hall?
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 25, 2012 8:32 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
When Ruskell becomes a successful GM
I will be the first person to tell you that I was wrong.
Bearsh!tt!n It ain't obscene- I'm a Bears fan that likes hittin and exclamation points.
Wasn't talking about Ruskell....
I thought I made that clear when I said…..
Can’t we just hire someone with a proven track record (and I’m not talking about Ruskell here)
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 25, 2012 7:35 PM CST up reply actions
My bad, I thought you were talking to me.
Bearsh!tt!n It ain't obscene- I'm a Bears fan that likes hittin and exclamation points.
:)
All good.
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 26, 2012 8:14 AM CST up reply actions
I'm not disputing that he works well with others
I know how he was on the staff when the bucs drafted all those players because of a recent fanpost. And if your giving him credit for a majority of those signings then you can’t dismiss all the players that Emery had a hand in drafting. I don’t know your stance on the guy but it seems to me like you would have preferred Ruskell.
My point is when he had his chance he flubbed it, I mean I don’t think his relationship with Holmgren had anything to do with the terrible Alexander contract among other things. The Houshmanzadeh signing is a move that I would have loved as a fan but it turned out to be a bad signing. It’s just my opinion but I believe if your going to hire Ruskell why not just keep Jerry Angelo? I mean he had a hand(arguably a larger role) in all those great Tampa signings and it didn’t seem to help him with talent evaluation.
As for the outside candidates all I can find is a link to chicago now saying that the tribune was reporting a source in halas hall saying they were conducting their search outside of halas hall. So maybe that’s not as credible as I thought it was, as you can probably tell I don’t double check my sources lol. But you don’t have to say sorry to me man we’re all disgruntled bear fans. I think if they were going to fire Jerry they should have purged the whole FO and Coaches. We really need guys who will come in and rejuvenate the whole Bears Pride thing. We have great fans and rich history and deserve consistent success.
by Staleystan595455 on Jan 25, 2012 7:24 PM CST up reply actions
This I agree with...
think if they were going to fire Jerry they should have purged the whole FO and Coaches. We really need guys who will come in and rejuvenate the whole Bears Pride thing. We have great fans and rich history and deserve consistent success.
I’ll let the discussion end with that.
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 26, 2012 8:15 AM CST up reply actions
You tick off the Timmeh
He gives you very long and very informative comments. ;)
"Violence is not always the answer."
"Violence is the question, and the answers always YES!"
Ruskell made a couple mistakes... but how do you blame him for some of this?
He inherited a middling team that had literally been between 6-10 and 10-6 every year for the previous decade. In his first year, they won 13 games and went to the Super Bowl.
Now imagine you’re Ruskell. It’s a month after the Super Bowl loss. Super Bowl!! Your team just went to the Super Bowl! But your QB is a 31 year old Matt Hasselbeck, who you have to stick with because Holmgren isn’t going anywhere, and Hasselbeck is his guy. Your RB is a 29 year old current MVP Shaun Alexander who is coming off one of the best RB seasons in NFL history (1900 yards, 28 TDs). Yes, he’s old, but what are you going to do? Trade the MVP? When your team just went to the Super Bowl? That’s GM suicide…
Little could Ruskell have known that Hasselbeck would be one of the worst starting QBs in the NFL over the next four seasons. Or that Alexander would have fallen off immediately. Or that Darrell Jackson’s career would be over a year later.
I don’t see a problem with the Deion Branch signing. He was just 27, I imagine he was signed to be the #2 with Jackson still there, and he was coming off a 78 catch, 1000 yard season. Those are the type of WRs you want GMs to sign in free agency. If it weren’t for injuries Branch’s numbers would’ve been about 65 catches, 900 yards, and 6 TDs per season over his first three years. Now, 5 years later, we’re seeing that Branch (and Burleson) are still effective… that tells me they were decent signings at age 26/27, and Holmgren/Hasselbeck just didn’t do enough with them. As for Seneca Wallace, he was probably a top 10 backup QB when he was on Seattle… he was an 85 QB rating guy who could also run. You can’t expect Matt Flynns and Shaun Hills to be on all 32 teams.
I talked more about his draft results here. By no means was Ruskell a great drafter, but for a GM who consistently was drafting late in rounds, he got a decent amount of talent in each draft. Sims should be a pro bowler, and Lawrence Jackson has been pretty good (not Ruskell’s fault that he didn’t flourish in Seattle).
Okay, forget the blame game - are you positive that he can fill the Bears' needs?
WR, OT, competent backup QB, and a good resolution to the Matt Forte situation?
If so, for what reasons? Because, in looking at his history in Seattle, I see no indication that he can.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 23, 2012 2:37 AM CST up reply actions
I don't particularly like Ruskell, I should preface my comment with that...
but I don’t think he’s a terrible candidate. For one, he’s been in this position before… inherited a talented but aging team, with a coach who’s been there for awhile, with a fanbase that still thinks a Super Bowl is possible even if, in reality, it’s a longshot. That’s a really tough situation for a GM imo.
I think he’s an okay drafter. I think he actually did find a competent backup in Seneca Wallace (a 2006-2009 version of Seneca wins a couple games for the Bears this year post-Cutler). I liked his Branch/Burleson signings, and I thought DJ Hackett was a nice talent before his injuries.
Ideally, I’d like the Bears to hire a young GM with balls of platinum to trade away some aging veterans, stock up on picks, and start a longterm plan ala Epstein for the Cubs. That’s not going to happen, obviously. Lovie will be here another year, Briggs and Hester will play out their contracts, the Bears will have an outside shot at the title, yada yada yada. So why not just have a GM who has a relationship with Lovie, who has some drafting ability, and hopefully learned from a similar previous experience.
So, in essence, we agree, even if you don't agree with how I formed my opinions, or conclusions
I don’t think Ruskell is a terrible candidate. He deserves the interview, but as I stated, I think it’s merely a courtesy or a formality.
His drafting has been okay, but it didn’t fill the biggest needs of the Seattle team, nor has he shown any particular expertise at positions the Bears need to fill. Hence my comment that he belongs in a scouting department, maybe as Director.
I just can’ t stomach the ‘Hey, why not, since the ship is sinking, let’s try to get the best captain who has already been on a sinking ship once’ like of thinking.
by Sweetness Lives On on Jan 23, 2012 3:06 AM CST up reply actions
Are you positive Marc Ross can fill the Bears needs?
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 2:46 PM CST up reply actions
Random thought
I haven’t heard his name mentioned as an elite GM, but Seattle’s new GM John Schneider has done a pretty remarkable job lately imo.
Traded Leroy Tapp for Chris Clemons.
Drafted Kam Chancellor 5th round
Drafted Richard Sherman 5th round
Drafted KJ Wright 4th round
Drafted Earl Thomas 1st round (Pro Bowler this year)
Signed Raheem Brock coming off a terrible year with the Colts… Brown was great in 2010 and a decent role player this year.
Signed Doug Baldwin as an UDFA.
Traded a 4th rounder for Marshawn Lynch.
Signed Mike Williams, who had a nice year in 2010.
Signed Leon Washington, who’s recovered better than most anticipated.
Signed Tarvaris Jackson, who had a pretty decent year all things considered.
Schneider has struggled with his Oline picks so far (Okung, Carpenter, Moffitt have struggled and had major injuries)… but damn that’s an impressive list of talent, and that’s came almost exclusively from late round picks and unheralded players in free agency.
BTW, Schneider is a 38 year old who came from the Packers scouting department. I have heard the Packers have a statistical analysis department with 20+ analysts, and I’m sure a few more like Schneider. Ideally, that’s the kind of background I’d like in the new GM.
Brown who?
I guess the Packers would by fine, but their best guys are picked clean probably. That and the Bears ego……………………………………
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
