Twitter mailbag: Willie Young expected to recruit Ndamukong Suh

@mikecwright: I think there will be some interest, but it's going to come down to what the Bears can afford to spend relative to their cap situation. Last April, I asked former general manager Phil Emery and one of the team's recent GM candidates whether they'd trade for Suh if it were financially feasible, and both said yes because it's difficult to find dominant interior defenders. Last year, Linval Joseph signed a $31.5 million deal in Minnesota. Former Bear Henry Melton received $29 million over four years last offseason and Paul Soliai signed a five-year deal in Atlanta worth $33 million. Well, Suh's expected contract will blow all those out of the water, as he's expected to receive a deal similar to the six-year $100 million extension J.J. Watt signed with the Texans. I'll tell you this much: You can count on at least one current Bear in Willie Young recruiting Suh.

Back in October, Young was asked during the "Carmen & Jurko" show on ESPN 1000 whether he'd put in a recruiting call to Suh this offseason.

"I could see myself doing that. It just depends on, obviously, it's gonna come down to a business standpoint for him in particular," Young said. "But at the end of the day, we've got some good guys here right now. He could come and join me. He could come and join what we're about to build over here in Chicago. We would appreciate it. We would like to have him."

@mikecwright: I guess we'll soon see. I think it's a good move. The club could do better, but it could also do worse than John Fox, who would come to Chicago with a track record for turning bad teams into competitive ones. The only issue I have is that Fox hasn't won a Super Bowl despite appearing in multiple title games as a coordinator and head coach. We're all aware of Fox's record in Denver, and the fact the team advanced to the playoffs and won the AFC West in each of his four seasons there. But in all the rhetoric uttered throughout this process by team chairman George McCaskey, president Ted Phillips and new GM Ryan Pace, I heard multiple mentions of "championships." Not just playoff appearances. So to me, this would represent more of a safe hire than a move that signifies the organization is swinging for the fences.

@mikecwright: I think fans become enamored with the "new" thing everyone is discussing. Folks see teams blitzing and sacking the quarterback and want to see their teams doing it, too. The problem with that is I don't think fans quite understand all that goes into putting together a top-tier unit on all three levels. For instance, if you want to blitz every other down, you've absolutely got to have lockdown players on the back end capable of consistently handling man-to-man and bump-and-run coverage, which is more difficult than folks think. You've also got to make sure the guys you're sending on the blitzes consistently get home. What's interesting is the 3-4 defense isn't anything new at all. It has been around a long time, just like the 4-3 front. With so many teams moving to 3-4 schemes, it actually opens up the talent pool for the 4-3 clubs. So then, it becomes more a matter of the personnel side picking the right players. Obviously, they haven't done that in Chicago. The truth is, theoretically, all schemes are effective if executed correctly and consistently. Again, execution ultimately comes down to the players.

Having said all that, I doubt the Bears would go the 3-4 route because it appears to be too large an undertaking for the personnel department to handle for an ownership group that wants to win now.

@mikecwright: I don't, but I do think it irked some of the players to break from tradition. The team not naming permanent captains didn't all of a sudden erase the expectation for accountability, and it certainly didn't take away the leaders already in that locker room. Regardless of who is wearing the "C" on their jerseys on Sundays, the locker-room leaders will always remain leaders who earned their stripes by producing on the field, working hard in practices and in the weight room, and by providing a positive example for younger players to follow. You don't need to be designated a captain to do that. I consider this to be one of those low-hanging fruit storylines that becomes a part of the narrative when a team finishes 5-11. So to answer your question, no, I don't think the lack of designated captains contributed to issues with leadership and accountability. A passive head coach did that.

@mikecwright: I like it, honestly. The one thing that really stuck out to me during Ryan Pace's introductory news conference was that he readily acknowledged he doesn't have all the answers, which is certainly a change from Phil Emery's tough talk in his first presser of winning "multiple championships." Now, while Pace acknowledging he doesn't have all the answers might concern some, what it tells me is he's not rigid in his thinking and will solicit input from every source available -- conventional or unconventional -- to make the right decision. I also appreciate Pace's hustle. Pace started at the bottom in New Orleans and worked his way through the ranks the hard way. Nothing was given to him, which is why I believe Pace truly appreciates the position he's in. It's also why I believe Pace will work his butt off to remain in his current position, and obviously, the only way to do that is win football games. Besides all that, look at the talent the Saints acquired during Pace's time in New Orleans. The players brought into New Orleans really seemed to fit what the club was trying to do on both sides of the ball, and that's really a difficult feat to consistently accomplish.