Good article on Lovie

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I know bagging on him became popular, but I thought this was a very good read. I also will caveat it by saying I always was a fan of Lovie so I am inherently biased but I felt that he was the time of guy you could be proud your organization had and there is something to be said about that and how he handled the lockeroom, etc. We sorely miss that sort of leadership qualities from the top. I don't think anyone in our front office, Emery or Trestman, have the types of intangible leadership top of the totum pole skills necessary to excel in their current positions.

 

http://chicagosuntimes.com/sports/revered-...bears-listened/

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I know bagging on him became popular, but I thought this was a very good read. I also will caveat it by saying I always was a fan of Lovie so I am inherently biased but I felt that he was the time of guy you could be proud your organization had and there is something to be said about that and how he handled the lockeroom, etc. We sorely miss that sort of leadership qualities from the top. I don't think anyone in our front office, Emery or Trestman, have the types of intangible leadership top of the totum pole skills necessary to excel in their current positions.

 

http://chicagosuntimes.com/sports/revered-...bears-listened/

 

AMEN BROTHER!! Losing Lovie was probably one of the biggest mistakes the Bears have made in the recent past. Despite his 10-6 record his last year many insisted he couldn't get it done and would always get mediocre results. Yet he had an overall winning record and of all the Bears Coaches in history (dating back to 1920) he was the THIRD winningest coach in team history. Only behind Ditka and Papa Bear Halas. That is fact.

 

Giving a tip of the hat to Lucky Luciano (using my middle finger) and in response to his earlier commentary about ownership, they made a mistake in letting Lovie go. Were they incorrectly advised? Probably.

 

I have never hidden from my appreciation for Lovie and I still won't. He may not fit the bill as the 'fire brand' I claim to prefer but obviously he got the job done (as witnessed in this article). Yes I said I'm more a person who prefers instant results and generally you see that more in the fiery and caustic type leaders. But occasionally you can get that from a stern, quiet and respected leader as well. Since my cornerstone of leadership measurement comes from a military background take a look sometime at who Major Dick Winters was. Although not a 'firebrand' type leader, he demanded respect without demanding. And got it.

[Daventry]

AMEN BROTHER!! Losing Lovie was probably one of the biggest mistakes the Bears have made in the recent past. Despite his 10-6 record his last year many insisted he couldn't get it done and would always get mediocre results. Yet he had an overall winning record and of all the Bears Coaches in history (dating back to 1920) he was the THIRD winningest coach in team history. Only behind Ditka and Papa Bear Halas. That is fact.

 

Giving a tip of the hat to Lucky Luciano (using my middle finger) and in response to his earlier commentary about ownership, they made a mistake in letting Lovie go. Were they incorrectly advised? Probably.

 

I have never hidden from my appreciation for Lovie and I still won't. He may not fit the bill as the 'fire brand' I claim to prefer but obviously he got the job done (as witnessed in this article). Yes I said I'm more a person who prefers instant results and generally you see that more in the fiery and caustic type leaders. But occasionally you can get that from a stern, quiet and respected leader as well. Since my cornerstone of leadership measurement comes from a military background take a look sometime at who Major Dick Winters was. Although not a 'firebrand' type leader, he demanded respect without demanding. And got it.

 

 

You just might have me coming around to Lovie.....just wish he could have sorted the O out....

[Alaskan Grizzly]

You just might have me coming around to Lovie.....just wish he could have sorted the O out....

 

Me too. Obviously what's done is done. Many here reminded me of that especially when Trestman and Emery were new. And especially when the offense had it's success last year. I'll admit I even bought into the idea that Trestman could be a good fix. But the more you look at it he appears to be the anti-Lovie in that he's good with O but not so on D. However even now, and considering what Bill wrote in another thread, Trestman inexplicably couldn't figure out until probably too late how to properly use Cutler . That being more mobile. That is baffling and confounding to me.

 

So my question posed at this point, and I've seen it asked elsewhere, why didn't they simply hire Trestman as Lovies O coordinator? If Emery is so smart he should've been able to see that Lovies teams were struggling on the offensive side. If not Trest then why not a young mind like Kyle Shannahan? Emery causes me to think he's a glorified scout and that's about it. Possibly even more inept than was Angelo.

 

Here's another good synopsis of the team post-Lovie and Lovie, post-Bears. A little long but a good read:

 

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/22733...n=chicago-bears

[madlithuanian]

Smith > Trestman, but still not good enough to win it all. We need better than either of those 2 men.

 

 

 

I know bagging on him became popular, but I thought this was a very good read. I also will caveat it by saying I always was a fan of Lovie so I am inherently biased but I felt that he was the time of guy you could be proud your organization had and there is something to be said about that and how he handled the lockeroom, etc. We sorely miss that sort of leadership qualities from the top. I don't think anyone in our front office, Emery or Trestman, have the types of intangible leadership top of the totum pole skills necessary to excel in their current positions.

 

http://chicagosuntimes.com/sports/revered-...bears-listened/

 

[madlithuanian]

Good read.

 

Me too. Obviously what's done is done. Many here reminded me of that especially when Trestman and Emery were new. And especially when the offense had it's success last year. I'll admit I even bought into the idea that Trestman could be a good fix. But the more you look at it he appears to be the anti-Lovie in that he's good with O but not so on D. However even now, and considering what Bill wrote in another thread, Trestman inexplicably couldn't figure out until probably too late how to properly use Cutler . That being more mobile. That is baffling and confounding to me.

 

So my question posed at this point, and I've seen it asked elsewhere, why didn't they simply hire Trestman as Lovies O coordinator? If Emery is so smart he should've been able to see that Lovies teams were struggling on the offensive side. If not Trest then why not a young mind like Kyle Shannahan? Emery causes me to think he's a glorified scout and that's about it. Possibly even more inept than was Angelo.

 

Here's another good synopsis of the team post-Lovie and Lovie, post-Bears. A little long but a good read:

 

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/22733...n=chicago-bears

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

AMEN BROTHER!! Losing Lovie was probably one of the biggest mistakes the Bears have made in the recent past. Despite his 10-6 record his last year many insisted he couldn't get it done and would always get mediocre results. Yet he had an overall winning record and of all the Bears Coaches in history (dating back to 1920) he was the THIRD winningest coach in team history. Only behind Ditka and Papa Bear Halas. That is fact.

 

Giving a tip of the hat to Lucky Luciano (using my middle finger) and in response to his earlier commentary about ownership, they made a mistake in letting Lovie go. Were they incorrectly advised? Probably.

 

I have never hidden from my appreciation for Lovie and I still won't. He may not fit the bill as the 'fire brand' I claim to prefer but obviously he got the job done (as witnessed in this article). Yes I said I'm more a person who prefers instant results and generally you see that more in the fiery and caustic type leaders. But occasionally you can get that from a stern, quiet and respected leader as well. Since my cornerstone of leadership measurement comes from a military background take a look sometime at who Major Dick Winters was. Although not a 'firebrand' type leader, he demanded respect without demanding. And got it.

Great post and I truly hope the Bears fans give Lovie a standing ovation tomorrow. He deserves it. Once the whistle blows we want to beat those Bucs good but my respect and admiration for Lovie is high and I'm very appreciative to how the organization was run during his tenure. Could we have been better, certainly, but we always showed up to play.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Me too. Obviously what's done is done. Many here reminded me of that especially when Trestman and Emery were new. And especially when the offense had it's success last year. I'll admit I even bought into the idea that Trestman could be a good fix. But the more you look at it he appears to be the anti-Lovie in that he's good with O but not so on D. However even now, and considering what Bill wrote in another thread, Trestman inexplicably couldn't figure out until probably too late how to properly use Cutler . That being more mobile. That is baffling and confounding to me.

 

So my question posed at this point, and I've seen it asked elsewhere, why didn't they simply hire Trestman as Lovies O coordinator? If Emery is so smart he should've been able to see that Lovies teams were struggling on the offensive side. If not Trest then why not a young mind like Kyle Shannahan? Emery causes me to think he's a glorified scout and that's about it. Possibly even more inept than was Angelo.

 

Here's another good synopsis of the team post-Lovie and Lovie, post-Bears. A little long but a good read:

 

http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/22733...n=chicago-bears

I think Emery is an excellent scout but not a good GM. I think Trestman isn't a good head coach. I think our organization lacks real leadership and direction and that is a critical element giving the narrow margin between win / loss in this league (or unfortunately for us, the large margin in many of our losses).

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I have no disrespect for Lovie, he was a players coach and had a great D when the players were in there prime. He couldn't put together an offense and was terrible in the draft, and yes he had a lot of say in it. He also made bad decisions in managing a game.....challenges/time clock. He did prepare his team well and seemed to keep the team in games if losing. If only it was Lovie DC, Trestman OC and someone like Gruden as HC, then to see were this team would go. I will give Lovie an applause Sunday and I think all the fans will too.

 

[Chitownhustla]

I know bagging on him became popular, but I thought this was a very good read. I also will caveat it by saying I always was a fan of Lovie so I am inherently biased but I felt that he was the time of guy you could be proud your organization had and there is something to be said about that and how he handled the lockeroom, etc. We sorely miss that sort of leadership qualities from the top. I don't think anyone in our front office, Emery or Trestman, have the types of intangible leadership top of the totum pole skills necessary to excel in their current positions.

 

http://chicagosuntimes.com/sports/revered-...bears-listened/

 

Lovie was given 9 years to get it figured out. Lovies problem was that he was on a short leash, everyone knew it, he couldn't recruit anyone to come to Chicago to run the Offense.

At the same time, JA did a horrible job of putting any talent on the offensive side of the ball.

 

Lovie had a good overall record because the Bears won with Defense and Special Teams (Hester). Lets not forget he had probably the best Cover 2 MLB to ever play the game.

Hester the best return man to ever play the game. Not to mention PNut and Briggs and a whole slew of other guys.

 

 

The year we went to the SB, we had a good Oline and a good combo of Jones and Benson running the Rock. Other than that who played offense.....Good Rex/Bad Rex.....After that year the Jones was released and the oline fell apart.

 

 

Lovies core group of players all got old....

 

 

 

 

JA traded for Cutler, then put the worst Oline we have ever seen in front of him to protect him. Not a smart move.

JA also screwed up by trying to make Hester the number 1 WR.

 

 

Everyone screamed that the Bears had to fix the Oline, JA and Lovie refused.

 

 

Had JA and Lovie figured out a way to fix the offense, maybe he would still be coaching the Bears. They couldn't.... End of story.

 

 

 

So that brings us to today, the offense was fixed for a year....Now sucks.....lol....Trestman was hired to fix the Offense, Tucker is in charge of the Defense. There are guys on here that have been against the Tucker hire from day one.

 

 

 

Trestman has bought some time in my eyes due to the offense being great last year. Tucker has proven that he sucks, 2 year in a row. Last year Tucker was dealt a lot of injuries and poor talent. This year we have had some injuries and better talent.

 

 

 

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Lovie had a good overall record because the Bears won with Defense and Special Teams (Hester). Lets not forget he had probably the best Cover 2 MLB to ever play the game.

Hester the best return man to ever play the game. Not to mention PNut and Briggs and a whole slew of other guys.

 

True. By the by; Briggs, Urlacher and Tillman were all drafted by Angelo. If you read the article that was first referenced (and another almost identical) Briggs was quoted as saying he was challenged to be the next Derrick Brooks by Lovie. But Lovie chose Urlacher to be that guy, who as a reminder, was a Safety in college. The point I'm making is you suggest Lovie did well because of the players he had. I'm suggesting those players were good because of who coached them.

 

 

So that brings us to today, the offense was fixed for a year....Now sucks.....lol....Trestman was hired to fix the Offense, Tucker is in charge of the Defense. There are guys on here that have been against the Tucker hire from day one.

Trestman has bought some time in my eyes due to the offense being great last year. Tucker has proven that he sucks, 2 year in a row. Last year Tucker was dealt a lot of injuries and poor talent. This year we have had some injuries and better talent.

 

And who 'formed' this most recent team? More or less it was Emery. Who in a sense has done as bad, if not worse, than did Angelo. (By the way, outside of the Peppers and Cutler's deal, was never a fan of his). And in regard to the part bolded, the offense did better when McCown was running it. Another mistake of letting him go by Trestman, Emery or both.

[madlithuanian]

Um. Urlacher and Briggs were under Jauron's watch...

 

Hatley was GM from '97-00 and drafted Holdman, Colvin and Azumah in '99. Then Urlacher and Mike Brown in 2000.

 

Jauron and Blache coached those guys along with big Ted and Keith Traylor from '99-'03.

 

Angelo came in in '01-'11, and drafted Alex Brown in '02, Brigg & Tillman in '03, and Tommie Harris in '04.

 

Urlacher was already a huge success before Smith ever got a hold of him. In fact, many people have stated that the scheme run by Blache was better suited for Url. I personally believe Url would thrive anywhere under any system. But it wasn't all Smith... Others had a hand in it.

 

And I refute that those players did well due to Smith. He didn't hurt, but the players were kickass regardless of who coached them.

 

*********

 

Regarding the current make-up...just remember that Angelo tied Emery's hands. A decade of bad picks and no depth really makes the job tough. Not saying, I like Emery...but that he is paying for the sins of the father. Cutler is just a fail regardless... And yeah, at this point, I'd rather have had McCown. Emery's fate is tied with Tresty and Cutty. He best invest well...'cause his good thing is about to end. At least in a year or 2.

 

 

 

 

True. By the by; Briggs, Urlacher and Tillman were all drafted by Angelo. If you read the article that was first referenced (and another almost identical) Briggs was quoted as saying he was challenged to be the next Derrick Brooks by Lovie. But Lovie chose Urlacher to be that guy, who as a reminder, was a Safety in college. The point I'm making is you suggest Lovie did well because of the players he had. I'm suggesting those players were good because of who coached them.

 

 

 

 

And who 'formed' this most recent team? More or less it was Emery. Who in a sense has done as bad, if not worse, than did Angelo. (By the way, outside of the Peppers and Cutler's deal, was never a fan of his). And in regard to the part bolded, the offense did better when McCown was running it. Another mistake of letting him go by Trestman, Emery or both.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Lovie was given 9 years to get it figured out. Lovies problem was that he was on a short leash, everyone knew it, he couldn't recruit anyone to come to Chicago to run the Offense.

At the same time, JA did a horrible job of putting any talent on the offensive side of the ball.

 

Lovie had a good overall record because the Bears won with Defense and Special Teams (Hester). Lets not forget he had probably the best Cover 2 MLB to ever play the game.

Hester the best return man to ever play the game. Not to mention PNut and Briggs and a whole slew of other guys.

 

 

The year we went to the SB, we had a good Oline and a good combo of Jones and Benson running the Rock. Other than that who played offense.....Good Rex/Bad Rex.....After that year the Jones was released and the oline fell apart.

 

 

Lovies core group of players all got old....

 

 

 

 

JA traded for Cutler, then put the worst Oline we have ever seen in front of him to protect him. Not a smart move.

JA also screwed up by trying to make Hester the number 1 WR.

 

 

Everyone screamed that the Bears had to fix the Oline, JA and Lovie refused.

 

 

Had JA and Lovie figured out a way to fix the offense, maybe he would still be coaching the Bears. They couldn't.... End of story.

 

 

 

So that brings us to today, the offense was fixed for a year....Now sucks.....lol....Trestman was hired to fix the Offense, Tucker is in charge of the Defense. There are guys on here that have been against the Tucker hire from day one.

 

 

 

Trestman has bought some time in my eyes due to the offense being great last year. Tucker has proven that he sucks, 2 year in a row. Last year Tucker was dealt a lot of injuries and poor talent. This year we have had some injuries and better talent.

In regards to the oline and offensive talent, we will never know if it was Lovie that refused or if JA thought we had the need. We did invest in the oline in terms of the draft, but didn't hit.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

In regards to the oline and offensive talent, we will never know if it was Lovie that refused or if JA thought we had the need. We did invest in the oline in terms of the draft, but didn't hit.

Correct. This was a discussion that Jason and I went back and forth with all the time. 1st round pick Chris Williams = bust and 1st round pick Gabe Carimi = bust.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Um. Urlacher and Briggs were under Jauron's watch...

 

My bad. In the past when I've come to Lovie's defense (and to some degree the good that Angelo did) I usually mention that they drafted three significant players for the Bears. That third one was Forte. And then some others that you mention below...

 

Angelo came in in '01-'11, and drafted Alex Brown in '02, Brigg & Tillman in '03, and Tommie Harris in '04.

 

Urlacher was already a huge success before Smith ever got a hold of him. In fact, many people have stated that the scheme run by Blache was better suited for Url. I personally believe Url would thrive anywhere under any system. But it wasn't all Smith... Others had a hand in it.

Tomayto, Tomahto.

 

A

And I refute that those players did well due to Smith. He didn't hurt, but the players were kickass regardless of who coached them.

You can refute all you want. The proof is in the pudding. Lovie Smith's record was a winning one. Coincidence or no, he benefited from the team he put together as HC. If you read that long article, you'll see that many of those players you talk about do nothing but praise Lovie in his coaching.

 

*********

Regarding the current make-up...just remember that Angelo tied Emery's hands. A decade of bad picks and no depth really makes the job tough. Not saying, I like Emery...but that he is paying for the sins of the father. Cutler is just a fail regardless... And yeah, at this point, I'd rather have had McCown. Emery's fate is tied with Tresty and Cutty. He best invest well...'cause his good thing is about to end. At least in a year or 2.

 

You'll get no argument from me. I was never a fan of Angelo's.

[Daventry]

Great post and I truly hope the Bears fans give Lovie a standing ovation tomorrow. He deserves it. Once the whistle blows we want to beat those Bucs good but my respect and admiration for Lovie is high and I'm very appreciative to how the organization was run during his tenure. Could we have been better, certainly, but we always showed up to play.

 

 

I hope so too....for the few Bears fans who will attend...I reckon there will be a lot of TB jerseys in the stadium.

[Lucky Luciano]

Smith > Trestman, but still not good enough to win it all. We need better than either of those 2 men.

 

in my opinion he was a terrible head coach and i would not want him as a DC either.

 

his system was compromised since the late 90's to early 2000's and he was unable or unwilling to adjust his schemes or his total outlook on defense. the lovie 2 or tampa 2 was not a good enough system without major adjustments to beat high octane offenses and win superbowls without a high octane offense of his own and with as much money and draft picks they used on defense this was not possible.

 

there were and are just too many holes in the zones and any qb, even bad ones, ripped us apart for those 8-10 yard passes that ate up 1st downs and yardage. we made garbage qb's look like HOF players for a game. you needed man coverages to mix up the look and quite frankly he never saw it as a solution.

 

it also needs very high quality players to run it and he lucked out having them for a time in chicago. a very good DT in tommy harris, a very good safety in mike brown, a very good #2 CB in peanut and 2 possible HOF linebackers in url and briggs.

 

when these components broke down due to injury or age the system flat out did not work yet he was unable to either work with angelo to draft competent replacements ( a zillion defensive picks over the 10 year period) or coach up new players to take their place or adjust the scheme to fit the players he was forced to play. it was the same ole, same ole expecting different results each week.

 

his coaching staff was nearly a joke with the exception of our special teams coach. he fired a good DC and promoted a cronie in babich as DC. the results were a complete disaster that nearly got him fired yet he stuck by these failures come hell or high water. when the world called for babich's head he demoted him and took the reins himself as HC/DC. this truly showed how the system he ran was flawed.

 

as far as the offensive side of the ball? he did not have a clue what to do with the bad OC's he had to make any better and again relied on cronies he worked with before, martz. to watch what martz was trying to accomplish with cutler and the offensive line he was behind was plain criminal. same goes for tice. to have stuck that long with grossman was plain... gross.

 

i also have to bring up the benson situation. this guy had some problems without doubt but lovie certainly did NOT help the situation by allowing the defensive players to verbally and physically beat down a 1st round draft pick because they liked the previous RB better. it was stupid and it was dividing the team.

 

unless lovie has changed since going to tampa i still do not believe he is a good coach other than a position coach which is possible. he is a very nice person maybe but that is where i draw the line.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

81-63 regular season record. Three division championships, two NFC title appearances and a Super Bowl appearance. Yeah, he's a good "position coach".

[Mongo3451]

81-63 regular season record. Three division championships, two NFC title appearances and a Super Bowl appearance. Yeah, he's a good "position coach".

You got some on your chin...