Lovie Smith fired

[BearFan PHX]

I dont think Lovie was a good coach. I think he was a mediocre coach, and he got a LOT of wins and credit on the back of Tillman's uncanny ability to punch the ball out. If that was something that he taught, other guys would have been better at it too.

 

Seriously factor out Peanut, and Lovie has a terrible record.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

I dont think Lovie was a good coach. I think he was a mediocre coach, and he got a LOT of wins and credit on the back of Tillman's uncanny ability to punch the ball out. If that was something that he taught, other guys would have been better at it too.

 

Seriously factor out Peanut, and Lovie has a terrible record.

Urlacher, Briggs, Tillman, Peppers, Harris, Brown, Hester...many names that made those teams good. Lovie was a players coach and those players will speak hugely of him. Once those players wilted, Lovie did too. He struggled to find and develop new talent.

[Chitownhustla]

If you look at what the Bucs did, they put absolutely zero focus on their defense. The drafts were to build up their offense and it appeared their plan was to now focus on the defense this draft and off-season.

 

I could be wrong but didn't they spend on defense through FA the first year?

[madlithuanian]

Let's also not forget the accomplishments of Urlacher and Mike Brown. Guys he inherited and alone won games for us. He had a stacked D when he came to town. Some argue that Blache did a better job with his D... Back when we had big Ted and Traylor, Urlacher was a beast.

 

I think Smith's better than average. But not much more.

 

I dont think Lovie was a good coach. I think he was a mediocre coach, and he got a LOT of wins and credit on the back of Tillman's uncanny ability to punch the ball out. If that was something that he taught, other guys would have been better at it too.

 

Seriously factor out Peanut, and Lovie has a terrible record.

 

[Chitownhustla]

Let's also not forget the accomplishments of Urlacher and Mike Brown. Guys he inherited and alone won games for us. He had a stacked D when he came to town. Some argue that Blache did a better job with his D... Back when we had big Ted and Traylor, Urlacher was a beast.

 

I think Smith's better than average. But not much more.

 

I can agree with all your points. Urlacher with big Ted and tractor Taylor was awesome to watch!!

[adam]

One of my biggest gripes with Lovie was with his handling of Rivera. Obviously Rivera was the superior coach and I believe Lovie was threatened by Rivera's popularity and power within the organization (as a former player and popular with ownership). So after we had potentially the best defenses as a team in 20 years in 2005 and 2006 (check the stats), he doesn't renew his contract? Then elevates Babich? We immediately drop to 28th in yards allowed in 2007. I felt Lovie should've been fired after 2007 as it was clear that Rivera was the true defensive mastermind and Lovie was living in the Tampa-2 a decade too late. Without the perfect personnel (ie. Urlacher) to play it, the scheme quickly became the Cover-0.

 

In the end I thought he was average at best and over-rated for his defensive prowess. It is easy to have a good scheme when you have 5-6 future HoFer on your roster (Tampa Bay in early 2000's).

['TD']

If you look at what the Bucs did, they put absolutely zero focus on their defense. The drafts were to build up their offense and it appeared their plan was to now focus on the defense this draft and off-season.

The one year he took over defensive play calling to cover for bablich being a bad DC, was one of the worst defenses the Bears fielded in a while. I never thought he had any talent was glad to see him go. Then we met Mel Tucker....

[BearFan PHX]

Im not diminishing Urlacher or Brown or any other.

 

Im just saying, if you remove all of Peanut's turnovers, Lovie's record is atrocious. Peanut alone was the difference.

 

Had we had someone terrible at MLB that would have done it too etc.

 

Thats the point, Lovie's "success" was so fragile, that you get rid of any ONE of those guys, and he's nothing.

 

But especially Peanut. You can see the turnover stats more clearly than you can mathematically calculate Urlachers coverage for example.

 

Urlacher is a HOF LBer. No doubt.

 

But without Peanut's turnovers alone, Lovie is crap.

 

You can give Lovie credit for where he put Urlacher in the scheme etc, but Peanut punching out balls was not about Xs and Os or coaching at all.

[jason]

Is that right? Interesting perspective.

 

Your "evaluation" process is no more than personal bias and conjecture. His "inadequacies" again are your personal feelings, not the standard. I know you may find this hard to accept but it's reality. Just as biased as my belief that Lovie is a good coach. My opinion is not the end all. I just am basing it on what I see and "hear". And from what I hear, players who actually have logged some time in the NFL like him...as a coach.

 

I'm sure lots of players didn't like Cowher's personality and style of coaching. In fact, I've seen it from some of his players in previous interviews. But he's a good coach. Players liking Lovie is just a reflection of what a great person Lovie is, which is pretty much undebateable. People love having friendly managers in all jobs, but that doesn't make them good.

 

Lovie was an average coach. Period.

[Lucky Luciano]

I'm sure lots of players didn't like Cowher's personality and style of coaching. In fact, I've seen it from some of his players in previous interviews. But he's a good coach. Players liking Lovie is just a reflection of what a great person Lovie is, which is pretty much undebateable. People love having friendly managers in all jobs, but that doesn't make them good.

 

Lovie was an average coach. Period.

 

i have to disagree on many levels. lovie, as a coach, was way below average and in my opinion BAD.

 

1. the defensive stats in this instance were misleading. lovie's system did not work even with 4 or 5 all-pro/HOF players starting. his "system" the cover 2 or tampa 2 or whatever you want to call it was dated and figured out before he even got here. it was a liability. yet he never adjusted or configured it to evolve into a modern defense as the times and rules in the NFL changed. he in essence was a one trick pony incapable of change.

 

the cover 2 was filled with weaknesses that good to very good qb's exploited in nearly every critical game. hell, it even made bad qb's look like all-pro's. the soft cover by our corners and safeties gave every qb a quick out for at least a 5-8 yd gain for untouched (5 yard rule) receivers.

 

as BearFan NYC stated, if not for the turnovers by peanut and the play of briggs, urlacher, mike brown, hester and tommy harris it's weaknesses were glaring as proven once a key component was missing. he was incapable of adjusting his defense to work with the players he was forced to field.

 

the "bend and don't break" system is fine at times if you have a top 5 offense with a killer qb in your stables to run the table. if not the other team will use riding time to score and destroy you.

 

 

2. his inability to have any grasp of an offense and what it should be doing was paramount to his failure as a head coach.

 

3. his ability to evaluate any of his own coaches was non-existent. most were cronies from the past who themselves the NFL had already passed by.

 

on defense? ron rivera is a perfect example of this. who he replaced rivera with is a tragedy. even worse he kept this coach after demoting him and took over the reins himself which proved how bad this system was without the key players like mike brown and tommy harris in it. then hired yet another crony who completely failed in detroit who could again run this failed system.

 

on the offensive side? his coaching staffs were a complete joke.

 

4. stubborn and arrogant. both a bad trait in this business.

 

5. poor player personnel evaluator. again brought in bad over the hill cronies from previous experience not to mention keeping players around who were drafted by this team with little or no talent.

 

6. if control of the draft in any sense, after going to the superbowl, was true he completely failed in that aspect also.

 

7. considered winning now paramount even when it was virtually non-existent to advance in post season to pad his stats and not give us the chance to evaluate our roster for the following season. in other words we were in stasis in a failed system.

 

8. extremely poor game planner and adjustments at half time.

 

9. extremely poor clock management

 

in conclusion: was he the worst coach we ever had? probably not, but he certainly can't be considered even average or good compared to the rest of the NFL's good coaches over the history of the league in my opinion.

 

it was a sigh of relief when they pulled his plug and should have been done years before.

[Mongo3451]

i have to disagree on many levels. lovie, as a coach, was way below average and in my opinion BAD.

 

1. the defensive stats in this instance were misleading. lovie's system did not work even with 4 or 5 all-pro/HOF players starting. his "system" the cover 2 or tampa 2 or whatever you want to call it was dated and figured out before he even got here. it was a liability. yet he never adjusted or configured it to evolve into a modern defense as the times and rules in the NFL changed. he in essence was a one trick pony incapable of change.

 

the cover 2 was filled with weaknesses that good to very good qb's exploited in nearly every critical game. hell, it even made bad qb's look like all-pro's. the soft cover by our corners and safeties gave every qb a quick out for at least a 5-8 yd gain for untouched (5 yard rule) receivers.

 

as BearFan NYC stated, if not for the turnovers by peanut and the play of briggs, urlacher, mike brown, hester and tommy harris it's weaknesses were glaring as proven once a key component was missing. he was incapable of adjusting his defense to work with the players he was forced to field.

 

the "bend and don't break" system is fine at times if you have a top 5 offense with a killer qb in your stables to run the table. if not the other team will use riding time to score and destroy you.

 

 

2. his inability to have any grasp of an offense and what it should be doing was paramount to his failure as a head coach.

 

3. his ability to evaluate any of his own coaches was non-existent. most were cronies from the past who themselves the NFL had already passed by.

 

on defense? ron rivera is a perfect example of this. who he replaced rivera with is a tragedy. even worse he kept this coach after demoting him and took over the reins himself which proved how bad this system was without the key players like mike brown and tommy harris in it. then hired yet another crony who completely failed in detroit who could again run this failed system.

 

on the offensive side? his coaching staffs were a complete joke.

 

4. stubborn and arrogant. both a bad trait in this business.

 

5. poor player personnel evaluator. again brought in bad over the hill cronies from previous experience not to mention keeping players around who were drafted by this team with little or no talent.

 

6. if control of the draft in any sense, after going to the superbowl, was true he completely failed in that aspect also.

 

7. considered winning now paramount even when it was virtually non-existent to advance in post season to pad his stats and not give us the chance to evaluate our roster for the following season. in other words we were in stasis in a failed system.

 

8. extremely poor game planner and adjustments at half time.

 

9. extremely poor clock management

 

in conclusion: was he the worst coach we ever had? probably not, but he certainly can't be considered even average or good compared to the rest of the NFL's good coaches over the history of the league in my opinion.

 

it was a sigh of relief when they pulled his plug and should have been done years before.

Bravo!

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I'm sure lots of players didn't like Cowher's personality and style of coaching. In fact, I've seen it from some of his players in previous interviews. But he's a good coach. Players liking Lovie is just a reflection of what a great person Lovie is, which is pretty much undebateable. People love having friendly managers in all jobs, but that doesn't make them good.

 

Lovie was an average coach. Period.

 

And that's your opinion. Not fact just what you think ...comma...

 

I considered posting this elsewhere but since there is some relation. The discussion above would be very similar to how I feel (opinion) that Cutler is an AVERAGE (at best) QB. Here's evidence to correlate that and using that QBR that so many of you hold in high regard:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago-bears/post...espns-total-qbr

 

In fact his rating places him smack dab (or one below depending how you read the numbers) in the middle at 17th. And again, this is AN IMPROVEMENT from what he has done throughout his career. And I'm still confused how you can consider a coach with a winning record as only average where you think a QB like Cutler is any better than...

 

So, as you say, Cutler is an "average"* QB. Period.

 

 

[Chitownhustla]

And that's your opinion. Not fact just what you think ...comma...

 

I considered posting this elsewhere but since there is some relation. The discussion above would be very similar to how I feel (opinion) that Cutler is an AVERAGE (at best) QB. Here's evidence to correlate that and using that QBR that so many of you hold in high regard:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago-bears/post...espns-total-qbr

 

In fact his rating places him smack dab (or one below depending how you read the numbers) in the middle at 17th. And again, this is AN IMPROVEMENT from what he has done throughout his career. And I'm still confused how you can consider a coach with a winning record as only average where you think a QB like Cutler is any better than...

 

So, as you say, Cutler is an "average"* QB. Period.

 

Article you copied and pasted. Espn - Dickerson

Bears quarterback Jay Cutler improved six spots from last year to finish 17th in ESPN’s Total QBR.

 

Cutler’s 60.7 overall QBR placed him ahead of New York’s Eli Manning (60.5), Houston’s Brian Hoyer (59.6) and San Diego’s Philip Rivers (59.4).

 

Total QBR calculates efficiency on a per-play basis, taking into account pass attempts, run plays, penalized plays and sacks.

 

Cutler additionally had a Points Above Average (PAA) of +19.3, meaning that he added over 19 more points to the Bears than an average quarterback would have with the same number of action plays.

 

It says here he added 19 points to the Bears compared to what an Average QB would have...........I think its saying Cutler is better than average. How much better I dont know.

 

The last seven quarterbacks to win the MVP finished the season ranked in the top of PAA, including four who lead the league.

 

Cutler actually ranked 5th in ESPN’s Total QBR (67.1) in 2013, before he plummeted to No. 23 (52.8) in Marc Trestman’s final season on the job.

Arizona’s Carson Palmer led all NFL quarterbacks with an 82.1 Total QBR in 2015.

 

 

 

 

I also dont understand why you want to bring Cutler into a conversation about Lovie. Comparing coaches and players are not the same. Coaches can be evaluated by wins and losses. Players you can but only to a certain extent.

 

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Article you copied and pasted. Espn - Dickerson

Bears quarterback Jay Cutler improved six spots from last year to finish 17th in ESPN’s Total QBR.

 

Cutler’s 60.7 overall QBR placed him ahead of New York’s Eli Manning (60.5), Houston’s Brian Hoyer (59.6) and San Diego’s Philip Rivers (59.4).

 

Total QBR calculates efficiency on a per-play basis, taking into account pass attempts, run plays, penalized plays and sacks.

 

Cutler additionally had a Points Above Average (PAA) of +19.3, meaning that he added over 19 more points to the Bears than an average quarterback would have with the same number of action plays.

 

It says here he added 19 points to the Bears compared to what an Average QB would have...........I think its saying Cutler is better than average. How much better I dont know.

 

The last seven quarterbacks to win the MVP finished the season ranked in the top of PAA, including four who lead the league.

 

Cutler actually ranked 5th in ESPN’s Total QBR (67.1) in 2013, before he plummeted to No. 23 (52.8) in Marc Trestman’s final season on the job.

Arizona’s Carson Palmer led all NFL quarterbacks with an 82.1 Total QBR in 2015.

 

 

 

 

I also dont understand why you want to bring Cutler into a conversation about Lovie. Comparing coaches and players are not the same. Coaches can be evaluated by wins and losses. Players you can but only to a certain extent.

 

I thought I made it clear why I made the comparison. But you're right I did it out of convenience because I was "discussing" with Jason his rationale for his opinion. It was lazy of me and I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

 

For what it's worth the QBR is very controversial and proprietary to ESPN so it too is not the "end all" to rating a player. And how one interprets it.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

i have to disagree on many levels. lovie, as a coach, was way below average and in my opinion BAD.

 

1. the defensive stats in this instance were misleading. lovie's system did not work even with 4 or 5 all-pro/HOF players starting. his "system" the cover 2 or tampa 2 or whatever you want to call it was dated and figured out before he even got here. it was a liability. yet he never adjusted or configured it to evolve into a modern defense as the times and rules in the NFL changed. he in essence was a one trick pony incapable of change.

 

the cover 2 was filled with weaknesses that good to very good qb's exploited in nearly every critical game. hell, it even made bad qb's look like all-pro's. the soft cover by our corners and safeties gave every qb a quick out for at least a 5-8 yd gain for untouched (5 yard rule) receivers.

 

as BearFan NYC stated, if not for the turnovers by peanut and the play of briggs, urlacher, mike brown, hester and tommy harris it's weaknesses were glaring as proven once a key component was missing. he was incapable of adjusting his defense to work with the players he was forced to field.

 

the "bend and don't break" system is fine at times if you have a top 5 offense with a killer qb in your stables to run the table. if not the other team will use riding time to score and destroy you.

 

 

2. his inability to have any grasp of an offense and what it should be doing was paramount to his failure as a head coach.

 

3. his ability to evaluate any of his own coaches was non-existent. most were cronies from the past who themselves the NFL had already passed by.

 

on defense? ron rivera is a perfect example of this. who he replaced rivera with is a tragedy. even worse he kept this coach after demoting him and took over the reins himself which proved how bad this system was without the key players like mike brown and tommy harris in it. then hired yet another crony who completely failed in detroit who could again run this failed system.

 

on the offensive side? his coaching staffs were a complete joke.

 

4. stubborn and arrogant. both a bad trait in this business.

 

5. poor player personnel evaluator. again brought in bad over the hill cronies from previous experience not to mention keeping players around who were drafted by this team with little or no talent.

 

6. if control of the draft in any sense, after going to the superbowl, was true he completely failed in that aspect also.

 

7. considered winning now paramount even when it was virtually non-existent to advance in post season to pad his stats and not give us the chance to evaluate our roster for the following season. in other words we were in stasis in a failed system.

 

8. extremely poor game planner and adjustments at half time.

 

9. extremely poor clock management

 

in conclusion: was he the worst coach we ever had? probably not, but he certainly can't be considered even average or good compared to the rest of the NFL's good coaches over the history of the league in my opinion.

 

it was a sigh of relief when they pulled his plug and should have been done years before.

 

I'm glad you at least qualify your response (not once but twice) as your "opinion". Something Jason doesn't comprehend the definition of.

 

So you believe others are to "blame" for his success where his failures are his own? Interesting. Let's take a look at Rivera. First it should be mentioned that he came at the same time as Lovie in 04 (Lovie staff hire?) As the DC in '04-05 did pretty good but then things dropped off in 06 (which was the year of the SB). Would I assume they made their Super Bowl run because of how the defense did by itself? Probably not. Eventually as we know Rivera was let go, wrong or right. (I might add I'm actually a fan of Riveras). Anyhow, one might ask that for those two previous years (05-06) Rivera was a candidate for many HC vacancies but hired for none. Why is that? In fact when he was finally hired by Carolina in 2011 he was nearly canned (or at least expected to be) just two seasons later. What would have happened if they'd have done that?

 

After Rivera left Lovie still managed (somehow) to compile a record of 45-34 and another NFC championship appearance on 2010. You remember that game right? That one where Caleb Hanie, not Cutler, very nearly won. Had he managed to pull it off, Lovie would have made his second Super Bowl appearance. One could make the argument (I would) that Cutler may have been the reason they didn't make the Super Bowl that year. Since you're a fan of 'what ifs'. What if Hanie had played more of the game than did Cutler?

 

Speaking of the players making the coach angle. I can't really argue the point other than to say is it really a point? To believe one player, Tillma, somehow single handedly carried the team is ludicrous. Would it not be fair to suggest that Tillman maybe benefitted more from the system he was in than the other way around? Ever ask Peanut what he thought of Lovie? Here's an except from in 2012 just before Lovie was let go:

"Because he is a great coach," Tillman said. "He's been here nine years, I believe, the only coach I really know. I don't want to play for another coach. I think he's done some great things for this city, for this organization. Great guy, great leader. "(If) you got to bring in a new coach, they got to start all the way over, they got to rebuild the team. Naw, you don't want to do that. Coach Smith is the guy."". Man was he right.

 

Anyhow despite your theory on one player making a coach and if it held true then would you not ask; where would Belichick be without Brady, Tomlin without Roethlisberger or Shula without Griese? I mean in some cases it may apply but not here.

[adam]

I thought I made it clear why I made the comparison. But you're right I did it out of convenience because I was "discussing" with Jason his rationale for his opinion. It was lazy of me and I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

 

For what it's worth the QBR is very controversial and proprietary to ESPN so it too is not the "end all" to rating a player. And how one interprets it.

QBR was basically debunked this season as total garbage. Here is an example of just how bad or off it can be:

 

Week 3- 28-43, 281 yds, 65.1%, 2 TD, 1 INT, QBR-60.3, QB Rating-89.4

 

Week 15- 26-37, 231 yds, 70.3%, 2 TD, 1 INT, QBR-18.3, QB Rating-93.4

 

So in Week 3, Cutler had a few more incompletions, but a few more yards, with his QB Rating slightly lower, since QB Rating weights completion pct more important than yards. Either way the games were comparable and the QB Ratings were within 4 of each other. However, Week 3 is literally 3x better in QBR from Week 15 just because of 50 more passing yards but with a lower comp %? That is absolutely ridiculous.

 

Now look at Week 1:

18-36, 225 yds, 50.0%, 1 TD, 1 INT, QBR-29.6, QB Rating-67.5

 

So compare this with Week 15 and come up with a logical reason to how Cutler can have more completions, yards, comp%, and TD's yet a lower QBR in Week 15.

 

DVOA is way better, more accurate, and has been more consistent for a longer period of time:

 

DVOA:

1. Palmer

2. Dalton

3. Wilson

4. Big Ben

5. Brady

6. Cousins

7. Brees

8. Taylor

9. Cutler

10. Stafford

12. Newton

17. Rodgers

 

This was Cutler's best season as a Bear (highest DVOA was #13), and 2nd highest overall. He was 7th in his last year with Denver.

[Chitownhustla]

I thought I made it clear why I made the comparison. But you're right I did it out of convenience because I was "discussing" with Jason his rationale for his opinion. It was lazy of me and I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

 

For what it's worth the QBR is very controversial and proprietary to ESPN so it too is not the "end all" to rating a player. And how one interprets it.

 

 

My feelings were not hurt. I just think it is a waste of time to compare apples and oranges. Kind of like comparing two Qb's passer rating and coming up with the notion that they are both game managers because of a Passer Rating........... Now that one hurt my feelings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jason]

And that's your opinion. Not fact just what you think ...comma...

 

I considered posting this elsewhere but since there is some relation. The discussion above would be very similar to how I feel (opinion) that Cutler is an AVERAGE (at best) QB. Here's evidence to correlate that and using that QBR that so many of you hold in high regard:

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago-bears/post...espns-total-qbr

 

In fact his rating places him smack dab (or one below depending how you read the numbers) in the middle at 17th. And again, this is AN IMPROVEMENT from what he has done throughout his career. And I'm still confused how you can consider a coach with a winning record as only average where you think a QB like Cutler is any better than...

 

So, as you say, Cutler is an "average"* QB. Period.

 

Dude. Read the thread. Get off Lovie's average bandwagon. Nearly everyone here agress he was average at best, and some are saying he downright sucked. I understand your point, but I don't feel like educating someone too stubborn or lazy to be educated. Go back into the archives. There are literally thousands and thousands of words and explanations as to why Lovie is not good. It is not opinion. It is fact. He is a good guy; I'd love to meet him and talk to him. But he is still an average HC.

 

Also, you can't compare QBs to HCs.