Bob Babbich needs to go

[bradjock]

Supposedly Ron Rivera & Lovie disagreed often, which is why Rivera was let go. So we bring in Lovie's guy. So the defense sucked last year. Injuries were the excuse. In pre-season we've been close to 100% healthy:

 

1. In 4 pre-season games has our #1 defense seen a 4 & out? Have we had a turn-over?

2. Every team that we have played in the pre-season has used misdirection plays. All four games we've over-pursued in the wrong direction & gotten burned. Whatever happened to "staying in our gaps." I rarely here the players say that any more.

3. Under Babbich, we do seem to get to the quarterback more often, but for some reason it tends to leave our secondary more open. Quarterbacks simply do not make mistakes when the pressure is coming. I know that doesn't make sense. When other teams bring the house on us, bad things happen. When we bring the house, good things happen to the other team.

4. Tonight Cleveland's #1 o-linemen flat-out man-handled our defense.

 

It's easy to make the argument that it just pre-season, but Bear's radio reported the defensive players were pissed at being scored on in consecutive drives. Something ain't working. More often then not, what works or doesn't work in pre-season, does carry over.

 

Lovie's under contract for 4 more years. Most of our defensive starters are under contract. Something needs to change.

[nfoligno]

Supposedly Ron Rivera & Lovie disagreed often, which is why Rivera was let go. So we bring in Lovie's guy. So the defense sucked last year. Injuries were the excuse. In pre-season we've been close to 100% healthy:

 

I said Babich was a problem all last year. Injuries hurt us, but I do not believe injuries explained the extreme level our defense tanked. Even w/ the injuries, we still had quite a few studs on D, and yet stunk. Defenses with less quality than what we had healthy simply put, did better.

 

1. In 4 pre-season games has our #1 defense seen a 4 & out? Have we had a turn-over?

 

Assume you mean 3 and out, and I can't give you a question. To make you point worse, can we think for a moment about the QBs (not to mention RBs) who have shredded our 1st string D? Croyle, Frye, O'Sullivan & Quinn. That would be 4 backup QBs that shredded our 1st string D. Take a moment to think about that one for a moment.

 

2. Every team that we have played in the pre-season has used misdirection plays. All four games we've over-pursued in the wrong direction & gotten burned. Whatever happened to "staying in our gaps." I rarely here the players say that any more.

 

No discipline. Poor angles. Poor recognition. Poor tackling. Blame the players, fine, but this is not a new problem, and thus one I think we have to consider the coaching and/or scheme.

 

3. Under Babbich, we do seem to get to the quarterback more often, but for some reason it tends to leave our secondary more open. Quarterbacks simply do not make mistakes when the pressure is coming. I know that doesn't make sense. When other teams bring the house on us, bad things happen. When we bring the house, good things happen to the other team.

 

Honestly, I am not sure I agree we get to the QB more. Sacks in 2006 and 2007 were about even, just distributed differently. Stats aside, I simply am not sure we have generated so much more pressure under babich.

 

4. Tonight Cleveland's #1 o-linemen flat-out man-handled our defense.

 

Should it also be pointed out that, prior to tonight, Cle's OL (and offense in general) had been getting ripped for poor play. Many began to question if last year was a fluke, as Cle's OL was looking very average to below average. Then they face us and look all-pro?

 

It's easy to make the argument that it just pre-season, but Bear's radio reported the defensive players were pissed at being scored on in consecutive drives. Something ain't working. More often then not, what works or doesn't work in pre-season, does carry over.

 

As I recall, they were pissed off heading into the last game too, and I believe we saw similar/same results.

 

Lovie's under contract for 4 more years. Most of our defensive starters are under contract. Something needs to change.

 

No clue what to even say to this. As you said, Lovie is under contract 4 more years. Hard to see his going bye bye. As for Babich, will Angelo v Babich invoke an Angelo v Shoop like situation?

[Mongo3451]

All I have to say to all of this is: Why blame Babich? Everyone knows who's behind the collapse of our defense. It's not Babich. Remember, when Lovie let Rivera walk and said, what??? Yes, it was.... drumroll please... Trust me. It's all Lovie folks. I don't want to hear that he has two years remaining on his deal. If he's the problem, he has to go. Real management fires shitty coaches when they need to be fired.

 

Oh wait, I hear the McCrackersky lovers coming out and saying the Bears aren't cheep. If we tank and Lovie stays, the Bears are still cheap.

[madlithuanian]

Bold statement...I can't say I disagree.

 

All I have to say to all of this is: Why blame Babich? Everyone knows who's behind the collapse of our defense. It's not Babich. Remember, when Lovie let Rivera walk and said, what??? Yes, it was.... drumroll please... Trust me. It's all Lovie folks. I don't want to hear that he has two years remaining on his deal. If he's the problem, he has to go. Real management fires shitty coaches when they need to be fired.

 

Oh wait, I hear the McCrackersky lovers coming out and saying the Bears aren't cheep. If we tank and Lovie stays, the Bears are still cheap.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

All I have to say to all of this is: Why blame Babich? Everyone knows who's behind the collapse of our defense. It's not Babich. Remember, when Lovie let Rivera walk and said, what??? Yes, it was.... drumroll please... Trust me. It's all Lovie folks. I don't want to hear that he has two years remaining on his deal. If he's the problem, he has to go. Real management fires shitty coaches when they need to be fired.

 

Oh wait, I hear the McCrackersky lovers coming out and saying the Bears aren't cheep. If we tank and Lovie stays, the Bears are still cheap.

 

 

Why not blame Babich? He is the Defensive COORDINATOR and that is where the root of the Defensive problems originate. Just like the Offensive problems originate with Turner. It is Lovie's responsibility to get the best coordinators into their respective positions. If the team tanks before the season is over, then Lovie will have to make adjustments....whether that means moving/dismissing coordinators or players. Bringing in a new HC changes the whole scheme of things which equates to rebuilding. The Bears are in no need or position of having to rebuild. They went 7-9 last year. That is only 1 game from .500 and 1 more from a "winning season". The year before that was the Super Bowl.

 

And by the way, the McCaskey's are cheap. Just look at 1986 - 88 when they single handedly dismanteled a winning team because they wouldn't pay to keep the players that got them the win in XX. Eventually Ditka was thrown to the curb as a result of all this mismanaging.

[Pixote]

Supposedly Ron Rivera & Lovie disagreed often, which is why Rivera was let go. So we bring in Lovie's guy. So the defense sucked last year. Injuries were the excuse. In pre-season we've been close to 100% healthy:

 

1. In 4 pre-season games has our #1 defense seen a 4 & out? Have we had a turn-over?

2. Every team that we have played in the pre-season has used misdirection plays. All four games we've over-pursued in the wrong direction & gotten burned. Whatever happened to "staying in our gaps." I rarely here the players say that any more.

3. Under Babbich, we do seem to get to the quarterback more often, but for some reason it tends to leave our secondary more open. Quarterbacks simply do not make mistakes when the pressure is coming. I know that doesn't make sense. When other teams bring the house on us, bad things happen. When we bring the house, good things happen to the other team.

4. Tonight Cleveland's #1 o-linemen flat-out man-handled our defense.

 

It's easy to make the argument that it just pre-season, but Bear's radio reported the defensive players were pissed at being scored on in consecutive drives. Something ain't working. More often then not, what works or doesn't work in pre-season, does carry over.

 

Lovie's under contract for 4 more years. Most of our defensive starters are under contract. Something needs to change.

 

From what I can tell we have as a team 5 INTs and 7 sacks as well as I believe several blocked kicks and fumble recoveries.

 

Yes, we have had 3 and outs by our defense.

 

No, it is not Babbich's fault the players are not giving effort, not containing the outside, wrapping up tackles or staying in their gaps. That is the players responsibility. During the preseason we will play a very vanilla defense. I will pass judgement on the defensive players after the season starts. I will pass judgement on Babbich after the season ends. Too early to make a decision now.

[nfoligno]

We absolutely can blame Lovie.

 

It is not the same on offense. Lovie is a defensive background coach. He can't meddle in the offense as he can the defense, as he simply doesn't know offense. Defense is another story.

 

I would further point out that Babich is running Lovie's scheme. If Babich fails to run it effectively, then why should we not expect Lovie to step in.

 

As for our owners being cheap, sorry, but I will continue to argue this is a joke. You are going back 20 years to make a point. In the last decade, the ownership (through Miller) have stepped up and have spent about as many as any team out there. We shell out $5m/yr for a coach. We shell out upper tier bonus dollars to bring in FAs (Wale, Tait, Moose) as well as to keep our owns.

 

If we were still a cheap organization, as some want to continue to believe, we would not have been able to keep the coach and players we have. Now we can argue day and night whether these were good decisions, but that is not relevant. The relevant point is that we have stepped up and spent money. The arguments that this is a cheap organization simply are no longer valid.

 

Why not blame Babich? He is the Defensive COORDINATOR and that is where the root of the Defensive problems originate. Just like the Offensive problems originate with Turner. It is Lovie's responsibility to get the best coordinators into their respective positions. If the team tanks before the season is over, then Lovie will have to make adjustments....whether that means moving/dismissing coordinators or players. Bringing in a new HC changes the whole scheme of things which equates to rebuilding. The Bears are in no need or position of having to rebuild. They went 7-9 last year. That is only 1 game from .500 and 1 more from a "winning season". The year before that was the Super Bowl.

 

And by the way, the McCaskey's are cheap. Just look at 1986 - 88 when they single handedly dismanteled a winning team because they wouldn't pay to keep the players that got them the win in XX. Eventually Ditka was thrown to the curb as a result of all this mismanaging.

[madlithuanian]

I do follow the logic on cheap though. The team basically had a gun to its head re-signing Lovie after the SUper Bowl. And we did take yet another coordinator over some HC's that would have cost far more for his first few years.

 

Given the nature of the cap, the team spends on players. But given the opportunity, I'm not quite convinced the McCaskey's aren't cheap on infrastructue. I don't really know enough to be certain...but history tends to repeat itself. This is the same ownership...until that changes, I will assume nothing changes...and that included cheapness.

 

I think a team can still be cheap in admin, and competitive in team salary (mostly due to how th NFL is now set up).

 

We absolutely can blame Lovie.

 

It is not the same on offense. Lovie is a defensive background coach. He can't meddle in the offense as he can the defense, as he simply doesn't know offense. Defense is another story.

 

I would further point out that Babich is running Lovie's scheme. If Babich fails to run it effectively, then why should we not expect Lovie to step in.

 

As for our owners being cheap, sorry, but I will continue to argue this is a joke. You are going back 20 years to make a point. In the last decade, the ownership (through Miller) have stepped up and have spent about as many as any team out there. We shell out $5m/yr for a coach. We shell out upper tier bonus dollars to bring in FAs (Wale, Tait, Moose) as well as to keep our owns.

 

If we were still a cheap organization, as some want to continue to believe, we would not have been able to keep the coach and players we have. Now we can argue day and night whether these were good decisions, but that is not relevant. The relevant point is that we have stepped up and spent money. The arguments that this is a cheap organization simply are no longer valid.

[nfoligno]

One, even w/ the cap, you can still be a cheap team. Signing bonus money is a key here. A cheap team doesn't shell out $15m bonuses. Prior to Phillips and Hatley, there is simply no question we ran the team, from a player standpoint, from the cheap seats. The team simply refused to shell out the upfront dollars. But a change did in fact happen. When Mikey and Wanny were running the show, do you think we would have spent the sort of money we have on players?

 

Two, You say a gun was to our heads, but the fact remains, we spend big to keep our coach. I would also point out that we cut Wanny w/ a year or two remaining on his deal. I simply don't think we are cheap here. We have a GM. That wasn't always the case. And if you look at the coaching staff, we have a full group. Some cheaper teams don't have position coaches for every position, or try to simply go light here.

 

Three, what admin costs are you thinking of? The bears were among the first to build a state of the art training facility. Not long ago, and again, after hatley took over, the team built up one of the largest scouting departments in the league. Is it still at the same level? I don't know. But I see no reason to assume different.

 

I just am not sure what admin costs you are talking about. I have never heard about our team having to travel by bus, or staying at motel 6s. I have never heard players complain their meals are light. Just not sure what admin costs you think we might be skimping on.

 

Look, the reputation was earned. Well earned. But while some choose to live in the past, it doesn't take must to look around and see how much money this teams spends. You talk about admin costs, but how much money are we really talking about? The teams shells out tens of millions of dollars every offseason on players. I question a team being cheap by saying they might try to save a few hundred thousand on this or that when they are spending tens of millions in other areas that prove otherwise.

 

I do follow the logic on cheap though. The team basically had a gun to its head re-signing Lovie after the SUper Bowl. And we did take yet another coordinator over some HC's that would have cost far more for his first few years.

 

Given the nature of the cap, the team spends on players. But given the opportunity, I'm not quite convinced the McCaskey's aren't cheap on infrastructue. I don't really know enough to be certain...but history tends to repeat itself. This is the same ownership...until that changes, I will assume nothing changes...and that included cheapness.

 

I think a team can still be cheap in admin, and competitive in team salary (mostly due to how th NFL is now set up).

[madlithuanian]

Oh I agree. But with the players the Bears don't appear cheap anymore. I think that's a given based on what we've seen over the past number of years. However, I think the verdict is out on the management. I think the accountant is making the calls right now. He's not necesarily Finks or anything. Something tells me he came at a much better price than a true guru.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that Mikey and Wanny were horrid and beyond cheap...both with the team and the staff.

 

I'm making the case that there is now enough leverage with the GM and coaches that the bears now spend on players. Also, it may have to do with hieghtened media scruitiny. Just a thought...

 

We cut Wanny and ate some salary, but we also then hired Jauron on the cheap. I thnk the need for the GM was so overwhelming, that again a gun was virtually at their heads.

 

I just don't see the ownership outting winning at all costs like many other franchises.

 

I follow your thoughts on the training facilty, plane rides, nice eats,etc... My thought is regarding getting true NFL men for the job. Guys like Parcells are being woo'ed in Dallas, etc...and we always seem to bring in the cheap coordinator hungry for any HC job. Tell me this hasn't been the case even since before Ditka?

 

It seems this franchise is just incapable or uninterested of making a big splash to do what it takes to get this team to be a winning franchise over numerous years. Maybe I'm wrong and JA and Lovie will kick butt this year. But, as I've mentioned before, I'm a betting man, and that doesn't look like a good bet.

 

Maybe "cheap" isn't the right word. But I just see ownership just doing enough to keep things looking bright. To show a glimmer of hope. Not to actually cross the line between also-ran and winner.

 

I'm just irritated by this team at the moment...bear with me. How we've fallen from grace so hard is true unexplicable... and I'm grasping at straws.

 

One, even w/ the cap, you can still be a cheap team. Signing bonus money is a key here. A cheap team doesn't shell out $15m bonuses. Prior to Phillips and Hatley, there is simply no question we ran the team, from a player standpoint, from the cheap seats. The team simply refused to shell out the upfront dollars. But a change did in fact happen. When Mikey and Wanny were running the show, do you think we would have spent the sort of money we have on players?

 

Two, You say a gun was to our heads, but the fact remains, we spend big to keep our coach. I would also point out that we cut Wanny w/ a year or two remaining on his deal. I simply don't think we are cheap here. We have a GM. That wasn't always the case. And if you look at the coaching staff, we have a full group. Some cheaper teams don't have position coaches for every position, or try to simply go light here.

 

Three, what admin costs are you thinking of? The bears were among the first to build a state of the art training facility. Not long ago, and again, after hatley took over, the team built up one of the largest scouting departments in the league. Is it still at the same level? I don't know. But I see no reason to assume different.

 

I just am not sure what admin costs you are talking about. I have never heard about our team having to travel by bus, or staying at motel 6s. I have never heard players complain their meals are light. Just not sure what admin costs you think we might be skimping on.

 

Look, the reputation was earned. Well earned. But while some choose to live in the past, it doesn't take must to look around and see how much money this teams spends. You talk about admin costs, but how much money are we really talking about? The teams shells out tens of millions of dollars every offseason on players. I question a team being cheap by saying they might try to save a few hundred thousand on this or that when they are spending tens of millions in other areas that prove otherwise.

[nfoligno]

If you altered the term "cheap", we might agree more. I simply take issue w/ the idea the team is cheap.

 

Take for example our getting coordinators instead of proven HCs, or maybe not paying assistants elite salaries. Would the savings of all this even hit bonus of one of our big player signings?

 

I think some confuse philosophy w/ being cheap. Would anyone call Jerry Jones cheap? And yet, Jones has always had the philosophy of hiring unproven, coordinator (or college) HCs. Of late, he hired Parcells and Phillips (though Wade wasn't exactly expensive). But was he cheap prior to that? No. He simply had a philosophy in coaching hirings, and changes his philosophy, which didn't work either.

 

I think we, like numerous other franchises, have a coaching philosophy. Some mistake that for being cheap, which I think is wrong. We may disagree w/ the philosophy, but that is what it is. This team believes a young unproven guy to be a better choice than a HC w/ experience, but most likely a questionable track record. I mean, how many HCs who are available are great? If they were great, why are they available?

 

Just because the team chooses not to hire a proven HC doesn't mean they are cheap. It just means they have a philosophy that a young, unproven guy is better.

 

Sometimes it isn't that a team/person is cheap, but the problem simply lies in the decisions. Look at Snyder. He is far from cheap, but horrible decisions has doomed the team. He went out and paid top dollar to bring back a HOF coach, and then paid top dollar for a bunch of assistants. That didn't work out either.

 

If you want to question our philosophy, or decision making process, I am w/ you. But if you say we make our decisions because we are simply cheap, then I would simply have to disagree.

[BigDaddy]

If you altered the term "cheap", we might agree more. I simply take issue w/ the idea the team is cheap.

 

Take for example our getting coordinators instead of proven HCs, or maybe not paying assistants elite salaries. Would the savings of all this even hit bonus of one of our big player signings?

 

I think some confuse philosophy w/ being cheap. Would anyone call Jerry Jones cheap? And yet, Jones has always had the philosophy of hiring unproven, coordinator (or college) HCs. Of late, he hired Parcells and Phillips (though Wade wasn't exactly expensive). But was he cheap prior to that? No. He simply had a philosophy in coaching hirings, and changes his philosophy, which didn't work either.

 

I think we, like numerous other franchises, have a coaching philosophy. Some mistake that for being cheap, which I think is wrong. We may disagree w/ the philosophy, but that is what it is. This team believes a young unproven guy to be a better choice than a HC w/ experience, but most likely a questionable track record. I mean, how many HCs who are available are great? If they were great, why are they available?

 

Just because the team chooses not to hire a proven HC doesn't mean they are cheap. It just means they have a philosophy that a young, unproven guy is better.

 

Sometimes it isn't that a team/person is cheap, but the problem simply lies in the decisions. Look at Snyder. He is far from cheap, but horrible decisions has doomed the team. He went out and paid top dollar to bring back a HOF coach, and then paid top dollar for a bunch of assistants. That didn't work out either.

 

If you want to question our philosophy, or decision making process, I am w/ you. But if you say we make our decisions because we are simply cheap, then I would simply have to disagree.

 

I agree. This franchise has spent, no, OVERSPENT to acquire some of it's talent and I think the fact they ponied up what they did to get Smith resigned shows they have no problem paying for what they want. The issue of whether or not they fire Smith will be decided before the end of this season. I think we'll know by the 4th game whether or not Lovie will be retained and it will be reflected in the play of our football team. And for those of you who believe that the Bears won't fire Smith even though he has 3-4 yrs left on his deal, you need to consider the following; Only fools would continue to pay Smith the kind of money they pay him for the job he is currently doing. Do you think for 1 moment that they will pay this money for the next 3 yrs because they are liable if he doesn't find a coaching job? Come on, they will make a settlement with him and that will be that. Lovie Smith needs to win this year, make no mistake. Aniother 7-9 or worse, he's gone. I say 8-8 and he's gone. What is wrong with this defense IS NOT talent, it is scheme and coaching. RR tweaked the Tampa 2 with disguises and the like. What this dipshit Babich is running is a base cover 2 with a 1 gap line. No imagination, no creativity. Most important, he was hired by Smith and Smith launched RR. Look at the other phluck ups by Lovie I was reminded of by a guy on one of the other boards; He whacked Wade Wilson who now looks fairly smart in Dallas but hey, we have all world Mr Pep Hamilton. He sure fixed Rex. How many LB coaches have we had since babich got promoted? He promoted Anderson over Alex brown, he went out of his way to get Archuletta who sucked, he announces this training camp that Bradley is the #1 receiver. This guy has been an absolute disaster since losing the SB. Now, while he doesn't outright lie by the definition of the word, he sure witholds, omits, and serves up a creative interpretation of the facts as good as any liar I know. And this from a guy with such high moral fiber? Guys, better we face it now. One more stinker season and Lovie is toast.

[madlithuanian]

Point taken. Cheap may not be the term. Maybe dumb?

 

If you altered the term "cheap", we might agree more. I simply take issue w/ the idea the team is cheap.

 

Take for example our getting coordinators instead of proven HCs, or maybe not paying assistants elite salaries. Would the savings of all this even hit bonus of one of our big player signings?

 

I think some confuse philosophy w/ being cheap. Would anyone call Jerry Jones cheap? And yet, Jones has always had the philosophy of hiring unproven, coordinator (or college) HCs. Of late, he hired Parcells and Phillips (though Wade wasn't exactly expensive). But was he cheap prior to that? No. He simply had a philosophy in coaching hirings, and changes his philosophy, which didn't work either.

 

I think we, like numerous other franchises, have a coaching philosophy. Some mistake that for being cheap, which I think is wrong. We may disagree w/ the philosophy, but that is what it is. This team believes a young unproven guy to be a better choice than a HC w/ experience, but most likely a questionable track record. I mean, how many HCs who are available are great? If they were great, why are they available?

 

Just because the team chooses not to hire a proven HC doesn't mean they are cheap. It just means they have a philosophy that a young, unproven guy is better.

 

Sometimes it isn't that a team/person is cheap, but the problem simply lies in the decisions. Look at Snyder. He is far from cheap, but horrible decisions has doomed the team. He went out and paid top dollar to bring back a HOF coach, and then paid top dollar for a bunch of assistants. That didn't work out either.

 

If you want to question our philosophy, or decision making process, I am w/ you. But if you say we make our decisions because we are simply cheap, then I would simply have to disagree.

[Connorbear]

I agree. This franchise has spent, no, OVERSPENT to acquire some of it's talent and I think the fact they ponied up what they did to get Smith resigned shows they have no problem paying for what they want. The issue of whether or not they fire Smith will be decided before the end of this season. I think we'll know by the 4th game whether or not Lovie will be retained and it will be reflected in the play of our football team. And for those of you who believe that the Bears won't fire Smith even though he has 3-4 yrs left on his deal, you need to consider the following; Only fools would continue to pay Smith the kind of money they pay him for the job he is currently doing. Do you think for 1 moment that they will pay this money for the next 3 yrs because they are liable if he doesn't find a coaching job? Come on, they will make a settlement with him and that will be that. Lovie Smith needs to win this year, make no mistake. Aniother 7-9 or worse, he's gone. I say 8-8 and he's gone. What is wrong with this defense IS NOT talent, it is scheme and coaching. RR tweaked the Tampa 2 with disguises and the like. What this dipshit Babich is running is a base cover 2 with a 1 gap line. No imagination, no creativity. Most important, he was hired by Smith and Smith launched RR. Look at the other phluck ups by Lovie I was reminded of by a guy on one of the other boards; He whacked Wade Wilson who now looks fairly smart in Dallas but hey, we have all world Mr Pep Hamilton. He sure fixed Rex. How many LB coaches have we had since babich got promoted? He promoted Anderson over Alex brown, he went out of his way to get Archuletta who sucked, he announces this training camp that Bradley is the #1 receiver. This guy has been an absolute disaster since losing the SB. Now, while he doesn't outright lie by the definition of the word, he sure witholds, omits, and serves up a creative interpretation of the facts as good as any liar I know. And this from a guy with such high moral fiber? Guys, better we face it now. One more stinker season and Lovie is toast.

Sorry. There is no way Lovie is fired if the Bears finish 7-9 or 8-8 this yr. In fact, I see no way he is fired this yr unless it is something outside of football. He would be given 1 more yr.

 

Peace

[BigDaddy]

Sorry. There is no way Lovie is fired if the Bears finish 7-9 or 8-8 this yr. In fact, I see no way he is fired this yr unless it is something outside of football. He would be given 1 more yr.

 

Peace

 

And your logic for this argument is what?

[Connorbear]

And your logic for this argument is what?

Look at how long they hung on to Jauron and he only got us to the playoffs once and lost. Lovie took us to the SB.

 

Peace

[CrackerDog]

And your logic for this argument is what?

 

He's smart.

[BigDaddy]

Look at how long they hung on to Jauron and he only got us to the playoffs once and lost. Lovie took us to the SB.

 

Peace

 

So what you THINK is that they haven't learned their lesson. Ok, if that's your argument, I can live with that. I believe they have learned their lesson and will pull the plug on Lovie if he doesn't win. They don't need to waste 4 yrs and 15M when they can settle with Lovie for half that, not have to waste the 4 yrs and losr the talent they now have and get a proven HC in here to get this team heading in the right direction NOW.

[Connorbear]

So what you THINK is that they haven't learned their lesson. Ok, if that's your argument, I can live with that. I believe they have learned their lesson and will pull the plug on Lovie if he doesn't win. They don't need to waste 4 yrs and 15M when they can settle with Lovie for half that, not have to waste the 4 yrs and losr the talent they now have and get a proven HC in here to get this team heading in the right direction NOW.

Lovie is Angelo's coach. Angelo understands you need consistency in the staff to win. If Lovie is gone that means Angelo (Angelo said Lovie was most likely his last hire) goes as well which will cost the McCaskey's a crap load of cash considering:

 

- they will have to pay both Angelo & Lovie

- they will have to pay their replacements

 

I think you are looking at this as if it is just a sport. You know and I know this is a huge business. They will not make a change until the crowds stop showing up & the money stops flowing (remember at the end of the Wanny era).

 

Look at Detroit and how long Millen has been there. They have been awful but they are obviously making a crap load of money or he would be gone.

 

Peace

[nfoligno]

Few things here:

 

One. I am not sure it is valid to point to the Wanny days. While we have the same ownership, we have a different individual running the show, and one who has been VERY different when it comes to money. If I said I would like to get this FA, would it be a valid argument for you to say we won't get him because we don't pay for good players. Just look at the Wanny years. I know what we did then, but that was different management, and thus may not be a good example to point to.

 

Two. Please do not use Detroit as a reference. The idea of comparing us w/ Det makes me sick

 

Three. I know what Angelo said, but I would say there is a very real chance he could stay on past Lovie. I think most would agree Angelo has done a good job bringing in defensive and special teams talent. Right? While it wuold be a bit more debated, I think some would also agree Angelo has added some quality offensive FAs. The one area we have not be able to add talent is offense through the draft. I am not saying he would, but I think Angelo could argue that he has added talent all over, and imply the one area he has been busted on for is more due to the staff's inability to develop such talent.

 

But this little argument aside, the key point is Angelo has added talent to the team. From there, it is up to the coach to win w/ it. If he fails, as you often see in the NFL, the GM can stay while the coach can go.

 

Four. What was Lovie brought in for? His expertise in offense? Nope. Lovie was a DC and brought in to make ours elite. Lovie wanted to hire Babich from the outset, and wasn't allowed. He was forced to hire Rivera, under whom we had an elite D. Then Lovie makes the call to let Rivera walk, and promotes his boy Babich. We go from top 5 to bottom 5 in one year. Please no talk of injuries. We all know that was a factor, but other teams deal w/ injuries too. We had more than our fair share, but IMHO, it doesn't explain such a severe drop. But the real point is, if we bomb this year on D again, Babich has to take the fall. But can he do so alone? He was Lovie's boy all along. Further, he was running Lovie's defense. IMHO, if Babich goes, so does Lovie.

 

Under this situation though, I can see Angelo staying, and think our next coach could FINALLY be one of an offensive background.

 

As to the question whether we would fire Lovie, I don't think 7 or 8 wins would do it. 4 or fewer wins, w/ a garbage defense might. Wins would be "a" key, but I think how our defense plays is also a key. This is Lovie's scheme and his man running it. If our D plays in the regular season as they have in the preseason, I think Lovie very well could be gone, regardless how much we owe on his deal.

 

Lovie is Angelo's coach. Angelo understands you need consistency in the staff to win. If Lovie is gone that means Angelo (Angelo said Lovie was most likely his last hire) goes as well which will cost the McCaskey's a crap load of cash considering:

 

- they will have to pay both Angelo & Lovie

- they will have to pay their replacements

 

I think you are looking at this as if it is just a sport. You know and I know this is a huge business. They will not make a change until the crowds stop showing up & the money stops flowing (remember at the end of the Wanny era).

 

Look at Detroit and how long Millen has been there. They have been awful but they are obviously making a crap load of money or he would be gone.

 

Peace

[Lucky Luciano]

Point taken. Cheap may not be the term. Maybe dumb?

 

well, then i WILL say it... CHEAP IS A POSSIBILITY!!

 

i have not only argued it is a >>>POSSIBILITY

 

to keep giving the worn out justification that this franchise is somehow a big money player by paying large amounts of signing bonus money is untrue. the nfl doles out the money every year to pay player salaries, including these large bonus's, period!

 

it is also untrue to say we have ever paid a head coach BESIDES wanny big bucks (who incidentely was when MIKEY was running the show) is also untrue.

 

it is also untrue to state that our scouting dept. is large or well paid and is undocumented and unproven.

 

so go ahead and think that this franchise is cheap if you want to until 'REAL' facts prove you are wrong.

[madlithuanian]

Oh I still do. I can buy nfo's agruments, but I just FEEL the management is cheap. I just don't feel the desire for ownership to make a big splash and make this franchise elite.

 

well, then i WILL say it... CHEAP IS A POSSIBILITY!!

 

i have not only argued it is a >>>POSSIBILITY

 

to keep giving the worn out justification that this franchise is somehow a big money player by paying large amounts of signing bonus money is untrue. the nfl doles out the money every year to pay player salaries, including these large bonus's, period!

 

it is also untrue to say we have ever paid a head coach BESIDES wanny big bucks (who incidentely was when MIKEY was running the show) is also untrue.

 

it is also untrue to state that our scouting dept. is large or well paid and is undocumented and unproven.

 

so go ahead and think that this franchise is cheap if you want to until 'REAL' facts prove you are wrong.

[GrizzlyBear]

I would have to agree with your assesment MadLithuanian, But only when The ownership had a more direct lane to negotiate contracts. I truly believe the methodology of Papa Bear influenced the Son in law on how to pay players. The "throwing nickles around like man hole covers" was the order of the day. With Phillips running the show I have seen a significant improvement in contracts as well as staff. I heard somewhere that our scouting department was one the top anywhere. Not sure where I heard it But many of our scouts have been hired by other teams for jobs with more responsibilities.

 

I think the bottom line is that our contract negotiator and spending is much better now since Phillips has been running the show. Saying that is a plus for Bears fans. But calling them Cheap? I would have disagree at this point in time.

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough! I guess I'm still on the fence of wther the team is cheap/unconcerned/etc... There just doesn't seem to be an urgency in bringing top level coaches into the mix. Or even bringing some top level players... Maybe the term I'm looking for is pro-active. It seems the team is always reactive.

 

I would have to agree with your assesment MadLithuanian, But only when The ownership had a more direct lane to negotiate contracts. I truly believe the methodology of Papa Bear influenced the Son in law on how to pay players. The "throwing nickles around like man hole covers" was the order of the day. With Phillips running the show I have seen a significant improvement in contracts as well as staff. I heard somewhere that our scouting department was one the top anywhere. Not sure where I heard it But many of our scouts have been hired by other teams for jobs with more responsibilities.

 

I think the bottom line is that our contract negotiator and spending is much better now since Phillips has been running the show. Saying that is a plus for Bears fans. But calling them Cheap? I would have disagree at this point in time.

[azbearsfan]

Does Babbich still need to go, Brad?