Babich to be DC AND Linebackers coach

[GrizzlyBear]

yep good analysis Pix.

[Mongo3451]

I would argue it more being, no matter what this staff is willing to do.....

 

Just throwing this out there. Lovie preached accountability. He then fired the top 3 position coaches, but he kept Babich. Yea, he has now sort of demoted him, but is the accountability really there? You say, no matter what this staff does, but I just disagree. The staff was in a position to walk the walk, but friendship got in the way.

 

Further, I think many would like to see changed to the defense greater than simply altering some name plates. In hiring Marinelli, moving Babich to LB and Lovie taking over the D, we have coaching changes, but the system is still in place, and it is a system many fans question.

 

So I disagree there is nothing the staff could have done, short of firing Lovie, but would argue it is more a matter of there is nothing the staff is willing to do.

I think Lovie has either thrown himself into the accountability mix or has been thrown in by Angelo. Babich has been demoted without losing his title. We don't need tar and feathers at this point. I share the same confidence in Lovie as you do. Finally Lovie has placed his head on the block. Next year is ake or break for him.

[jason]

Truly baffling indeed...

 

It's sad when a message board community is far ahead of the game than the actual folks that get paid to do it.

 

Then again, there is more passion in one post on this board than I've seen in Zombie Smith for about half a decade...

 

Something I have been saying for a while.

 

This makes no sense at all.

Babich does poorly=give him more responsibilities?

Lovie knows defense=Lovie doesn't step in last year, but does this year?

 

WTF.

[selection7]

Sure, Babich retains the title of DC, but he is actually being demoted to LBC. He was LBC when Urlacher was at his best. He will be in a position he has succeeded in before with us. Believe me, everyone in the league knows he is DC in name only and has been demoted.

You beat me to it.

 

Think about it logically. If Lovie wants to basically take over DC duties, who's he going to get to agree to be a lame duck DC (in-name-only DC)? No one. But if he does take over DC duties but often needs an assistant to help him out when head coaching duties suck away his time, who's he going to get? Same problem, no proper DC wants to be the off-the-bench DC assistant. But Babich can handle linebackers really well and at least has two years of experience as an NFL DC. ...so you demote him to LB coach but leave him as the assistant DC. Since Lovie doesnt' want to be known as Head Coach / DC, he just lets Babich remain with the title.

 

Babich has been demoted. We should be happy. Babich at LB's, Marinelli at DL, and Lovie at DC is bigtime...at least if that combo doesnt' do it for the defense, no combo with Lovie as HC ever will.

 

Someone in another post was commenting how Ayenbadejo didn't like Lovie's hands-off approach...well, I guess Lovie agreed and is changing that for next season in a big way. At the very least it makes next season guaranteed to be interesting, if not necessarily successful.

[nfoligno]

Not sure we are on the same page here.

 

I would agree any HC, regardless of background, should be capable of bringing something to the table on either side. In Lovie's case, for example, he is a defensive backgrounded coach, but in that capacity, he must also have a fair understanding of offenses as he has been game planning against them. So I would agree that HC could/should have input for aspects of the offense when it comes to game plans and such.

 

Where I disagree, and maybe we are simply not communicating well, is in the idea of Lovie taking over the offense. Having general knowledge of the offense, or whatever level you want to place it, is not enough to take over the playcalling duties. Heck, I would think our position coaches on offense are likely better capable of that duty than our defensive backgrounded HC, and I think that would be true for any team. It is one thing to provide input and direction when talking about scheme and higher level aspects of the offense, but another thing all together when talking about playcalling duties.

 

 

 

i have to disagree somewhat on this statement. if this were lovie's first and MAYBE even his second season he might get a 'bit' of slack as far as his understanding where to turn the corner on an offense.

 

1. i believe that when you are designated as a head coach (and not just lovie) this throws all the exclusive departmental scenarios out the window. it is now your job to understand each individual aspect of your team as a whole and have at the least a general understanding of each individual part and be able to make cognizant decisions in how each is run and if it needs modification when/if the need arises. it is HIS job to train himself to understand these basics.

 

am i saying he should educate himself enough to take over an offenses day to day operations and in-game strategies? probably not. should he educate himself enough to change coordinator duties if he returns to the nfl in that capacity? probably not. but he SHOULD be able to understand enough to tell his underlings that what they are doing does not fit in the scheme he requires as a head coach and suggest changes that are required to do so not only in a general sense but in actual game-time conditions.

 

2. i have to wonder... doesn't a defensive coordinator HAVE to have at least a basic understanding of how offenses work in order to do his job effectively? otherwise how could you prepare your defense to attack an opponents offense?

 

on a final note: if this is not true, then if you hired a special teams coach to run your team would his only duties require only an understanding of how the special teams portion work? i would think your team would be in serious trouble if this were the case.

[Lucky Luciano]

Not sure we are on the same page here.

 

Where I disagree, and maybe we are simply not communicating well, is in the idea of Lovie taking over the offense. Having general knowledge of the offense, or whatever level you want to place it, is not enough to take over the playcalling duties. Heck, I would think our position coaches on offense are likely better capable of that duty than our defensive backgrounded HC, and I think that would be true for any team. It is one thing to provide input and direction when talking about scheme and higher level aspects of the offense, but another thing all together when talking about playcalling duties.

 

we are just not communicating well on this point. no i don't think a defensive oriented head coach should be required to understand an offense well enough to take over play calling duties of an OC.

 

what i meant was he should have enough of an understanding to see faults in philosophy, game plans or adjustments made during a game and make it clear what these differences are and what direction he wants the OC to move forward in. or if he feels the OC is not performing well he should be able to understand why and replace the OC responsibly if necessary. this could also hold true to offensive position coaches.

[nfoligno]

Few points.

 

Lovie took over in 2001, and there is no question Stl did jump in the standings, but I would still argue a large part of that was due to the offense. Stl was the top ranked offense in 2001, which allowed the D to do a lot of things that I simply question how they would work in Chicago. That year, Stl put a ton of points on the board, which allowed the D to be far more aggressive. Also, due to the offense, the D was often in a position where opponents were one dimensional, giving up on the run game early, and thus allowing the D to pin their ears back and just attack the passer. They could take far greater risks, because if they gave up a TD, no big deal. They scored 30 or better in 11 of 16 games, including several over 40.

 

But the D went downhill after 2001. The following year, the offense was only average, and the D tanked in turn, falling from 3rd to 23rd. Without the offense lighting up the score board, the defense was simply exposed.

 

D improved some the following year, but was still mediocre.

 

I am biased. I am simply not a fan of the scheme, and have never been. It relies so heavingly on creating turnovers, which is simply more difficult w/o an offense that lights up the score board. When you have the offense, his scheme can look pretty darn good. But when you have an average offense, his defense simply doesn't seem as effective.

 

Look, all this aside, while I may not consider Lovie the defensive genius some do, I agree w/o question he is a major upgrade to Babich, and would also prefer him to Marinelli, who I like as our DL coach, but he too has zero playcalling experience, and thus Lovie is a better option for him as well.

[nfoligno]

we are just not communicating well on this point. no i don't think a defensive oriented head coach should be required to understand an offense well enough to take over play calling duties of an OC.

 

what i meant was he should have enough of an understanding to see faults in philosophy, game plans or adjustments made during a game and make it clear what these differences are and what direction he wants the OC to move forward in. or if he feels the OC is not performing well he should be able to understand why and replace the OC responsibly if necessary. this could also hold true to offensive position coaches.

 

I agree, but at the same time, I think it is also worth pointing out that in 2004, we had the following QBs: Hutchinson (5 starts), Krenzel (5 starts), Quinn (3 starts) Rex (3 starts). I would make the point that it is pretty hard to make significant adjustments to the scheme or system when you are inserting a new QB seemingly every week.

 

I just don't think there was a whole heck of a lot Lovie could have done to help the offense in 2004, and give him credit for making a quick move to replace Shea after that season.

 

I understand your point, but believe personnel on offense make changes difficult. Further, in the greater picture, I simply believe Lovie not stepping in sooner on Defense, his defense, is a FAR greater issue than not stepping in on offense in 2004.

[madlithuanian]

Point well made... I do agree. You should be in more control over what you are a supposed expert at.

 

Further, in the greater picture, I simply believe Lovie not stepping in sooner on Defense, his defense, is a FAR greater issue than not stepping in on offense in 2004.

[Lucky Luciano]

I agree, but at the same time, I think it is also worth pointing out that in 2004, we had the following QBs: Hutchinson (5 starts), Krenzel (5 starts), Quinn (3 starts) Rex (3 starts). I would make the point that it is pretty hard to make significant adjustments to the scheme or system when you are inserting a new QB seemingly every week.

 

I just don't think there was a whole heck of a lot Lovie could have done to help the offense in 2004, and give him credit for making a quick move to replace Shea after that season.

 

I understand your point, but believe personnel on offense make changes difficult. Further, in the greater picture, I simply believe Lovie not stepping in sooner on Defense, his defense, is a FAR greater issue than not stepping in on offense in 2004.

 

to me this is a perfect example of when a head coach should step in. in shea's instance he kept expecting these qb's to perform according to his gameplans that simply were unrealistic considering the talent. yet we saw the same mistakes over and over with no real expectations that they would get better. that is when a HC needs to sit his offensive coaches down and come up with a solution or a different method of attack.

 

i think you could say this was a problem not only with lovie but jauron as well. jauron never reined in crowton and within 2 years he was gone and our win loss record showed it. the same could be said of shoop's 3 yards and a cloud of dust offensive schemes. it cost jauron his coaching job.

 

a final example, and maybe more minor than the other two, would be turner's insistence of mckie punching the ball in up the middle on the goal line when it had failed a number of times in the past. it simply did not work because we not only didn't have an offensive line good enough to get the goal line push but teams were ready and waiting for it. yet turner continued to waste redzone downs trying to change the results.

[madlithuanian]

On some level, I cannot disagree. At some point, the HC needs to step in. I don't care if his expertise was on the D, he, by default should know at least something about the O. (How else do you sheme a D?) It just adds more fuel to the fire that this management is always a day late and a dollar short... Only when its over, do we make a change. Once it's set in camp, damn the torpedoes! That what we're going with!

 

 

 

to me this is a perfect example of when a head coach should step in. in shea's instance he kept expecting these qb's to perform according to his gameplans that simply were unrealistic considering the talent. yet we saw the same mistakes over and over with no real expectations that they would get better. that is when a HC needs to sit his offensive coaches down and come up with a solution or a different method of attack.

 

i think you could say this was a problem not only with lovie but jauron as well. jauron never reined in crowton and within 2 years he was gone and our win loss record showed it. the same could be said of shoop's 3 yards and a cloud of dust offensive schemes. it cost jauron his coaching job.

 

a final example, and maybe more minor than the other two, would be turner's insistence of mckie punching the ball in up the middle on the goal line when it had failed a number of times in the past. it simply did not work because we not only didn't have an offensive line good enough to get the goal line push but teams were ready and waiting for it. yet turner continued to waste redzone downs trying to change the results.

[nfoligno]

to me this is a perfect example of when a head coach should step in. in shea's instance he kept expecting these qb's to perform according to his gameplans that simply were unrealistic considering the talent. yet we saw the same mistakes over and over with no real expectations that they would get better. that is when a HC needs to sit his offensive coaches down and come up with a solution or a different method of attack.

 

And we simply disagree. I am not sure I would agree w/ the statement or idea that Shea made no changes for the different QBs. For example, when Krenzel took over, I recall our offense being very much simplified. Also, in those 5 starts for the rookie, we only threw the ball 19, 25, 21, 28 and 24 times, compared to a much more pass happy attack prior to that. This was in the middle of the season, for the record. So the OC was making adjustments for his different QBs, but it simply did not matter. We just did not have a good team that year, and no level of coaching was going to change that.

 

Look, few have attacked Lovie as much as I, yet I just can't go along w/ this one. He was in his first year as our HC, coming from a defensive coaching background. We had a bad offense going in, w/ our starting QB going down in game 3. We had a 1st year OC who tried to adjust to the 4 different starting QBs, but the reality is, nothing was going to make things better. I think you are expecting WAY too much to think Lovie should have taken a greater control of the offense that year. The experience just was not there for him. He would have been slapping his 1st your OC in the fact. And frankly, it just didn't matter much w/ that offense.

 

i think you could say this was a problem not only with lovie but jauron as well. jauron never reined in crowton and within 2 years he was gone and our win loss record showed it. the same could be said of shoop's 3 yards and a cloud of dust offensive schemes. it cost jauron his coaching job.

 

I think the problem w/ Jauron was more about Jauron than Shoop to be honest. While Shoop could never be mistaken for Crowton, I think a big reason we were as conservative as we were on offense was Jauron. I remember heading into 2001, it was Jauron was came out and talked about how we were going to be a ball control offense, and rely on field position and defense to win. That is what the HC wanted. Further, it worked in 2001, and thus I think Jauron felt emboldened by this system. I have no problem bashing Shoop and Jauron for not making changes and adjustments, but I think the situation was a bit different from the one you are compared it to w/ Lovie.

 

a final example, and maybe more minor than the other two, would be turner's insistence of mckie punching the ball in up the middle on the goal line when it had failed a number of times in the past. it simply did not work because we not only didn't have an offensive line good enough to get the goal line push but teams were ready and waiting for it. yet turner continued to waste redzone downs trying to change the results.

 

Now is this an area I can agree. We are not talking about playcalling so much as the HC telling the OC he doesn't like a play, doesn't feel it has a high chance of success, and wants to taken out of the playbook. I have no problem w/ expecting such of the HC, and think you are spot on w/ this one.

 

I agree Lovie could have and should have done more. As a defensive backgrounded coach, he should have been able to provide more insight on aspects of the offense. That doesn't mean taking over playcalling, but simply having a greater role in game plans and scheme. But to be fair, we do not know how hands on he was in this regard.

 

By and large, we agree in the general concept Lovie should have been more hands on, and much sooner, both on offense and defense. We disagree on how much he should have stepped in on offense in 2004, but I think otherwise agree.

[Pixote]

Few points.

 

But the D went downhill after 2001. The following year, the offense was only average, and the D tanked in turn, falling from 3rd to 23rd. Without the offense lighting up the score board, the defense was simply exposed.

 

D improved some the following year, but was still mediocre.

 

According to NFL.com the were 23rd in total defense (YPG) & 31st (PPG) before he took over. That year (2000) the team was also 1st in total offense (442.2 ypg) & 1st in total points scored with 540. Guess the offensive power of the 2000 Rams did the 23rd ranked defense (ypg) 31st ranked (ppg) no good that year.

 

In 2001, STL was ranked #1 in total offense again (418.1 ypg) & 1st in total points scored with 503, but under Smith went from 23rd in total defense to 3rd in total defense (ypg) and from scoring defense from 31st to 7th best. I think this is quite an accomplishment.

 

Yes, as the team lost it's steam on offense, the defense did drop off. This is not totally unexpected. We all know from experience if the offense leaves the defense on the field too long, it will be exposed and drop off statically. Was there other reasons for the drop off? I do not know and really do not care to go through that much research.

 

If you look at the stats the defense that was dominating during that time period was TBB, with Marinelli in charge of the DL. I suspect Marinelli will be helping out a lot on the DC position with Lovie as well. Lovie values his input and will work with him on the defense as Babich takes care of the LBs.

 

Let's hope we can be productive on offense to the point where Lovie's defense can excel.

[CrackerDog]

Says poster #1, "You know, I am not sure Olin Kreutz is a playing at a pro bowl caliber anymore"

 

Says chickendog, "Oh my God. The sky isn't falling. Everything is Great. Everything we are doing is great. We are going to be great again next year. How dare you question the Gods, er, I mean, the coaches and GM.

 

I won't waste my time in a tit for tat here. Your reputation here is clear. You bitch about EVERYTHING no matter what. I point out things the team needs to work on without questioning the entire system and all of the coaches and player personnel staff. I have a little faith, you have none. You'd rather piss on everything each and every time the team modestly disappoints. I think we have a solid group here and the window is closing on the D talent wise, as happens to most teams as they age. The Patriots are the only team out there that doesn't seem to need to rebuild every now and then.

 

Just be a little more even and fair and you won't get called Chicken Little.

[Lucky Luciano]

And we simply disagree. I am not sure I would agree w/ the statement or idea that Shea made no changes for the different QBs. For example, when Krenzel took over, I recall our offense being very much simplified. Also, in those 5 starts for the rookie, we only threw the ball 19, 25, 21, 28 and 24 times, compared to a much more pass happy attack prior to that. This was in the middle of the season, for the record. So the OC was making adjustments for his different QBs, but it simply did not matter. We just did not have a good team that year, and no level of coaching was going to change that.

 

although i have tried to erase this era completely from memory, there is no getting around the fact that shea was a BAD offensive coordinator. someone that made what little talent we had even worse.

 

if memory serves me right, and it might not, shea's passing game called for a lot of 4 and 5 step drops and hitting medium/deep routes...

 

1. the routes were more complex than the receivers experience and/or talent dictated.

 

2. our qb's that year had an amazing *66 sacks and 20 fumbles to go along with 16 INT's. this means we are not getting rid of the ball quick enough to compensate for our OL's poor performance.

 

3. i don't believe? our qb's were not allowed to change plays at the LOS no matter how the defense lined up against them. this led to our OL unable to compensate for blitzes and stunts. there also seemed to be no gametime adjustments at all.

 

Look, few have attacked Lovie as much as I, yet I just can't go along w/ this one. He was in his first year as our HC, coming from a defensive coaching background. We had a bad offense going in, w/ our starting QB going down in game 3. We had a 1st year OC who tried to adjust to the 4 different starting QBs, but the reality is, nothing was going to make things better. I think you are expecting WAY too much to think Lovie should have taken a greater control of the offense that year. The experience just was not there for him. He would have been slapping his 1st your OC in the fact. And frankly, it just didn't matter much w/ that offense.

 

i just used this as an example. i stated in the previous post a first or even second year coach gets 'some' slack until he gets up to speed. even so, lovie surely should have had some input on this bad of an offense.

[nfoligno]

although i have tried to erase this era completely from memory, there is no getting around the fact that shea was a BAD offensive coordinator. someone that made what little talent we had even worse.

 

if memory serves me right, and it might not, shea's passing game called for a lot of 4 and 5 step drops and hitting medium/deep routes...

 

1. the routes were more complex than the receivers experience and/or talent dictated.

 

2. our qb's that year had an amazing *66 sacks and 20 fumbles to go along with 16 INT's. this means we are not getting rid of the ball quick enough to compensate for our OL's poor performance.

 

3. i don't believe? our qb's were not allowed to change plays at the LOS no matter how the defense lined up against them. this led to our OL unable to compensate for blitzes and stunts. there also seemed to be no gametime adjustments at all.

 

One, I agree Shea was an awful OC. At the same time, I disagree w/ some other thoughts.

 

Two, he did have a more complicated system coming in, though it wasn't Crowton complicated. If you want to understand his system, just look at KC games from a few years ago. That was the system he brought to town. W/ that said, I would argue he did in fact alter the system w/ changes at QB, and think our rookie QB stats is evidence. W/ Rex at the helm, there were more (as you say) deep drops and complicated routes. Also, we passed more heavily. When Krenzel, a rookie, came in, we changed our offense. It was more quick read, quick release passes, and more "outs". Also, we ran the ball a lot more. As I already showed, Krenzel simply didn't have close to the same number of pass attempts, and that is pretty solid evidence, IMHO, that we did alter our game plan for a different QB.

 

Three, I don't recall about the LOS changes, but would say (a) how much do you want a rookie QB, Hutchinson or Quinn calling plays and ( this was something other OCs didn't allow too. This was one of the most maddenly things (for me) about shoop, in that he didnt' allow Miller (far from a rookie) to change the play at the LOS.

 

Look, I am NOT saying Shea was good. I didn't like him, and was thrilled when we let him go. At the same time, I do think we tried to alter the game plan with the revolving door of QBs that season. Simply put, the different game plans didnt' work. Ironically, the best we did was w/ our rookie QB, who I believe was 3-2.

 

i just used this as an example. i stated in the previous post a first or even second year coach gets 'some' slack until he gets up to speed. even so, lovie surely should have had some input on this bad of an offense.

 

But how do we know he didn't. As said, Shea did change the game plan for different QBs. How do we not know it wasn't Lovie telling him, for example, "We have a rookie QB coming in. I want to run the ball more to compensate".