madlithuanian Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Start e'm young! Back in my day I did alright since I stayed single up until I turned 26. The problem is that was 24 years and one wife ago. With a married son expecting an addition( Future Bear) and a 20 year old son in college its time for the 20 year old to build up his arm strength. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 I can't see Lovie gone during the year in any circumstance. Maybe after... We went 9-7 last year playing a tougher schedule than we'll face this year. We have upgraded our lines and our QB position. With the coaches that are out there and available who have WON SBs, Cowher, Gruden, Holmgren, Shanahan, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ERROR. No, Lovie will not be given a pass and I'll take it so far as to say if we flounder early, we could shitcan Lovie before week 8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaddy Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 I can't see Lovie gone during the year in any circumstance. Maybe after... Write it down. If this team bombs early and are out of the hunt by mid season he's gone in season. Just write it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 It's logged... But unless he's caught doing something illegal and heinous off the field, I think he plays out this season no matter what. Seems to me he's got a boatload of excuses and/or nude pictures of ownership... Write it down. If this team bombs early and are out of the hunt by mid season he's gone in season. Just write it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowlingtwig Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 It's logged... But unless he's caught doing something illegal and heinous off the field, I think he plays out this season no matter what. Seems to me he's got a boatload of excuses and/or nude pictures of ownership... Thanks Madman. That is a really bad visual Virginia McCaskey nude. Thank god I already ate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Not Virginia! Michael! (there goes my lunch...) Thanks Madman. That is a really bad visual Virginia McCaskey nude. Thank god I already ate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 27, 2009 Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Write it down. If this team bombs early and are out of the hunt by mid season he's gone in season. Just write it down. Umm, before I get out my pen and paper, what are you basing that assertion on? The Bears have literally never fired a coach in-season. Jim Dooley was the first Bears coach to be fired: he was let go after the season was over, as was every coach Chicago has fired since. Remember when Wannstedt got fired? By the end of 1998, he was 40-56 in 6 years, had only gotten us to one playoff game, and had just put up two 4-12 seasons back to back. He still got to finish out the season before he was canned. Lovie Smith is 45-35 in 5 years, has made four postseason appearances including a Super Bowl, and is coming off a winning season. Lovie could go 0-16 next year and still have a better record than Wannstedt. Why on earth do you think he'd be on a half-season leash when Wannstedt, Jauron, and every other Bears coach have all been allowed the full year? I agree that expectations for Lovie are going to be high, especially given the new pieces that Angelo has given him. But let's have some perspective here. Let's compare Lovie's record to some coaches who actually WERE fired in-season. When the Niners fired Mike Nolan after Game 7 of the 2008 season, he was 18-37 and hadn't had a single winning season in his four years as head coach. When the Rams fired Scott Linehan, he was 11-25 and coming off an 0-4 start after a 3-13 season. When the Raiders fired Lane Kiffin, he was 5-15, had a 1-3 start, and had gone 4-12 the season prior. When coaches get fired midseason, it's because they're colossal failures, losing vastly more than they win. There are certainly some winning coaches who get fired for missing the playoffs with talented teams, but they almost invariably get to finish out the year. Compare these guys to Lovie: Jon Gruden: 57-55 with the Bucs, had just had two 9-7 seasons, hadn't gotten a playoff win in six years. Fired after the season. Mike Shanahan: was 24-24 his last three years with the Broncos, no playoff appearances in three years. Fired after the season. Marty Schottenheimer: 47-33 with the Chargers, had never won in the playoffs. Fired after the season. These are overall winning coaches who had records roughly comparable to Smith's. They had talented teams and failed to win in the playoffs, but none of them got canned in the middle of a season. You could easily argue that Smith has done better in his five years than Gruden, Schottenheimer or Shanahan did in the five before they were fired, yet he's going to be fired mid-year when they all finished out the season? Smith might certainly be on the hot seat to get back to the playoffs, but it's ridiculous to baldly assert that the Bears will fire him in-season under any circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted May 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 27, 2009 Umm, before I get out my pen and paper, what are you basing that assertion on? The Bears have literally never fired a coach in-season. Jim Dooley was the first Bears coach to be fired: he was let go after the season was over, as was every coach Chicago has fired since. Remember when Wannstedt got fired? By the end of 1998, he was 40-56 in 6 years, had only gotten us to one playoff game, and had just put up two 4-12 seasons back to back. He still got to finish out the season before he was canned. Lovie Smith is 45-35 in 5 years, has made four postseason appearances including a Super Bowl, and is coming off a winning season. Lovie could go 0-16 next year and still have a better record than Wannstedt. Why on earth do you think he'd be on a half-season leash when Wannstedt, Jauron, and every other Bears coach have all been allowed the full year? I agree that expectations for Lovie are going to be high, especially given the new pieces that Angelo has given him. But let's have some perspective here. Let's compare Lovie's record to some coaches who actually WERE fired in-season. When the Niners fired Mike Nolan after Game 7 of the 2008 season, he was 18-37 and hadn't had a single winning season in his four years as head coach. When the Rams fired Scott Linehan, he was 11-25 and coming off an 0-4 start after a 3-13 season. When the Raiders fired Lane Kiffin, he was 5-15, had a 1-3 start, and had gone 4-12 the season prior. When coaches get fired midseason, it's because they're colossal failures, losing vastly more than they win. There are certainly some winning coaches who get fired for missing the playoffs with talented teams, but they almost invariably get to finish out the year. Compare these guys to Lovie: Jon Gruden: 57-55 with the Bucs, had just had two 9-7 seasons, hadn't gotten a playoff win in six years. Fired after the season. Mike Shanahan: was 24-24 his last three years with the Broncos, no playoff appearances in three years. Fired after the season. Marty Schottenheimer: 47-33 with the Chargers, had never won in the playoffs. Fired after the season. These are overall winning coaches who had records roughly comparable to Smith's. They had talented teams and failed to win in the playoffs, but none of them got canned in the middle of a season. You could easily argue that Smith has done better in his five years than Gruden, Schottenheimer or Shanahan did in the five before they were fired, yet he's going to be fired mid-year when they all finished out the season? Smith might certainly be on the hot seat to get back to the playoffs, but it's ridiculous to baldly assert that the Bears will fire him in-season under any circumstances. DFG I am on board with you and will even add that this FAMILY OWNED team has never dismissed a coach with money remaining on his contact. Some of the comments that are being posted about Lovie is not taking into consideration the stats that you have just posted. I like Lovie as a man but I think he is lacking in certain aspects as a coach. He tends to bge very tight lipped when it comes to information about players and I have grown tired of his "We'll go from there" statement. With all that being said Lovie is the 3rd best coach in Bears' history in terms of wins. So If you have endured Jim Dooley, Abe Gibron, Jack Pardee, Neil Armstrong,Mike Ditka. Dave Wannstedt,Dick Jauron and Lovie Smith since Papa Bear who was actually coaching when I first started watching football you wouldn't be so quick to condemn this coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Ditka? Really? Please don't lump Ditka in that group.... He and Hallas have been the only coaches that instilled any real success into the team. I fear Smith may be the benefactor of extreme defensive and special teams luck. But, I hope my fear is laid to rest these next few seasons! I'd be more than thrilled to include him w/ Hallas and Ditka as the greatest of Bears' coaches. So If you have endured Jim Dooley, Abe Gibron, Jack Pardee, Neil Armstrong,Mike Ditka. Dave Wannstedt,Dick Jauron and Lovie Smith since Papa Bear who was actually coaching when I first started watching football you wouldn't be so quick to condemn this coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted May 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Ditka? Really? Please don't lump Ditka in that group.... He and Hallas have been the only coaches that instilled any real success into the team. I fear Smith may be the benefactor of extreme defensive and special teams luck. But, I hope my fear is laid to rest these next few seasons! I'd be more than thrilled to include him w/ Hallas and Ditka as the greatest of Bears' coaches. I listed all the coaches that I have endured as a Bears fan so why wouldn't I list Ditka? At the end of his tenure the guys had stopped listening to him anyway? I can really say that I have watched Bears football since 66 so Ditka and all the rest get lumped into the group of coaches that have coached since PAPA BEAR who was coaching when I can remember football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I guess my memory recalls differently. I have fond memories of Ditka. Yep, I know there were some struggles the last few seasons, but he had a 112/68 record. That's a 62.2% winning percentage. That's really outstanding for a 10 year period. Maybe your term "undured" is what I take issue with. It comes with a predisposition of negativity. I didn't really "endure" Brian urlacher as LB after Mike Singletary. I've rather enjoyed him as a player. He's not Samurai Mike, but he's been darn awesome. I've endured many a inside LB in the meantime, but 've never felt that I had to "endure" Urlacher. ******************* Endurance (also called sufferance) is the ability for an animal to exert itself for a long period of time. In humans, it is usually used in aerobic or anaerobic exercise. The definition of 'long' varies according to the type of exertion - minutes for high intensity anaerobic exercise, hours or days for low intensity. Training for endurance can have a negative impact on the ability to exert strength unless an individual also undertakes resistance training to counteract this effect.[1] I listed all the coaches that I have endured as a Bears fan so why wouldn't I list Ditka? At the end of his tenure the guys had stopped listening to him anyway? I can really say that I have watched Bears football since 66 so Ditka and all the rest get lumped into the group of coaches that have coached since PAPA BEAR who was coaching when I can remember football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted May 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I guess my memory recalls differently. I have fond memories of Ditka. Yep, I know there were some struggles the last few seasons, but he had a 112/68 record. That's a 62.2% winning percentage. That's really outstanding for a 10 year period. Maybe your term "undured" is what I take issue with. It comes with a predisposition of negativity. I didn't really "endure" Brian urlacher as LB after Mike Singletary. I've rather enjoyed him as a player. He's not Samurai Mike, but he's been darn awesome. I've endured many a inside LB in the meantime, but 've never felt that I had to "endure" Urlacher. ******************* Endurance (also called sufferance) is the ability for an animal to exert itself for a long period of time. In humans, it is usually used in aerobic or anaerobic exercise. The definition of 'long' varies according to the type of exertion - minutes for high intensity anaerobic exercise, hours or days for low intensity. Training for endurance can have a negative impact on the ability to exert strength unless an individual also undertakes resistance training to counteract this effect.[1] Mad L you went Webster's on me about my post? Wow! All I was saying is there has been quite a few guys who have coached the team since George Halas. Prior to the 85 Super Bowl team he had the last world championship as a coach of the Bears in 63. I have been a fan since he last won one and if there is only one world championship since then I think there has been some exertion,negativity and sufferance since that time in the 46 years that have passed. Mad L I come from the era when we had to listen to the home games on the radio because they were blacked-out. There also was no UHF channnels either. I didn't say anything negative about Ditka but I did list him along with all the Bears coaches since I have been a fan. It was not about one particular coach it was about the whole group. After 63 there were only 2 playoff appearances before Ditka came and his record aside that team should have won more than one Super Bowl. Why didn't they? Who should we blame? Who is the guy that started Doug Flutie in a playoff game? This is not to cloud your fond memories of "The Coach" but he had his warts also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Hey, I'm just sticking up for Coach! Granted, I more than respect the history you've personally witnessed. I've only been privvy from 1978...when as an 8 year old I started caring. So Ditka really defines the Bears for me personally. But I went back and read my history with the many great books that are out there. All coaches have their warts. From Walsh to Knoll to Shula to Hallas to Johnson. I don't remotely consider Ditka one of the all time greats (as a coach, he is as a TE). But he is a great for Chicago. Hallas was a cheap bastard that hindered the team's success with his penny pinching. But, I love him! If not for him, there'd be no NFL...etc. Sometimes the planets don't align. That Super Team from 85 should have won more. Remove one of the best D coordinators of all time, remove an injury prone winning QB, remove an intergral linebacker, and any team will struggle to repeat. He made his share of mistakes, like all of them. But, overall, for the 10 years he coached...oppoenents were scared of us! They played us, they'd get hurt, and more often than not, they'd lose. Even teams that the great Butkus and Sayers played in couldn't say that. He restored Bear pride. Some are offfended by the quasi-mockery on SNL...however, no other team, no other coach, no other team got to be "made fun" of like that. It's an honor. It's in the psyche... Let's also not forget what transpired during his time... Bill Walsh's super 49'ers were around. Parcell's Giants Gibbs' Redskins...all those teams won it when we couldn't. All great teams. The league won owned by the NFC and we only could punch through once... Sad, but it is what it is. But, one team, one year, one time...NO ONE CAN TOP THOSE 85 BEARS!!! And for that alone, Ditka deserves his props. ...just sayin'. I'll get off my soapbox now... Mad L you went Webster's on me about my post? Wow! All I was saying is there has been quite a few guys who have coached the team since George Halas. Prior to the 85 Super Bowl team he had the last world championship as a coach of the Bears in 63. I have been a fan since he last won one and if there is only one world championship since then I think there has been some exertion,negativity and sufferance since that time in the 46 years that have passed. Mad L I come from the era when we had to listen to the home games on the radio because they were blacked-out. There also was no UHF channnels either. I didn't say anything negative about Ditka but I did list him along with all the Bears coaches since I have been a fan. It was not about one particular coach it was about the whole group. After 63 there were only 2 playoff appearances before Ditka came and his record aside that team should have won more than one Super Bowl. Why didn't they? Who should we blame? Who is the guy that started Doug Flutie in a playoff game? This is not to cloud your fond memories of "The Coach" but he had his warts also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemonej Posted May 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Hey, I'm just sticking up for Coach! Granted, I more than respect the history you've personally witnessed. I've only been privvy from 1978...when as an 8 year old I started caring. So Ditka really defines the Bears for me personally. But I went back and read my history with the many great books that are out there. All coaches have their warts. From Walsh to Knoll to Shula to Hallas to Johnson. I don't remotely consider Ditka one of the all time greats (as a coach, he is as a TE). But he is a great for Chicago. Hallas was a cheap bastard that hindered the team's success with his penny pinching. But, I love him! If not for him, there'd be no NFL...etc. Sometimes the planets don't align. That Super Team from 85 should have won more. Remove one of the best D coordinators of all time, remove an injury prone winning QB, remove an intergral linebacker, and any team will struggle to repeat. He made his share of mistakes, like all of them. But, overall, for the 10 years he coached...oppoenents were scared of us! They played us, they'd get hurt, and more often than not, they'd lose. Even teams that the great Butkus and Sayers played in couldn't say that. He restored Bear pride. Some are offfended by the quasi-mockery on SNL...however, no other team, no other coach, no other team got to be "made fun" of like that. It's an honor. It's in the psyche... Let's also not forget what transpired during his time... Bill Walsh's super 49'ers were around. Parcell's Giants Gibbs' Redskins...all those teams won it when we couldn't. All great teams. The league won owned by the NFC and we only could punch through once... Sad, but it is what it is. But, one team, one year, one time...NO ONE CAN TOP THOSE 85 BEARS!!! And for that alone, Ditka deserves his props. ...just sayin'. I'll get off my soapbox now... I agree and really think that current Bears teams are measured by that 85 team which is a little unfair since that team has 3 HOF players and should have 2 more. 1978 wow I was wasting time on Western Illinois' campus as a freshman. That was when there was the Mike Phipps and Vince Evans QB battle. Neil Armstrong was the coach and Buddy Ryan was in his first year as a defensive coordinator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaddy Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Umm, before I get out my pen and paper, what are you basing that assertion on? The Bears have literally never fired a coach in-season. Jim Dooley was the first Bears coach to be fired: he was let go after the season was over, as was every coach Chicago has fired since. Remember when Wannstedt got fired? By the end of 1998, he was 40-56 in 6 years, had only gotten us to one playoff game, and had just put up two 4-12 seasons back to back. He still got to finish out the season before he was canned. Lovie Smith is 45-35 in 5 years, has made four postseason appearances including a Super Bowl, and is coming off a winning season. Lovie could go 0-16 next year and still have a better record than Wannstedt. Why on earth do you think he'd be on a half-season leash when Wannstedt, Jauron, and every other Bears coach have all been allowed the full year? I agree that expectations for Lovie are going to be high, especially given the new pieces that Angelo has given him. But let's have some perspective here. Let's compare Lovie's record to some coaches who actually WERE fired in-season. When the Niners fired Mike Nolan after Game 7 of the 2008 season, he was 18-37 and hadn't had a single winning season in his four years as head coach. When the Rams fired Scott Linehan, he was 11-25 and coming off an 0-4 start after a 3-13 season. When the Raiders fired Lane Kiffin, he was 5-15, had a 1-3 start, and had gone 4-12 the season prior. When coaches get fired midseason, it's because they're colossal failures, losing vastly more than they win. There are certainly some winning coaches who get fired for missing the playoffs with talented teams, but they almost invariably get to finish out the year. Compare these guys to Lovie: Jon Gruden: 57-55 with the Bucs, had just had two 9-7 seasons, hadn't gotten a playoff win in six years. Fired after the season. Mike Shanahan: was 24-24 his last three years with the Broncos, no playoff appearances in three years. Fired after the season. Marty Schottenheimer: 47-33 with the Chargers, had never won in the playoffs. Fired after the season. These are overall winning coaches who had records roughly comparable to Smith's. They had talented teams and failed to win in the playoffs, but none of them got canned in the middle of a season. You could easily argue that Smith has done better in his five years than Gruden, Schottenheimer or Shanahan did in the five before they were fired, yet he's going to be fired mid-year when they all finished out the season? Smith might certainly be on the hot seat to get back to the playoffs, but it's ridiculous to baldly assert that the Bears will fire him in-season under any circumstances. Just because the Bears have NEVER fired a coach in season doesn't mean they won't. To "boldly" assert they NEVER will would be ridiculous. They just did something noone EVER thought they'd do by trading the farm for Cutler so never is an awful long time. Now, I'm not saying this team will be that bad but if it were, it would be because of coaching, not talent and as far as the money, that's a tired old line much like "the Bears are cheap". There are 4 coaches out there, three that most teams would love to have in Holmgren, Shanahan and Cowher. If it cost me a few million to secure one of these guys rather than compete with every team that will be firing their coaches AFTER the season so be it. If nothing else, this off season should teach you never to say never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Just because the Bears have NEVER fired a coach in season doesn't mean they won't. To "boldly" assert they NEVER will would be ridiculous. They just did something noone EVER thought they'd do by trading the farm for Cutler so never is an awful long time. Now, I'm not saying this team will be that bad but if it were, it would be because of coaching, not talent and as far as the money, that's a tired old line much like "the Bears are cheap". There are 4 coaches out there, three that most teams would love to have in Holmgren, Shanahan and Cowher. If it cost me a few million to secure one of these guys rather than compete with every team that will be firing their coaches AFTER the season so be it. If nothing else, this off season should teach you never to say never. Geez BigDaddy. Do we have to go through this every year? Lovie is under contract through 2011 with a guaranteed contract. The only way Lovie get's let go with time left on his $5 mil per year contract is if there is only 1 year left and he's a lame duck coach. While I agree that most of the penny pinching ways of the past are over, that doesn't mean that the McCaskey's would do something as mind-bogglingly financially stupid as letting Lovie go with 2.5 years or $12.5 million left on his contract mid-season in 2009. Sure, you can point out that any salary he makes during that period would offset what the Bears owe him. But who's to say that Lovie doesn't move back to Texas for a couple years and coach HS football for a couple of years? The Bears would be on the hook for all but about $20k per year of it. BigDaddy - You've been a Lovie basher for a long time. You have made countless predictions saying what will happen and been wrong: I'll preface this by saying somebody is getting fired at the end of this season. If it isn't Lovie, it's Babich. Should Lovie decide to step up and refuse to fire babich, then he most likely will be gone as well. But make no mistake, this defense is moving backwards so somebody is gone http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry49991 http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry45456 http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry41089 http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry28197 Your predictions of what Lovie has to do to keep his job have been wrong since 2007. At what point do you realize that your opinion is based solely on your own wishful thinking, and that you really don't understand how things work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Just because the Bears have NEVER fired a coach in season doesn't mean they won't. To "boldly" assert they NEVER will would be ridiculous. They just did something noone EVER thought they'd do by trading the farm for Cutler so never is an awful long time. Now, I'm not saying this team will be that bad but if it were, it would be because of coaching, not talent and as far as the money, that's a tired old line much like "the Bears are cheap". There are 4 coaches out there, three that most teams would love to have in Holmgren, Shanahan and Cowher. If it cost me a few million to secure one of these guys rather than compete with every team that will be firing their coaches AFTER the season so be it. If nothing else, this off season should teach you never to say never. OK, I've got a long response and a short response. Skip to the bottom if you want the short version. The Long Version First: I used the word "baldly," not "boldly." A bald assertion is one made without any accompanying evidence to support it. That's what your post was, a bald assertion without any evidence. Second: Where did I claim or imply that the Bears will never fire a coach in-season? I just pointed out that they never have before, so there's no historical evidence to support your claim that they'll fire Smith. You're acting like I was trying to prove a negative, when I was actually just noting the lack of evidence for your own statement. If you're trying to change your position and say that it's merely possible that they'll fire some coach in-season at some point in the future, go right ahead. But that's not what you said in the post to which I was responding. Let me unpack your two posts: Your first post: Provided that Chicago is out of the hunt by midseason 2009, they will definitely fire Lovie Smith in-season. Your second post: Just because Chicago has never fired a coach in-season doesn't mean they won't. Those are two different assertions, and they're not equivalent to one another. Logically, if you negate the statement "X is necessarily false," the result is the statement "X is possibly true," not the statement "X is actually true." By way of an example, let's assume for the sake of argument that I actually was trying to say that the Bears will never fire a coach in-season. Here's how that conversation would go: You: The Bears will fire Lovie Smith in-season in 2009, given preconditions X, Y, and Z. Me: It is impossible that the Bears will ever fire a coach in-season. You: That's untrue. Me: You're right, I take it back. It is possible that the Bears will fire a coach in-season at some point. In this scenario, you've refuted my first claim, and now we're back to square 1. To see why we're at square 1 and not a resolution, let's unpack that exchange a little further: You: Given preconditions X, Y, and Z, it is necessarily true that the Bears will fire Lovie Smith in-season in 2009. Me: It is impossible that the Bears will ever fire a coach in-season, therefore, given your preconditions, they will not fire Smith in-season. You: The statement "it is impossible that the Bears will ever fire a coach in-season" is false, therefore your conclusion doesn't follow. Me: I take it back. It is possible that the Bears will fire a coach in-season at some point, therefore, given your preconditions, it is possible that the Bears will fire Lovie Smith in-season in 2009. Look at the italicized parts of this exchange: we're committed to two different statements, since a thing being possible doesn't imply that it is true. Now let's look at the actual argument: You: Given preconditions X, Y, and Z, it is necessarily true that the Bears will fire Lovie Smith in-season in 2009. Me: The Bears have never fired a coach in-season, and many coaches meeting preconditions X, Y, and Z were only fired after the season had ended. Therefore, given those preconditions, there is no reason to think that the Bears will not wait until after the season to fire Smith, if indeed they fire him at all. You: The statement "it is impossible that the Bears will ever fire a coach in-season" is false. Me: The statement "X is possible" is not equivalent to the statement "X is true." Therefore, the statement "the statement 'X is impossible' is false" is not equivalent to the statement "X is true." We're both committed to the thing being possible, in the same way that it's possible that I'll get a million dollars in the mail or learn to ride a unicycle before I die, but you're trying to argue that it's TRUE, and you haven't given any reasons why anyone should think that. The Short Version I agree that it is possible that the Bears will fire some coach in-season at some time in the future. Do you have any specific evidence that the coach will be Lovie Smith and that the season will be 2009, or are you just saying that because you don't like the guy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDaddy Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Geez BigDaddy. Do we have to go through this every year? Lovie is under contract through 2011 with a guaranteed contract. The only way Lovie get's let go with time left on his $5 mil per year contract is if there is only 1 year left and he's a lame duck coach. While I agree that most of the penny pinching ways of the past are over, that doesn't mean that the McCaskey's would do something as mind-bogglingly financially stupid as letting Lovie go with 2.5 years or $12.5 million left on his contract mid-season in 2009. Sure, you can point out that any salary he makes during that period would offset what the Bears owe him. But who's to say that Lovie doesn't move back to Texas for a couple years and coach HS football for a couple of years? The Bears would be on the hook for all but about $20k per year of it. BigDaddy - You've been a Lovie basher for a long time. You have made countless predictions saying what will happen and been wrong: http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry49991 http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry45456 http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry41089 http://www.talkbears.com/forums/index.php?...amp;#entry28197 Your predictions of what Lovie has to do to keep his job have been wrong since 2007. At what point do you realize that your opinion is based solely on your own wishful thinking, and that you really don't understand how things work? I've reread all the posts above. Did Babich NOT lose his job??????? Aside from making the assertion that Lovie Smith is NOT the answer, what is your problem with what I posted? I don't care whether you agree with me or not but don't sit there as if YOU have all the answers. You can kiss Lovie's ass all you want. My opinion of him is that he is NOT the HC we need. Now, at what point do YOU realize, it's my opinion and i'm entitled to it. You can agree or disagree but if you want to start with the old, you don't know what your talking about bullshit, you can save yourself the agrravation and me the time of simply saying freak you by ignoring my posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I agree with you. Manyt fans' expectations to get to that 1985 level is silly. Sounds like you have a good ten years on me! I think that first year, I was only truly aware of Walter! My dad sat me down and told me to watch this guy run! I agree and really think that current Bears teams are measured by that 85 team which is a little unfair since that team has 3 HOF players and should have 2 more. 1978 wow I was wasting time on Western Illinois' campus as a freshman. That was when there was the Mike Phipps and Vince Evans QB battle. Neil Armstrong was the coach and Buddy Ryan was in his first year as a defensive coordinator. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I've reread all the posts above. Did Babich NOT lose his job??????? Aside from making the assertion that Lovie Smith is NOT the answer, what is your problem with what I posted? I don't care whether you agree with me or not but don't sit there as if YOU have all the answers. You can kiss Lovie's ass all you want. My opinion of him is that he is NOT the HC we need. Now, at what point do YOU realize, it's my opinion and i'm entitled to it. You can agree or disagree but if you want to start with the old, you don't know what your talking about bullshit, you can save yourself the agrravation and me the time of simply saying freak you by ignoring my posts. Actually, Babich didn't lose his job - meaning he's still employed by the Bears. He did not lose his title either - seeing as how his title is still DC. He also is not "gone" as you unequivically stated he would be if the Bears didn't make the playoffs. You are absolutely correct that you are entitled to your opinion. Part of the problem is that you have not been expressing your view as an opinion. You have been stating it as a prediction of fact. See if you can see the differences in the following statements: 1. I think that if the team fails to achieve X, then the coach should be fired. 2. If the team doesn't achieve X, the coach WILL be fired. Your approach, by method, precludes the acceptance of differing viewpoints. By using that method, you don't allow for someone to start a sentence "I understand your perspective, but respectfully disagree......." because the way you phrase things suggests that you will not accept differing opinions under any circumstances. So, by presenting opinions as statements of fact and discounting the views of others, you are inevitably inviting people to rub your nose in it when you harp on about things that you have been wrong about in the past. If you don't like that, then try being more respectful of other's opinions by not trying to present your opinions as fact. It's really that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Actually, Babich didn't lose his job - meaning he's still employed by the Bears. He did not lose his title either - seeing as how his title is still DC. He also is not "gone" as you unequivically stated he would be if the Bears didn't make the playoffs. You are absolutely correct that you are entitled to your opinion. Part of the problem is that you have not been expressing your view as an opinion. You have been stating it as a prediction of fact. See if you can see the differences in the following statements: 1. I think that if the team fails to achieve X, then the coach should be fired. 2. If the team doesn't achieve X, the coach WILL be fired. Your approach, by method, precludes the acceptance of differing viewpoints. By using that method, you don't allow for someone to start a sentence "I understand your perspective, but respectfully disagree......." because the way you phrase things suggests that you will not accept differing opinions under any circumstances. So, by presenting opinions as statements of fact and discounting the views of others, you are inevitably inviting people to rub your nose in it when you harp on about things that you have been wrong about in the past. If you don't like that, then try being more respectful of other's opinions by not trying to present your opinions as fact. It's really that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
defiantgiant Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I've reread all the posts above. Did Babich NOT lose his job??????? Aside from making the assertion that Lovie Smith is NOT the answer, what is your problem with what I posted? I don't care whether you agree with me or not but don't sit there as if YOU have all the answers. You can kiss Lovie's ass all you want. My opinion of him is that he is NOT the HC we need. Now, at what point do YOU realize, it's my opinion and i'm entitled to it. You can agree or disagree but if you want to start with the old, you don't know what your talking about bullshit, you can save yourself the agrravation and me the time of simply saying freak you by ignoring my posts. If it's your opinion that Lovie should be fired, that's fine. Your opinion differs from my opinion. But your post was a prediction that he will be fired, not a statement of opinion. If it's a prediction, then I want to know what evidence it's based on. If it's an opinion, then I guess we can just agree to disagree. For what it's worth, my own opinion is that Lovie should be on the hot seat to get back into the playoffs, but I don't believe his job should be in danger just yet. I think he's a good coach and a winning coach, but I'll be extremely disappointed if the Bears don't take the NFC North back this year. If we miss the playoffs again, I think the blame will probably rest on Lovie and the defense. The team was definitely better when Rivera was running the defense, even if he and Lovie butted heads. I'm willing to chalk up the last two seasons to Bob Babich being over his head as a DC, but, ultimately, Lovie fired Ron so that he could have more control over the defense, so he needs to prove that he can get results from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Just to stick my nose.... Whether it is a prediction or an opinion, neither are fact. That any "prediction" is on a message board, it only further illustrates that it is little more than an opinion. Based on recent problems, high expectations, and factoring that he said Lovie would be fired "if" the team bombs out of the gate (all of which he has pointed to) is the basis for his "prediction", which again, is no more than an opinion. In my opinion, Cutler will be great for the Bears. That is also my prediction. Do I have factual evidence to show my prediction to be fact? No. Obviously not. It's just a prediction. If it's your opinion that Lovie should be fired, that's fine. Your opinion differs from my opinion. But your post was a prediction that he will be fired, not a statement of opinion. If it's a prediction, then I want to know what evidence it's based on. If it's an opinion, then I guess we can just agree to disagree. For what it's worth, my own opinion is that Lovie should be on the hot seat to get back into the playoffs, but I don't believe his job should be in danger just yet. I think he's a good coach and a winning coach, but I'll be extremely disappointed if the Bears don't take the NFC North back this year. If we miss the playoffs again, I think the blame will probably rest on Lovie and the defense. The team was definitely better when Rivera was running the defense, even if he and Lovie butted heads. I'm willing to chalk up the last two seasons to Bob Babich being over his head as a DC, but, ultimately, Lovie fired Ron so that he could have more control over the defense, so he needs to prove that he can get results from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 If it's your opinion that Lovie should be fired, that's fine. Your opinion differs from my opinion. But your post was a prediction that he will be fired, not a statement of opinion. If it's a prediction, then I want to know what evidence it's based on. If it's an opinion, then I guess we can just agree to disagree. For what it's worth, my own opinion is that Lovie should be on the hot seat to get back into the playoffs, but I don't believe his job should be in danger just yet. I think he's a good coach and a winning coach, but I'll be extremely disappointed if the Bears don't take the NFC North back this year. If we miss the playoffs again, I think the blame will probably rest on Lovie and the defense. The team was definitely better when Rivera was running the defense, even if he and Lovie butted heads. I'm willing to chalk up the last two seasons to Bob Babich being over his head as a DC, but, ultimately, Lovie fired Ron so that he could have more control over the defense, so he needs to prove that he can get results from them. While I agree with 99% of everything you typed there, I would like to point out one thing. Lovie didn't fire Rivera, he decided to not offer a new contract to a coordinator that had been interviewing for HC gigs that caused a distraction during playoff runs for 2 years in a row. It may be a small distinction, but I think it's an important one. I personally believe (and this is solely my opinion) that had he retained Rivera, Rivera probably would have gotten a HC gig after the 2007 season (primarily due to the Bears showing more faith in him by not replacing him when his contract was up after the 2006 season). I think Lovie screwed up there, but Babich was getting DC interviews already and Lovie didn't want his guy to be somewhere else once Rivera got his HC job. I don't agree with Lovie's decision, but I understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 One minor issue. While there is no argument Rivera was not fired, or that he interviewed w/ other teams, I do question when you said, "caused a distraction during playoff runs". The reality is, most every team that makes the playoffs has coaches who are getting notice/interviews for promotions and such. I am not sure it is the distraction you make it out to be. Further, and correct me if I am wrong, but Rivera was not able to interview prior to the SB. It was in our "off week" during the playoffs he was allowed to interview, and we seemed to do well in that following game, thus I think it questionable to talk about him having caused a distraction. While I agree with 99% of everything you typed there, I would like to point out one thing. Lovie didn't fire Rivera, he decided to not offer a new contract to a coordinator that had been interviewing for HC gigs that caused a distraction during playoff runs for 2 years in a row. It may be a small distinction, but I think it's an important one. I personally believe (and this is solely my opinion) that had he retained Rivera, Rivera probably would have gotten a HC gig after the 2007 season (primarily due to the Bears showing more faith in him by not replacing him when his contract was up after the 2006 season). I think Lovie screwed up there, but Babich was getting DC interviews already and Lovie didn't want his guy to be somewhere else once Rivera got his HC job. I don't agree with Lovie's decision, but I understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.