Bears' Lovie Smith deserves more respect

[Pixote]

Tribune Article Disagreeing with Article by TSN Ranking Lovie Smith 20th best HC

 

The Sporting News Article Ranking NFL HCs that is mentioned in the article above

 

The Sporting News Article is a joke. Hell, they ranked Mike Singletary #14 and he has not been HC for a full season. Sean Payton is #6? He is 26-24 in 3 seasons with 1 playoff win? Several HCs ranked above him have 1 year of experience.

 

I am not sure where I would rank him (Lovie) but based on his record over the years I agree with the writer on the Tribune that he should be somewhere in the top 10.

[madlithuanian]

Haugh makes some great points, but he also fails to point out some serious problems Smith has been linked with.

 

The record speaks for itslef, no doubt. And I think too many folks do poo-poo him w/ o realizing the pretty decent record he has as HC.

 

However, I think many of his detractors (and I include myself as one at the moment and previously) point ous some serious failings like:

 

1. His good record comes from only really 2 seasons when the defense and special teams were just lights out

2. His defense was questionably elite in St Louis as they had the "Greatest Show on Turf" to balance risk

3. His presonnell decisions have been odd (Danieal Manning, the various starting QB's, Davis, not startis younger WR's, etc.)

4. His hirings have been questionable, if not poor. Terry Shae, the non-resigneing of Rivera, the promotion of Babich, etc...

5. His in game decision making is poor. Rarely are there any adjustments in-game.

6. He appears stubborn in decision making. Once he goes with something he seems it through, right or wrong. (numerous examples).

7. The cover-2 seems to be figured out.

 

I, for on, hope he has learned from his mistakes and basically hits the re-do button. If he can show some felixibility and adaptability, I think he can succeed at a very high level. if not, we will get more of the same. Some good years (probably better w/ Cutler), but not enough to get us a SB win.

 

I think Haugh is right that 12th from the bottom seems a bit harsh. But, I cannot give him top 10. Top 10 coaches make game-time adjusments, not only once in a blue moon, but often!

 

I'd like to see some strides this season. Otherwise, we'll probably just see his contract out and get a few more years of pretty/very good.

 

 

Tribune Article Disagreeing with Article by TSN Ranking Lovie Smith 20th best HC

 

The Sporting News Article Ranking NFL HCs that is mentioned in the article above

 

The Sporting News Article is a joke. Hell, they ranked Mike Singletary #14 and he has not been HC for a full season. Sean Payton is #6? He is 26-24 in 3 seasons with 1 playoff win? Several HCs ranked above him have 1 year of experience.

 

I am not sure where I would rank him (Lovie) but based on his record over the years I agree with the writer on the Tribune that he should be somewhere in the top 10.

[Mongo3451]

Haugh makes some great points, but he also fails to point out some serious problems Smith has been linked with.

 

The record speaks for itslef, no doubt. And I think too many folks do poo-poo him w/ o realizing the pretty decent record he has as HC.

 

However, I think many of his detractors (and I include myself as one at the moment and previously) point ous some serious failings like:

 

1. His good record comes from only really 2 seasons when the defense and special teams were just lights out

2. His defense was questionably elite in St Louis as they had the "Greatest Show on Turf" to balance risk

3. His presonnell decisions have been odd (Danieal Manning, the various starting QB's, Davis, not startis younger WR's, etc.)

4. His hirings have been questionable, if not poor. Terry Shae, the non-resigneing of Rivera, the promotion of Babich, etc...

5. His in game decision making is poor. Rarely are there any adjustments in-game.

6. He appears stubborn in decision making. Once he goes with something he seems it through, right or wrong. (numerous examples).

7. The cover-2 seems to be figured out.

 

I, for on, hope he has learned from his mistakes and basically hits the re-do button. If he can show some felixibility and adaptability, I think he can succeed at a very high level. if not, we will get more of the same. Some good years (probably better w/ Cutler), but not enough to get us a SB win.

 

I think Haugh is right that 12th from the bottom seems a bit harsh. But, I cannot give him top 10. Top 10 coaches make game-time adjusments, not only once in a blue moon, but often!

 

I'd like to see some strides this season. Otherwise, we'll probably just see his contract out and get a few more years of pretty/very good.

Nice rebuttal Madlith. I am not a big Lovie guy, as well. I do think that #20 is an ugly ranking for his experience and accomplishments. I would put him closer to #12 personally. If win PCT, playoff wins and SuperBowl appearances play any part of the rankings, he would be top 10.

[madlithuanian]

yeah, as much as I have issues with him, 20 isn't correct. I'd say he's in the top half. Somewhere between 11-16.

 

 

 

Nice rebuttal Madlith. I am not a big Lovie guy, as well. I do think that #20 is an ugly ranking for his experience and accomplishments. I would put him closer to #12 personally. If win PCT, playoff wins and SuperBowl appearances play any part of the rankings, he would be top 10.

[jason]

I don't care to rank the coaches, but there is no way in hell that Lovie is worse than Jauron the Moron. No friggin way. Jauron...ugh...just, ugh.

['TD']

I think on pure coaching ability, he is probably ranked pretty fair. I'm not going to argue who deserves to be higher or lower.

 

I think he was pretty much exposed when he released Rivera. The defense has taken a pretty bad turn, and it was supposed to be more of what he was wanting to run once he got his guy in there. The team had a lot of young good players at Rivera's departure, and this D should have only gotten better. You'd almost think that players such as Nate Vasher were 34 then instead of 24 due the D's decline.

 

Hopefully this year we won't see Urlacher at the line so much or the CB's 15 feet away from the LoS. I still can't helpt but think that should have been an adjustment made last preseason, by midseason, during half time of a game or hell 5 minutes after they thought it up. We'll see for sure if he can coach this year as he will be more involved with the D, and we'll see if he can't produce with basically a more seasoned group players from that same dominate D of a few years ago.

[defiantgiant]

There's been a whole series of these rankings from the Sporting News, and every single one of them is a joke. Not only are Brad Childress and Dick Jauron ranked above Lovie Smith, but Andy Reid and Jeff Fisher are both apparently better than Mike Tomlin, despite the fact that neither of them have managed to win a Super Bowl. I'm just going to break down some of TSN's rankings by position. Check this out -

 

Receivers: They have Lee Evans over Calvin Johnson. Let that soak in for a second. In 2008, Lee Evans ranked 19th in the NFL in receiving yards. Johnson ranked 5th. Lee Evans had a good quarterback and very good running backs to lean on. Calvin Johnson was on the Lions. Yet Evans is #8 on their list and Johnson is #11. Calvin Johnson, the league's 5th leading receiver (who also had the league's worst surrounding cast) doesn't even make the top 10 on their list. Their rationale? "Until the Lions improve, Johnson will still be a step below the top receivers." The Lions were nearly the worst team in history last season, and Johnson still beat the hell out of almost every receiver they rank above him. If he didn't need a good team to perform in 2008, why does he suddenly need one in 2009?

 

Also, according to TSN, Roy Williams is better than Roddy White and Chad Ocho Cinco is better than Brandon Marshall. Just chew on that for a minute.

 

Running backs: Michael Turner and Deangelo Williams were 2nd and 3rd in the league in rushing yards. They're ranked #7 and #14 on TSN's list of RBs. Steven Jackson, Brandon Jacobs, and Frank Gore were 12th, 11th, and 13th in rushing, respectively. Where do they rank on TSN's list? They're #2, #3, and #5. That's ridiculous. Williams had better per-carry performance than any of them, and Turner was better than any of them except Jacobs. Williams beat each one of Jackson-Jacobs-Gore by 500 yards, and Turner beat them all by more than 600.

 

You can't make the argument that Williams benefited from running in a platoon or behind a great o-line, because Jacobs benefited from those factors even more and produced drastically less, not to mention that Turner didn't have either factor going for him. You can't make the argument that Williams and Turner aren't receiving threats, because neither is Jacobs. Yet somehow his 1,089 yards get him ranked #3 and they don't even make the top 5.

 

Quarterbacks: The real gem. Philip Rivers led the league in passer rating, threw for over 4000 yards, and tied with Drew Brees for the most passing touchdowns while throwing only 11 interceptions to Brees' 17. He doesn't even make the top 5 on TSN's list.

 

Aaron Rodgers was 4th in passing yards, 4th in touchdowns, and 6th in passer rating, despite 2008 being his first season as a starter and despite playing part of it with a badly sprained throwing shoulder. TSN has him at #14 on their list.

 

Chad Pennington, you ask? He was just 1st in the NFL in completion percentage and 2nd in passer rating, plus he managed to finish 9th in yards and 12th in TDs despite throwing to scrubs in a very conservative, run-heavy offense. He's 19th on their list. Who's 4 spots ahead of him? Jake Delhomme, who threw for fewer yards, fewer touchdowns, more interceptions, and a sub-60% completion rate. Let's put Pennington and Delhomme side-by-side:

 

Pennington: 321/476 (67.4%) for 3653 yards, 19 TDs, 7 Ints, 97.4 passer rating

Delhomme: 246/414 (59.4%) for 3288 yards, 15 TDs, 12 Ints, 84.7 passer rating.

 

...yet somehow they think Delhomme is the better QB. Remember that he gets to throw the ball to Steve Smith and Muhsin Muhammad, compared to Pennington's corps of Greg Camarillo, Davone Bess, and Ted Ginn Jr. And that Delhomme had Deangelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart to keep defenses honest, where Pennington had Ronnie Brown and a 31-year-old Ricky Williams.

 

Anyway, I don't think anybody, David Haugh included, should put too much stock in these rankings. TSN was either going solely on name recognition or they were throwing darts at the wall.

[Bears4Ever_34]

I thought 20 was generous if anything. Personally I think Lovie is one of the worst coaches in the NFL and he's so damn stubborn and annoying.

 

He refused to change the cover 2 when it was consistently getting destroyed by guys like Dan Orlovksky and crap QB's that have no business being in the NFL.

 

Him firing Rivera was bad, and hiring is buddy Babich was even worse.

 

Basically I feel like I'm repeating what ML just mentioned a few posts above. Lovie at 20 is about where he should be and could possibly be a little higher. If we have another bad year next year I'm hoping Bill Cowher comes our way.

[BigDaddy]

People see what they see. He's got alot to prove and disprove. There have been some pretty questionable decisions especially the Rivera decision that set this team back a ways. But there is good news, we have a franchise QB we've always wanted, we have a very good RB, an improved o line, we have 2 of the fastest guys in the league at WR with Hester and Knox (provided this coaching staff decides to play a rookie) as well as Clark and Olsen at TE. Defensively we have Marinelli, who for all intents and purposes will be co HC and DC. If, as Lovie believes, the defensive scheme is sound, then the best Tampa Two line guy in the business will fix it. Lovie can put all that negative shit to rest by winning. For me it's simple, win and you can be a Bear HC for life or at least for the forseeable future. Lose and you will need to find another city to call home.

[defiantgiant]

Lovie can put all that negative shit to rest by winning. For me it's simple, win and you can be a Bear HC for life or at least for the forseeable future. Lose and you will need to find another city to call home.

 

Yeah, this is exactly it. Coaches are measured by wins. Lovie's definitely made a couple of bad decisions, but he's won more than most other coaches in the NFL.

 

In response to Bears4Ever_34 - what does it matter if a coach is "stubborn and annoying," as long as he wins? And if there are 19 coaches in the NFL better than he is, why are there only 5 teams with better winning percentages since 2005? Are those other 14 teams all getting jobbed by the referees or something?

 

Basically, for me, it comes down to winning, and you can't argue that Lovie's not a winning coach. He took over what was, under Jauron, a perennial loser of a team; one season after Lovie came in, the Bears were a legitimate NFC power and made the playoffs. One season after that, they were in the Super Bowl. The guy's got 45 wins to 35 losses. If you discount his first season, when he was basically playing with Jauron's team, he's 40-24. That's a hell of a record.

 

Also, destroyed by Dan Orlovsky? What game were you watching? Orlovsky's passer ratings in the three games he's played against the Bears were 43.8, 48.6, and 74.1. He's never had even a league-average game against Chicago, and he gets to throw to one of the best receivers in football. Here are Orlovsky's career stats versus the Bears:

 

43 completions on 76 attempts (56.6%) for 409 yards, 2 TDs, 3 interceptions, 63.9 passer rating

 

You can definitely point to some guys who passed more on the Bears than they should have (like Griese in the Tampa Bay game last season) but Orlovsky's not one of them, by any stretch of the imagination.

[azbearsfan]

Yeah, this is exactly it. Coaches are measured by wins. Lovie's definitely made a couple of bad decisions, but he's won more than most other coaches in the NFL.

 

In response to Bears4Ever_34 - what does it matter if a coach is "stubborn and annoying," as long as he wins? And if there are 19 coaches in the NFL better than he is, why are there only 5 teams with better winning percentages since 2005? Are those other 14 teams all getting jobbed by the referees or something?

 

Basically, for me, it comes down to winning, and you can't argue that Lovie's not a winning coach. He took over what was, under Jauron, a perennial loser of a team; one season after Lovie came in, the Bears were a legitimate NFC power and made the playoffs. One season after that, they were in the Super Bowl. The guy's got 45 wins to 35 losses. If you discount his first season, when he was basically playing with Jauron's team, he's 40-24. That's a hell of a record.

 

Also, destroyed by Dan Orlovsky? What game were you watching? Orlovsky's passer ratings in the three games he's played against the Bears were 43.8, 48.6, and 74.1. He's never had even a league-average game against Chicago, and he gets to throw to one of the best receivers in football. Here are Orlovsky's career stats versus the Bears:

 

43 completions on 76 attempts (56.6%) for 409 yards, 2 TDs, 3 interceptions, 63.9 passer rating

 

You can definitely point to some guys who passed more on the Bears than they should have (like Griese in the Tampa Bay game last season) but Orlovsky's not one of them, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

 

GReat points all around Giant. You have to remember that some of the guys on this board live in 1985, so if a guy isn't Ditka he is a crappy coach. And I would really hope that some of the negativity isn't racially based so I wont mention it again.

 

Clearly, Smith is better than 20th in the league as HC. His win totals say so. I think that his demeanor turns some off who want the "Ditka" type of raving lunatic on the sidelines.

 

Also people need to realize that Lovie is not going to change defenses on a whim or even the clamors of the forum allstars. He is a cover 2 coach. That's what he knows how to coach.

[azbearsfan]

People see what they see. He's got alot to prove and disprove. There have been some pretty questionable decisions especially the Rivera decision that set this team back a ways. But there is good news, we have a franchise QB we've always wanted, we have a very good RB, an improved o line, we have 2 of the fastest guys in the league at WR with Hester and Knox (provided this coaching staff decides to play a rookie) as well as Clark and Olsen at TE. Defensively we have Marinelli, who for all intents and purposes will be co HC and DC. If, as Lovie believes, the defensive scheme is sound, then the best Tampa Two line guy in the business will fix it. Lovie can put all that negative shit to rest by winning. For me it's simple, win and you can be a Bear HC for life or at least for the forseeable future. Lose and you will need to find another city to call home.

 

 

 

Um....Lovie has won here, so I guess he gets to be HC for life according to you.

[madlithuanian]

I'm hard pressed not to agree w/ you!

 

I also think, How we win will factor in any long term extention. ST drama and defensive scoring miracles I think won't get it done alone like it did his last extention.

 

Winning does solve virtually everything though.

 

Lovie can put all that negative shit to rest by winning. For me it's simple, win and you can be a Bear HC for life or at least for the forseeable future. Lose and you will need to find another city to call home.

[madlithuanian]

Do you honestly feel that a "good coach" is solely based on wins/losses?

 

Wouldn't Schottenheimer be one of the best of all time? Maybe my exact historical stats are off, but I think you get the point.

 

A good/great coach not only gets wins in the regular season, but in the post. He gets wins when they are most important, and does things to put his team in the best possible situation to win. I do not feel Smith has done that. i feel the team, on many occassion has won despite his action/or lack thereof. One cannot take away Smith's record as a HC. It's quite decent. But I'm not going to remotely say he's a great coach. I think his failings have been pointed out ad neaseum.

 

If he can win, and improve upon his past failings, and especially bring a championship back to Chicago, I, and am sure many other, former detractors will gladly get in line for an about face. I truly hope he can. He's been given a hell of a lot of pieces to the puzzle to get it done. It wouldn't be the first time, someone that's gotten grief, turns it around and becomes the better.

 

 

 

Clearly, Smith is better than 20th in the league as HC. His win totals say so. I think that his demeanor turns some off who want the "Ditka" type of raving lunatic on the sidelines.

 

Also people need to realize that Lovie is not going to change defenses on a whim or even the clamors of the forum allstars. He is a cover 2 coach. That's what he knows how to coach.

[madlithuanian]

Not speak up for his post...but I think the assumption was "win a Super Bowl".

 

Um....Lovie has won here, so I guess he gets to be HC for life according to you.

[LT2_3]

Not speak up for his post...but I think the assumption was "win a Super Bowl".

 

I agree that was the implication. (at least from my perspective)

 

The funny thing though is that these perspectives are based on a single point in time, and are not really predictive of what the future holds.

 

Here's an example of another coach.

 

He started as a head coach in 1992.

 

He went to the playoffs in 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 01, 02, and 04.

 

He had a Super Bowl appearance once during that period and lost. There were alot of questions about how good a coach he was because he hadn't won a Super Bowl.

 

(This is where I give it away)

 

Then, in 2005, he won the Super bowl and suddenly all of those questions went away.

 

Yes - It's Bill Cowher.

 

He got to the playoffs all those times, made the SB once, and finally was able to win it once he got a good QB in Rothlisberger. Rothlisberger as a rookie and guys named Maddox, Stewart, Tomczak, and O'Donnell couldn't get him over the hump.

 

Why do I bring this up? Because it's tough to realistically blame just the head coach for not winning a SB without a legit QB. That's why I think that judging Lovie for not winning a SB so far is silly. I'm not sure any other coach could have won one in those circumstances. Sure, someone could propose that had he made different decisions in a particular game, he might have won. Then again, with a different philosophy, who's to say that other teams wouldn't have figured that out too and the team perhaps doesn't even make it that far.

 

It's like you're in a race. There are no guarantees that you'll win even if you have the fastest car. Alot of other things have to go right. That being said, it's almost impossible for the best driver in the world to win a race if they are driving an oldsmobuick. (gratuitious Fletch reference there)

[defiantgiant]

Do you honestly feel that a "good coach" is solely based on wins/losses?

 

Wouldn't Schottenheimer be one of the best of all time? Maybe my exact historical stats are off, but I think you get the point.

 

A good/great coach not only gets wins in the regular season, but in the post. He gets wins when they are most important, and does things to put his team in the best possible situation to win. I do not feel Smith has done that. i feel the team, on many occassion has won despite his action/or lack thereof. One cannot take away Smith's record as a HC. It's quite decent. But I'm not going to remotely say he's a great coach. I think his failings have been pointed out ad neaseum.

 

If he can win, and improve upon his past failings, and especially bring a championship back to Chicago, I, and am sure many other, former detractors will gladly get in line for an about face. I truly hope he can. He's been given a hell of a lot of pieces to the puzzle to get it done. It wouldn't be the first time, someone that's gotten grief, turns it around and becomes the better.

 

I don't know that you can say that Lovie's not a good coach based on the postseason. Lovie Smith's 2-2 in the postseason with the Bears. 4 postseason appearances in 5 years isn't great, but it's better than a lot of guys. When you factor in his regular-season record, and the fact that the Bears missed the playoffs by a single game in 2008, I think you can still call him a pretty successful coach in the postseason. Like I said earlier in the thread, he turned a losing team into a Super Bowl team practically overnight. In fact, but for a godawful fourth quarter from Rex Grossman, the Bears might have won that Super Bowl. They were only down 22-17 until Grossman threw that pick-six and then another interception afterward. If Grossman had held it together for 14 minutes of play, I doubt we'd be talking about Lovie as a bad playoff coach.

 

I think it's easy to lay the blame at Lovie's feet, but he's done admirably with some very questionable roster pieces. In '05 his starting QB was Kyle Orton as a rookie. In '06, it was Rex Grossman. Lovie's Bears still put up a 24-8 record during that time, and they made the playoffs both years. Last year, starting a somewhat-improved Orton with no receivers and a cheesecloth o-line, they still posted a winning season.

 

Look at Lovie's one losing season since 2005: it took massive injuries to the defense, a three-headed monster of Griese-Grossman-Orton at QB, and Cedric Benson as the starting running back to get the Bears to lose in 2007, and they still posted a 7-9 record with all that. That roster should have gone 2-14, but Lovie got them to 7-9. Last season he took a legit 6-10 or 7-9 roster (thanks to the poor/injured o-line, ineffective passing game and poor pass defense) and got them to 9-7. They were a couple of minutes of play away from being 10-6 and in the postseason. If we've got a 9-7 team on paper this year, I think Lovie gets us back into the playoffs.

[madlithuanian]

Great post!

 

I do think Cowher had something on Smith... His teams were almost 100% of the time in the playoffs. And I think he adjusted in games. For Cowher, it was the shotgun effect. You keep firing a shotgun at t wall, and eventually you will hit the target. For them, running and D did it. I recall Big Ben not having a good game under Cowher that SB year. Cowher kind of is the epitome of consistency. he always brought the D. I don't think any of his D's ever hit the bottom like ours practically did last year.

 

I've had my issues with Smith, and basically i still do. But I also think, like many of us, he can learn from his mistakes.

 

As fans, we want it all. We want (good) consistency and we want championships. Right now, Smith has a good win/loss record and an appearance to a SB. But w/ 2 years in a row missing the playoffs after such success, he needs to get back to those winning ways. I think his past success will see him ride out his contract to full fruition more than likely. I just hope within that period, he shows that he's grown and learned form his mistakes and truly becomes one of the game's best coaches.

 

 

 

 

I agree that was the implication. (at least from my perspective)

 

The funny thing though is that these perspectives are based on a single point in time, and are not really predictive of what the future holds.

 

Here's an example of another coach.

 

He started as a head coach in 1992.

 

He went to the playoffs in 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 01, 02, and 04.

 

He had a Super Bowl appearance once during that period and lost. There were alot of questions about how good a coach he was because he hadn't won a Super Bowl.

 

(This is where I give it away)

 

Then, in 2005, he won the Super bowl and suddenly all of those questions went away.

 

Yes - It's Bill Cowher.

 

He got to the playoffs all those times, made the SB once, and finally was able to win it once he got a good QB in Rothlisberger. Rothlisberger as a rookie and guys named Maddox, Stewart, Tomczak, and O'Donnell couldn't get him over the hump.

 

Why do I bring this up? Because it's tough to realistically blame just the head coach for not winning a SB without a legit QB. That's why I think that judging Lovie for not winning a SB so far is silly. I'm not sure any other coach could have won one in those circumstances. Sure, someone could propose that had he made different decisions in a particular game, he might have won. Then again, with a different philosophy, who's to say that other teams wouldn't have figured that out too and the team perhaps doesn't even make it that far.

 

It's like you're in a race. There are no guarantees that you'll win even if you have the fastest car. Alot of other things have to go right. That being said, it's almost impossible for the best driver in the world to win a race if they are driving an oldsmobuick. (gratuitious Fletch reference there)

[madlithuanian]

I didn't quite say that...but let's say I did.

 

We're are 2-2. The first year we were in the playoffs, I think was just hunky dory! No expectation, and Rex just came off to give it a whirl. The second loss agasint Carloin was as pure example of what many have complained about Smith. he let Steve Smith catch all over us. There was no attempt at any adjustment once it was obvious to anyone watching. Blame Rivera, but the buck stops at the top. Smith has the power at any point to make a change. Our SB run was great. He did call a questionable timeout, which had it backfired I' sure would be a huge issue. It didn't, so it's under the radar. In the SB, it was a game that could have been won. We forced fed Benson when TJ was doing just fine. And the O went to sleep as Rex and co turned the ball over at a crucial moment. Again, you can blame Turner, Rex,et all...but the buck again stops at the top. Smith doesn't deserve full blame for that SB loss...much of it is spread around across the board. However, look back and get the feeling that the team was far too full of themselves and Smith didn't seem to address that, at least publically. So I will assume nothing was done.

 

As much as we all like to think we missed the playoffs by one game, bad play,etc...we were also just as close to losing about 3 more games in the same fashion. If you don't get into the playoffs, you don't get credit for "almost".

 

Other coaches have had to deal w/ injury issues from Parcells to Billicheck to Vermeil etc...and many did just fine. I think due to good coaching. We looked so putrid 2 years ago just removed from the SB, I could care less who was injured. Our teams were not prepared and we were outcoached on a constant basis. We were last year too, but we won despite much of that.

 

Don't get me wrong, I still have hope. And I think we'll do far better than 9-7 this season. I'm just not sure how much of the imrpovement will be due to Smith. I need to see something turnaround. I'll take a win no matter how we get it. But I'd much rather take it because we made good decisions rather than luck out on a turnover.

 

 

I don't know that you can say that Lovie's not a good coach based on the postseason. Lovie Smith's 2-2 in the postseason with the Bears. 4 postseason appearances in 5 years isn't great, but it's better than a lot of guys. When you factor in his regular-season record, and the fact that the Bears missed the playoffs by a single game in 2008, I think you can still call him a pretty successful coach in the postseason. Like I said earlier in the thread, he turned a losing team into a Super Bowl team practically overnight. In fact, but for a godawful fourth quarter from Rex Grossman, the Bears might have won that Super Bowl. They were only down 22-17 until Grossman threw that pick-six and then another interception afterward. If Grossman had held it together for 14 minutes of play, I doubt we'd be talking about Lovie as a bad playoff coach.

 

I think it's easy to lay the blame at Lovie's feet, but he's done admirably with some very questionable roster pieces. In '05 his starting QB was Kyle Orton as a rookie. In '06, it was Rex Grossman. Lovie's Bears still put up a 24-8 record during that time, and they made the playoffs both years. Last year, starting a somewhat-improved Orton with no receivers and a cheesecloth o-line, they still posted a winning season.

 

Look at Lovie's one losing season since 2005: it took massive injuries to the defense, a three-headed monster of Griese-Grossman-Orton at QB, and Cedric Benson as the starting running back to get the Bears to lose in 2007, and they still posted a 7-9 record with all that. That roster should have gone 2-14, but Lovie got them to 7-9. Last season he took a legit 6-10 or 7-9 roster (thanks to the poor/injured o-line, ineffective passing game and poor pass defense) and got them to 9-7. They were a couple of minutes of play away from being 10-6 and in the postseason. If we've got a 9-7 team on paper this year, I think Lovie gets us back into the playoffs.

[BigDaddy]

GReat points all around Giant. You have to remember that some of the guys on this board live in 1985, so if a guy isn't Ditka he is a crappy coach. And I would really hope that some of the negativity isn't racially based so I wont mention it again.

 

Clearly, Smith is better than 20th in the league as HC. His win totals say so. I think that his demeanor turns some off who want the "Ditka" type of raving lunatic on the sidelines.

 

Also people need to realize that Lovie is not going to change defenses on a whim or even the clamors of the forum allstars. He is a cover 2 coach. That's what he knows how to coach.

 

I don't give a shit about Ditka, 1985, 1963 or anything else but the PRESENT. If you are happy NOT going to the playoffs and going 9-7 every year, that's fine. I'm NOT. I think the truth is, sooner or later even YOU might tire of 9-7 and no playoffs. One other thing though, as long as you mentioned Ditka. HIS record with the Bears was a W/L of .631, playoffs 7 out of 11 yrs, 3 NFC championship games and 1 SB win. This just illustrates, it CAN be done. Now, as to your comment about the Cover 2 being the only thing Lovie knows how to coach, well, he had a pretty damn good DC who knew apparently the right way to tweak this defense to make it dominant, something we haven't been since Rivera was let go but if Lovie Smith can't bring himself to adapt to the changes in todays NFL, he can be a cover 2 coach all the way to the unemployment line for all I care.

[defiantgiant]

Yes - It's Bill Cowher.

 

He got to the playoffs all those times, made the SB once, and finally was able to win it once he got a good QB in Rothlisberger. Rothlisberger as a rookie and guys named Maddox, Stewart, Tomczak, and O'Donnell couldn't get him over the hump.

 

Why do I bring this up? Because it's tough to realistically blame just the head coach for not winning a SB without a legit QB. That's why I think that judging Lovie for not winning a SB so far is silly. I'm not sure any other coach could have won one in those circumstances. Sure, someone could propose that had he made different decisions in a particular game, he might have won. Then again, with a different philosophy, who's to say that other teams wouldn't have figured that out too and the team perhaps doesn't even make it that far.

 

Right, you said it much better than I did. It's very, very difficult to win a Super Bowl without a legitimate starting quarterback. You don't need an elite guy if you've got other things going for you, but the quarterback position absolutely can't be a weakness. The only team I can think of that won a Super Bowl despite poor QB play was the 2000 Ravens with Trent Dilfer. But the Ravens that year had literally the stingiest defense of all time: they only gave up 165 points and 970 rushing yards over 16 games. They also had a nasty 1-2 running game, thanks to Jamal Lewis and Priest Holmes, but the real thing was their defense.

 

The 2000 Ravens and the 2006 Bears basically tried the same game plan to win a Super Bowl, and the difference in the Ravens' success and the Bears' failure shows you exactly how dominant your defense has to be if you're going to win that way. Dilfer only threw for one touchdown in that game; the Ravens got another one rushing, one off an interception return, and one more off a kick return. Sound like a team we know?

 

The difference is this: the Bears had a very good defense, but an elite offense like the Colts' could still put up some points. The Ravens, on the other hand, were one of only 3 teams in SB history to shut out the opposing offense. The Giants got their only touchdown on special teams. If you're going to win a Super Bowl without the ability to make plays in the passing game, you need a HISTORICALLY dominant defense, something on par with the '85 Bears or the '00 Ravens. If you've got a Dilfer or a Grossman under center, you're not going to win without a defense that's one for the history books.

[azbearsfan]

I don't give a shit about Ditka, 1985, 1963 or anything else but the PRESENT. If you are happy NOT going to the playoffs and going 9-7 every year, that's fine. I'm NOT. I think the truth is, sooner or later even YOU might tire of 9-7 and no playoffs. One other thing though, as long as you mentioned Ditka. HIS record with the Bears was a W/L of .631, playoffs 7 out of 11 yrs, 3 NFC championship games and 1 SB win. This just illustrates, it CAN be done. Now, as to your comment about the Cover 2 being the only thing Lovie knows how to coach, well, he had a pretty damn good DC who knew apparently the right way to tweak this defense to make it dominant, something we haven't been since Rivera was let go but if Lovie Smith can't bring himself to adapt to the changes in todays NFL, he can be a cover 2 coach all the way to the unemployment line for all I care.

 

 

Thanks for proving my point.

 

You dont give a shit about Ditka, but then use his stats to illustrate that "it" can be done. Nice.

 

Never said that I was happy to not make the playoffs. That isn't even what this whole thing is about.

 

And I never said that Lovie was the best coach ever. But he clearly deserves more respect than 20th in the league and IMO from some people on this board.

 

And its weird how Rivera couldn't "tweak" his dominant defense in the SB to get us the win.

[BigDaddy]

I don't know that you can say that Lovie's not a good coach based on the postseason. Lovie Smith's 2-2 in the postseason with the Bears. 4 postseason appearances in 5 years isn't great, but it's better than a lot of guys. When you factor in his regular-season record, and the fact that the Bears missed the playoffs by a single game in 2008, I think you can still call him a pretty successful coach in the postseason. Like I said earlier in the thread, he turned a losing team into a Super Bowl team practically overnight. In fact, but for a godawful fourth quarter from Rex Grossman, the Bears might have won that Super Bowl. They were only down 22-17 until Grossman threw that pick-six and then another interception afterward. If Grossman had held it together for 14 minutes of play, I doubt we'd be talking about Lovie as a bad playoff coach.

 

I think it's easy to lay the blame at Lovie's feet, but he's done admirably with some very questionable roster pieces. In '05 his starting QB was Kyle Orton as a rookie. In '06, it was Rex Grossman. Lovie's Bears still put up a 24-8 record during that time, and they made the playoffs both years. Last year, starting a somewhat-improved Orton with no receivers and a cheesecloth o-line, they still posted a winning season.

 

Look at Lovie's one losing season since 2005: it took massive injuries to the defense, a three-headed monster of Griese-Grossman-Orton at QB, and Cedric Benson as the starting running back to get the Bears to lose in 2007, and they still posted a 7-9 record with all that. That roster should have gone 2-14, but Lovie got them to 7-9. Last season he took a legit 6-10 or 7-9 roster (thanks to the poor/injured o-line, ineffective passing game and poor pass defense) and got them to 9-7. They were a couple of minutes of play away from being 10-6 and in the postseason. If we've got a 9-7 team on paper this year, I think Lovie gets us back into the playoffs.

 

 

Whoa, 4 postseason appearances in 5 yrs sounds pretty misleading. It's 2 playoffs appearances in 5 years but I get what your saying. If the sole reason for us missing the playoffs the last 2 years was solely based on the QB that would be one thing. The real culprit here is our defense. That's why the media doesn't give this guy any slack. He's a defensive coach who took a team that went to the SB with Rivera as DC, he let him leave town so he could promote Babich to the DC position. We ALL know babich sucked and it was pretty obvious from the beginning he was in over his head. Did Lovie do what he did the first season to Terry Shea and launch him? Hell no, he let him have another whack at it and what did he do? He puked all over the table with an even worse display last year. Did Lovie whack him then? Hell no. He just decided to take the defense himself, let his buddy keep a title he clearly doesn't deserve and all is square.

 

Guys like you want to pound on the roster. Why the hell should the 2007 roster have gone 2-14? That's insane. That SAME team was 13-3 and just in a SB for Christ sake. . That team should have been 12-4 but because of the COLLECTIVE decision to launch jones for benson and the complete demise of our defense with Bubba Gump Babich as DC, we stunk. That lays at Lovie's feet.

[BigDaddy]

Thanks for proving my point.

 

You dont give a shit about Ditka, but then use his stats to illustrate that "it" can be done. Nice.

 

Never said that I was happy to not make the playoffs. That isn't even what this whole thing is about.

 

And I never said that Lovie was the best coach ever. But he clearly deserves more respect than 20th in the league and IMO from some people on this board.

 

And its weird how Rivera couldn't "tweak" his dominant defense in the SB to get us the win.

 

I used Ditka's stats because he represented what most fans, Bears and other teams fans think a winner is. That time was great but that was 24 years ago. Ancient phuckin history. On to Rivera, there are many in the Chicago media that agree that the reason Rivera got let go was because he was at odds that game with Smith about that very point. You miss it again. Lovie doesn't believe his defense needs tweaking. Now, I don't think he's the 20th ranked coach either, I think he's somewhere between 11-15. That said, he's the 5th high paid HC. I want him to perform accordingly. Don't you?

[BigDaddy]

One other point that needs to be made. Good, bad or indifferent, Lovie Smith is responsible for peoples perception of him. Maybe if he'd do some things different, people would view him differently. If it doesn't matter to him, it surely won't matter to me.