Bears' Lovie Smith deserves more respect

[madlithuanian]

Those 2 lines by you speak VOLUMES...

 

 

 

That said, he's the 5th high paid HC. I want him to perform accordingly. Don't you?

[defiantgiant]

Whoa, 4 postseason appearances in 5 yrs sounds pretty misleading. It's 2 playoffs appearances in 5 years but I get what your saying.

 

Right, I don't mean 2 seasons where we went to the postseason, I mean that the Bears have played in 4 postseason games in Lovie's 5 years. I'm not just splitting hairs here: think about where Lovie'd be if we'd made a first-round exit from the playoffs in 2005 and in 2006. Four game appearances isn't bad; two game appearances (meaning two first-round exits) and Lovie might be coaching a different team.

 

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.

 

In all seriousness, 2-14 is probably an exaggeration, but that absolutely was NOT the same team that just went 13-3 and played in the Super Bowl. Do you remember the '07 offseason? We lost 10 players from the Super Bowl team. Tank Johnson, Alfonso Boone, and Ian Scott were all missing from our DT rotation. We lost Thomas Jones from the run game and Chris Harris from the secondary. Those decisions were all made by the front office, particularly when it came to Jones. It was Angelo who promised Jones a trade after the 2006 season if he'd keep quiet about wanting a new contract.

 

Plus, you have to remember the injuries that happened that season. On the d-line, we lost three more defensive tackles and Mark Anderson. Darwin Walker made seven starts in place of Tank, sucked horribly, then broke his elbow. By the end of '07 we were giving significant playing time to Jimmy Kennedy and some practice-squad guy named Babatunde Oshinowo, for chrissake. Thanks to the issues at DT, we were 24th in the league in run defense.

 

The secondary had roster problems, too. The front office replaced Chris Harris with Adam Archuleta, then we proceeded to lose Mike Brown, Nate Vasher, and Kevin Payne to injuries. Danieal Manning proved he wasn't a free safety, Arch proved he wasn't even really a football player any more. Our secondary problems led directly to the Bears ranking 27th in pass defense. There wasn't the bizarre defensive scheme that we saw in 2008 (that was legitimately a coaching problem on Babich's part,) it was just the standard Tampa-2 played with incapable personnel.

 

Cedric Benson was the starting running back, which was bad enough; once he got injured, we had Adrian Peterson running behind the worst Bears o-line in Lovie's tenure. John Tait and Fred Miller showed their age, Ruben Brown got injured, and Terrence Metcalf proved that he wasn't even close to a starting-caliber lineman. Peterson and Benson got 347 carries combined, but only eked out 1184 yards and 7 TDs. Neither running back even managed 3.5 yards per carry. The Bears' three quarterbacks were sacked 42 times that season, and combined for 17 TDs to 21 interceptions. None of that is on Lovie.

 

In '07, Lovie had to work with a roster that suddenly had MASSIVE personnel problems on both defense and offense, none of which were really his fault. That roster should not have won CLOSE to seven games, not by any stretch of the imagination. I think it speaks well for Lovie as a coach that he got seven wins out of a team that had no ground game, porous defensive and offensive lines, inept quarterbacking, and no real scoring threat outside of Devin Hester.

[Pixote]

To this day I still wonder what went on behind the scenes that caused Lovie to allow Rivera to leave. I suspect there is far more to the story than what has been said or published. I suspect that the truth has never been released out of respect for R Rivera. It has been said there was a difference of opinion on defensive schemes. I have to believe there is more to the move than just a disagreement of such.

[adam]

The Bears are 16-16 since losing the Super Bowl, and Lovie's stock has fallen ever since that point. So if he was a top 5 coach that year, I could easily see him falling to 20 in 2 years+. This is a pretty important year for him. That Super Bowl visit seems like a faint memory now, and if we don't make the playoffs this year (3 straight years), the Bears will have to really consider a coaching change after the season. Ditka never had back to back non-playoff seasons as the Bears HC (full seasons).

 

Also, Lovie is the highest paid coach in the NFL (tied with Fisher).

[nfoligno]

I think it was several years of "difference of opinion". I think they simply didn't see eye-to-eye in terms of defensive scheme, and likely the two clashed (if only on a minor level) in each weeks game planning.

 

But I think it starts w/ how the two got together. Lovie NEVER wanted Rivera. He wanted to hire Babich from the beginning, but was told he couldn't. I think that was a Phillips decision, but maybe Angelo too. Anyway, Rivera was forced on him. Then, he was getting his 1st HC job, and frankly, it isn't like there were a dozen teams looking at him. Point is, didn't have the power or sway to really fight for his guy. Fast forward to a couple years ago. Lovie is coming off a SB appearance, and has tons of sway. Now Lovie can do what he wants, and what he wants is to promote his BFF.

 

I don't think Lovie and Rivera ever "really" got along, but honestly, I don't think it was ever about Rivera. Lovie always wanted Babich, but until the SB season, never had the pull to get what he wanted. When he had the pull, he used it.

 

To this day I still wonder what went on behind the scenes that caused Lovie to allow Rivera to leave. I suspect there is far more to the story than what has been said or published. I suspect that the truth has never been released out of respect for R Rivera. It has been said there was a difference of opinion on defensive schemes. I have to believe there is more to the move than just a disagreement of such.

[LT2_3]

I think it was several years of "difference of opinion". I think they simply didn't see eye-to-eye in terms of defensive scheme, and likely the two clashed (if only on a minor level) in each weeks game planning.

 

But I think it starts w/ how the two got together. Lovie NEVER wanted Rivera. He wanted to hire Babich from the beginning, but was told he couldn't. I think that was a Phillips decision, but maybe Angelo too. Anyway, Rivera was forced on him. Then, he was getting his 1st HC job, and frankly, it isn't like there were a dozen teams looking at him. Point is, didn't have the power or sway to really fight for his guy. Fast forward to a couple years ago. Lovie is coming off a SB appearance, and has tons of sway. Now Lovie can do what he wants, and what he wants is to promote his BFF.

 

I don't think Lovie and Rivera ever "really" got along, but honestly, I don't think it was ever about Rivera. Lovie always wanted Babich, but until the SB season, never had the pull to get what he wanted. When he had the pull, he used it.

 

And to just add a bit about the scenario, his BFF was getting looked at for DC positions elsewhere, and Rivera's contract was up. If he wanted to keep his BFF around, he had to make this move. I can't see a scenario where Rivera stays even if he was a cover-2 disciple and they agreed on everything.

[Connorbear]

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?

Couldn't agree more. Lovie deserves more respect than he is given but he also needs to perform much better. After this offseason, the ball is clearly in his court.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

Great points Prophet!

 

 

The Bears are 16-16 since losing the Super Bowl, and Lovie's stock has fallen ever since that point. So if he was a top 5 coach that year, I could easily see him falling to 20 in 2 years+. This is a pretty important year for him. That Super Bowl visit seems like a faint memory now, and if we don't make the playoffs this year (3 straight years), the Bears will have to really consider a coaching change after the season. Ditka never had back to back non-playoff seasons as the Bears HC (full seasons).

 

Also, Lovie is the highest paid coach in the NFL (tied with Fisher).

[lemonej]

All I have to say on this subject is the two previous coaching staffs made a total off 2 playoff appearances period and some fans are not happy with a guy who has made two in 5 years. This is not to say that he shouldn't improve on some of his decision making especially when it comes to staff.He turns over defensive staff almost every other year which has to hurt some of the continuity and chemistry in subtle ways. In that regard he is similar to Cowher who didn't win the SB until he kept the same offensive and defensive coordinators for a couple of years. This is Lovie's year to put up or shut up. With some of the pick ups on offense I think Turner should on notice also.

[defiantgiant]

This is Lovie's year to put up or shut up. With some of the pick ups on offense I think Turner should on notice also.

 

I'll agree to that. I think Smith definitely deserves the benefit of the doubt, given his successes thus far and the external factors that contributed to the losing season in '07, but I think he's got to get us back into the postseason this year. The same goes for Turner: he doesn't have the road-grading offensive line that he did in 05-06, but the line should be solid enough and he has an exceptional group of young, talented skill position players. He's been given all the tools, now he needs to show what he can do with them.

 

If the Bears go 7-9 again this year without some kind of catastrophic wave of injuries, then I think Lovie should be worried about his job. Unless and until that happens, though, he should have every opportunity to show that he's the same coach who took us to the playoffs in '05 and '06.

[azbearsfan]

I'll agree to that. I think Smith definitely deserves the benefit of the doubt, given his successes thus far and the external factors that contributed to the losing season in '07, but I think he's got to get us back into the postseason this year. The same goes for Turner: he doesn't have the road-grading offensive line that he did in 05-06, but the line should be solid enough and he has an exceptional group of young, talented skill position players. He's been given all the tools, now he needs to show what he can do with them.

 

If the Bears go 7-9 again this year without some kind of catastrophic wave of injuries, then I think Lovie should be worried about his job. Unless and until that happens, though, he should have every opportunity to show that he's the same coach who took us to the playoffs in '05 and '06.

 

 

I think that all of us can agree on that point. Whether you think he is underrated or overrated, this is the year to show we can be that consistant playoff team.

[nfoligno]

Just a thought, but what happens if our offense is actually solid this year, but our defense (w/o significant injuries) sucks. Lovie has stuck his neck out on the line, especially for the defense which he is taking over. What if our defense sucks?

 

I think that all of us can agree on that point. Whether you think he is underrated or overrated, this is the year to show we can be that consistant playoff team.

[defiantgiant]

Just a thought, but what happens if our offense is actually solid this year, but our defense (w/o significant injuries) sucks. Lovie has stuck his neck out on the line, especially for the defense which he is taking over. What if our defense sucks?

 

If the offense is solid and the defense underperforms badly, then I think the Bears have to bring in a new DC. The defense worked great in '05 and '06 with Lovie as head coach and Rivera as DC. Lovie's contention, after the Super Bowl, was basically that he made it great, not Rivera. Thanks to injuries in '07 and ineptitude from Babich in '08, it's very difficult to evaluate whether Lovie was right about that. If the defense struggles in '09, under Lovie's direct control and without injuries, then I think we can safely say that he was wrong. In that case, I think we bring in a new DC and give him at least as much control over scheme/playcalling as Rivera had. I could see keeping Lovie on as head coach, though. He's legitimately very good at that, and the players love him and play hard for him.

[adam]

Of all the coaches, I believe Marinelli is going to make the biggest impact. He was the TB DL coach when they were flat out dominate and was also the Asst HC when they won the SB.

 

So if there is not improvement on the D side of the ball this year, Babich and Lovie could both be in hot water. I would just promote Marinelli to DC and leave Babich as the LB's coach.

[madlithuanian]

Then pink slips must ensue for everyone involved in the D...

 

In fact, they should bring Mr. T over to personally throw Babich out of Hallas Hall...

 

Just a thought, but what happens if our offense is actually solid this year, but our defense (w/o significant injuries) sucks. Lovie has stuck his neck out on the line, especially for the defense which he is taking over. What if our defense sucks?

[madlithuanian]

But wasn't Smith hired for his D prowess? If he can't do that, and has shown he couldn't get along w/ staff he disagrees with (Chico), is he really a stong HC? Or lucky that he has good coordinators/players?

 

 

 

If the offense is solid and the defense underperforms badly, then I think the Bears have to bring in a new DC. The defense worked great in '05 and '06 with Lovie as head coach and Rivera as DC. Lovie's contention, after the Super Bowl, was basically that he made it great, not Rivera. Thanks to injuries in '07 and ineptitude from Babich in '08, it's very difficult to evaluate whether Lovie was right about that. If the defense struggles in '09, under Lovie's direct control and without injuries, then I think we can safely say that he was wrong. In that case, I think we bring in a new DC and give him at least as much control over scheme/playcalling as Rivera had. I could see keeping Lovie on as head coach, though. He's legitimately very good at that, and the players love him and play hard for him.

[madlithuanian]

Babich needs to be ousted if the D fails yet again. It would be on his watch for 3 years straight of poor showings.

 

He is still the DC at least in title.

 

 

Of all the coaches, I believe Marinelli is going to make the biggest impact. He was the TB DL coach when they were flat out dominate and was also the Asst HC when they won the SB.

 

So if there is not improvement on the D side of the ball this year, Babich and Lovie could both be in hot water. I would just promote Marinelli to DC and leave Babich as the LB's coach.

[defiantgiant]

But wasn't Smith hired for his D prowess? If he can't do that, and has shown he couldn't get along w/ staff he disagrees with (Chico), is he really a stong HC? Or lucky that he has good coordinators/players?

 

Just because Lovie was a defensive coordinator and defense is his background, that doesn't mean he has to be solely responsible for the defense. It also doesn't mean he doesn't have other strengths as a head coach. Look at Mike Tomlin: he was a defensive backs coach, then a defensive coordinator, then got hired to be the Steelers' head coach. He's a defensive-minded guy, sure, but Dick LeBeau runs that defense. The two of them working together are arguably better than any one guy at running a tough defensive football team.

 

Same story with Tony Dungy: he was a DBs coach, then a defensive coordinator, then got a head coaching job with the Bucs based on his reputation as a defensive guru. Despite being hired for his D prowess just like Lovie, Dungy still had a big-shot coordinator, Monte Kiffin, running the defense. In fact, the Tampa 2 that they put together in those years is at least as much Kiffin's blueprint as it is Dungy's.

 

I could go on: John Fox had Jack Del Rio running his defense. Jeff Fisher had Gregg Williams and Jim Schwartz running his. Bill Cowher gets a lot of love (and rightly so) on these forums, but his last couple of years in Pittsburgh he had Dick LeBeau running the defense, the same as Tomlin does. These guys are all defensive-minded head coaches, but it doesn't mean they can't have a powerful defensive coordinator in the picture. In fact, I'd argue that there's pretty good evidence that the two-heads-are-better approach is a winning one: just look at the defenses fielded by the Bucs, Panthers, Titans, and Steelers. Or, for that matter, by the Bears in 05-06. Pairing a defensive head coach with a great DC isn't an indictment of the coach, it's a formula for a top-10 defense.

[madlithuanian]

Not quite. He was hired as a HC because I'm sure JA and the gang thought he could be one. However, I'm certain that a part of that figured that his success w/ D would be one of the benefits of his hire: that the D he inherited from jauron would be strong. As a HC, you are responsible for EVERYTHING. D is a part of that. And in the view of the public, if not within the organization, usually you are held to a higher standard from which you've been successful before. (Example: No one expected Buddy Ryan to turn into an offensive guru in Philly. The expecation was that the D would be kick ass. He gets a slight pass for O, and not much wiggle room for poor D.) The same holds true for Smith or any HC for that matter. If Billichick's D were poor, he'd have been on the hot -seat. Turned out they've been quite good through the years there and lucked into Brady as well for a solid O.

 

You even make the case yourself. Tomlin is a D guy. The D is doing well. If it weren't, don't you think he'd be on the hot seat?

 

Again, Tampa...good D. Kiffin or not. If the D were poor, Dungy would have been fired far sooner.

 

All the guys you keep mentioning continue to have good to great D's on their respective teams. But not us. We've fallen.

 

Having a great DC is surely a HUGE part of it. And Smith's own hand chosen guy turned out to be a miserable failure. Now he's chosen himself. I hope his choice isn't as bad as his last one...

 

 

Just because Lovie was a defensive coordinator and defense is his background, that doesn't mean he has to be solely responsible for the defense. It also doesn't mean he doesn't have other strengths as a head coach. Look at Mike Tomlin: he was a defensive backs coach, then a defensive coordinator, then got hired to be the Steelers' head coach. He's a defensive-minded guy, sure, but Dick LeBeau runs that defense. The two of them working together are arguably better than any one guy at running a tough defensive football team.

 

Same story with Tony Dungy: he was a DBs coach, then a defensive coordinator, then got a head coaching job with the Bucs based on his reputation as a defensive guru. Despite being hired for his D prowess just like Lovie, Dungy still had a big-shot coordinator, Monte Kiffin, running the defense. In fact, the Tampa 2 that they put together in those years is at least as much Kiffin's blueprint as it is Dungy's.

 

I could go on: John Fox had Jack Del Rio running his defense. Jeff Fisher had Gregg Williams and Jim Schwartz running his. Bill Cowher gets a lot of love (and rightly so) on these forums, but his last couple of years in Pittsburgh he had Dick LeBeau running the defense, the same as Tomlin does. These guys are all defensive-minded head coaches, but it doesn't mean they can't have a powerful defensive coordinator in the picture. In fact, I'd argue that there's pretty good evidence that the two-heads-are-better approach is a winning one: just look at the defenses fielded by the Bucs, Panthers, Titans, and Steelers. Or, for that matter, by the Bears in 05-06. Pairing a defensive head coach with a great DC isn't an indictment of the coach, it's a formula for a top-10 defense.

[nfoligno]

One little problem. Will Lovie sign off on hiring a DC that does not run "his" scheme. If we only hire another cover two DC, will that even change things?

 

I would agree our best scenerio is similar to when Rivera was here. Instead of being too focused on one thing, you have a greater range of experience to run multiple styles.

 

But there in lies the problem. Lovie is a cover two guy. In fact, many times he has defended his scheme to the point of throwing players under the bus. I am not sure he is going to sign off on hiring a DC that would not run his scheme.

 

Just because Lovie was a defensive coordinator and defense is his background, that doesn't mean he has to be solely responsible for the defense. It also doesn't mean he doesn't have other strengths as a head coach. Look at Mike Tomlin: he was a defensive backs coach, then a defensive coordinator, then got hired to be the Steelers' head coach. He's a defensive-minded guy, sure, but Dick LeBeau runs that defense. The two of them working together are arguably better than any one guy at running a tough defensive football team.

 

Same story with Tony Dungy: he was a DBs coach, then a defensive coordinator, then got a head coaching job with the Bucs based on his reputation as a defensive guru. Despite being hired for his D prowess just like Lovie, Dungy still had a big-shot coordinator, Monte Kiffin, running the defense. In fact, the Tampa 2 that they put together in those years is at least as much Kiffin's blueprint as it is Dungy's.

 

I could go on: John Fox had Jack Del Rio running his defense. Jeff Fisher had Gregg Williams and Jim Schwartz running his. Bill Cowher gets a lot of love (and rightly so) on these forums, but his last couple of years in Pittsburgh he had Dick LeBeau running the defense, the same as Tomlin does. These guys are all defensive-minded head coaches, but it doesn't mean they can't have a powerful defensive coordinator in the picture. In fact, I'd argue that there's pretty good evidence that the two-heads-are-better approach is a winning one: just look at the defenses fielded by the Bucs, Panthers, Titans, and Steelers. Or, for that matter, by the Bears in 05-06. Pairing a defensive head coach with a great DC isn't an indictment of the coach, it's a formula for a top-10 defense.

[defiantgiant]

Not quite. He was hired as a HC because I'm sure JA and the gang thought he could be one. However, I'm certain that a part of that figured that his success w/ D would be one of the benefits of his hire: that the D he inherited from jauron would be strong. As a HC, you are responsible for EVERYTHING. D is a part of that. And in the view of the public, if not within the organization, usually you are held to a higher standard from which you've been successful before. (Example: No one expected Buddy Ryan to turn into an offensive guru in Philly. The expecation was that the D would be kick ass. He gets a slight pass for O, and not much wiggle room for poor D.) The same holds true for Smith or any HC for that matter. If Billichick's D were poor, he'd have been on the hot -seat. Turned out they've been quite good through the years there and lucked into Brady as well for a solid O.

 

You even make the case yourself. Tomlin is a D guy. The D is doing well. If it weren't, don't you think he'd be on the hot seat?

 

Again, Tampa...good D. Kiffin or not. If the D were poor, Dungy would have been fired far sooner.

 

All the guys you keep mentioning continue to have good to great D's on their respective teams. But not us. We've fallen.

 

Having a great DC is surely a HUGE part of it. And Smith's own hand chosen guy turned out to be a miserable failure. Now he's chosen himself. I hope his choice isn't as bad as his last one...

 

You're kind of begging the question here. You're ignoring the contributions of all those coaches' respective defensive coordinators, then trying to use that as evidence that the head coach is solely responsible for his defense. It sounds like you're basically saying "a defensive coach is hired to build a good defense. If the defense is bad, the coach gets fired. Therefore, if the coach wasn't fired, the coach built a good defense." But to make that argument work, you have to ignore any other factors (like a great DC) that contribute to a good defense and therefore to the defense-oriented HC not getting fired. Which is silly.

 

Seriously, you can't say that Dungy would have had a good defense in Tampa "Kiffin or not," because he never coached the Bucs without Kiffin as his DC. It's totally possible that the Bucs wouldn't have been a great defense without Kiffin. In fact, it's more than possible - look at Dungy's defenses in Indianapolis, when he had defensive coordinators who weren't on Kiffin's level. Were they pretty good? Sure. Were they at the level of the Dungy/Kiffin Bucs? Not even close.

 

I'm not saying Lovie didn't screw up by letting Rivera walk, or that Babich wasn't a failure as a DC. I'm saying that if he can't build us a dominant defense by himself it doesn't mean he's a bad coach, it just means that we need to bring in another good DC. Lovie/Rivera was potentially a combination like Dungy/Kiffin or Tomlin/LeBeau. I think it's perfectly OK to hire a head coach who specializes in defense and also give him a great DC to work with, in fact, if that's going to get our defense back to the 05-06 level, I'm all for it.

 

I'm hoping that Rod Marinelli can take over the Rivera role: a guy who doesn't have exactly the same approach that Lovie does, but who can be a good complement to Lovie's style and elevate our defensive play. Marinelli definitely brings an edgy quality to the table that Lovie doesn't have. Every clip I've seen of him, he's stalking up and down the field yelling his head off. We need some of that on our defense.

[madlithuanian]

I don't think it's silly, it just is. When HC's get chosen, they usuallky do so on strength in one area. Either an O or D Coordinator. Sometimes ST in a rare situation. Given that, there is an expectation that this side of the fence will be OK. And that one can expect the other side to take a while before it gets good.

 

The whole things rest on success. If a team wins a SB, then it's all somewhat moot. Look at Billick. He came in as an offensive guru, yet the D won them their SB. So, regardless how poor his O was, he got a pass for winning the SB.

 

You stated: It sounds like you're basically saying "a defensive coach is hired to build a good defense. If the defense is bad, the coach gets fired. Therefore, if the coach wasn't fired, the coach built a good defense." I belive it's basically true. All else being equal. That's assuming the offense is bad, the team doesn't win the SB, etc... Generally speaking, if a HC is hired, his expertise (great at D) is expected to be a benefit. If his expertise (D) proves to be a hinderance (the D now sucks), he will be on the hot seat. a DC is a HUGE part of that as I've mentioned earlier. But, the HC is ultimately responsible for what his DC does.

 

I never said Tampa would have had a great D w/o Kiffin. What I said was that Tampa needed to have a good defense reagdless of who was the DC for Dungy to retain employment. Obviously his O wasn't very good. in Indy, he lucked into Peyton and also improved their poor D over time. henceforth, he did what one would expect from a guy w/ a defensive background.

 

So, are you saying that no matter how crummy a D becomes, as long as the HC just hires a new guy, it's OK? At some point, that HC needs to be held accountable, no? Especially, if his expertise is on that side of the fence. If I'm great at doing taxes and you make me a CFO, you'd think our tax dept would be solid. If it's not, don't you think my job is on the line no matter who I hired to do the job? There is an assumption that even if I'm not doing it, I know the right person to do it. If they can't, isn't that on me?

 

I think Marinelli has essentially taken over as DC. Sure he'll be focussed on the D Line, but I figure he'll be consulting Smith quite a bit. Babich has basically been demoted to LB coach w/o losing his title. I think Rod may be just what we need. What I'm basically saying is that if this team fails yeat again, then it has to be on Smith. he has made all the decisions, hirings, etc...and it's not working. I hope it does! I'm just saying, if it doesn't...

 

You're kind of begging the question here. You're ignoring the contributions of all those coaches' respective defensive coordinators, then trying to use that as evidence that the head coach is solely responsible for his defense. It sounds like you're basically saying "a defensive coach is hired to build a good defense. If the defense is bad, the coach gets fired. Therefore, if the coach wasn't fired, the coach built a good defense." But to make that argument work, you have to ignore any other factors (like a great DC) that contribute to a good defense and therefore to the defense-oriented HC not getting fired. Which is silly.

 

Seriously, you can't say that Dungy would have had a good defense in Tampa "Kiffin or not," because he never coached the Bucs without Kiffin as his DC. It's totally possible that the Bucs wouldn't have been a great defense without Kiffin. In fact, it's more than possible - look at Dungy's defenses in Indianapolis, when he had defensive coordinators who weren't on Kiffin's level. Were they pretty good? Sure. Were they at the level of the Dungy/Kiffin Bucs? Not even close.

 

I'm not saying Lovie didn't screw up by letting Rivera walk, or that Babich wasn't a failure as a DC. I'm saying that if he can't build us a dominant defense by himself it doesn't mean he's a bad coach, it just means that we need to bring in another good DC. Lovie/Rivera was potentially a combination like Dungy/Kiffin or Tomlin/LeBeau. I think it's perfectly OK to hire a head coach who specializes in defense and also give him a great DC to work with, in fact, if that's going to get our defense back to the 05-06 level, I'm all for it.

 

I'm hoping that Rod Marinelli can take over the Rivera role: a guy who doesn't have exactly the same approach that Lovie does, but who can be a good complement to Lovie's style and elevate our defensive play. Marinelli definitely brings an edgy quality to the table that Lovie doesn't have. Every clip I've seen of him, he's stalking up and down the field yelling his head off. We need some of that on our defense.

[azbearsfan]

Just a thought, but what happens if our offense is actually solid this year, but our defense (w/o significant injuries) sucks. Lovie has stuck his neck out on the line, especially for the defense which he is taking over. What if our defense sucks?

 

 

lol. The ifs and buts game, huh.

 

What happens if the defense is top 5 in scoring, the offense is top ten, and we lose in the super bowl?

 

Now remember kids, our defense is not meant to be a stonewalling type, it is meant to create turnovers and score.

[defiantgiant]

OK, I think I understand you a little better now. But you pointed out that the whole thing for a head coach is the team's success, and I think that's very valid. Like you said, Billick got a pass for his crappy offense, because Rex Ryan's defense was winning them games. But here's the original post from nfo that started this whole discussion off:

 

"Just a thought, but what happens if our offense is actually solid this year, but our defense (w/o significant injuries) sucks."

 

All my posts were addressing what I thought we might do if the offense brings us some success while the defense stays mediocre. Let me get this clear: if we go 6-10 or whatever this year, I think Lovie's in danger of losing his job. Three disappointing seasons in a row is generally a problem for a head coach.

 

But in my previous posts, I was trying to say what I thought we should do if Lovie is a reverse-Brian-Billick: if the Bears do well despite the defense that he was hired to run. If that's the case, you're at least doing something right, and it's not the time to fire your head coach. If you have one underperforming unit on a successful team, you bring in a new guy to help that unit out.

 

Basically, I think you hire or fire coordinators based on how their individual units are performing. I think you hire/fire head coaches, regardless of whether their background is offense or defense, based on whether your team is winning and getting to the playoffs. If Lovie's defense sucks but we still win games and make it to the postseason, like Billick and the Ravens' offense, then I think it's time to get Lovie a good DC, not time to fire the guy.

[madlithuanian]

Then we keep on truckin' and chalk it up to a bad game. However, we should not offer Smith another extention... If he tanks again like he did the last time we went to a SB and lost, then we need a new HC.

 

What happens if the defense is top 5 in scoring, the offense is top ten, and we lose in the super bowl?