Bears' Lovie Smith deserves more respect

[madlithuanian]

I think I'm following you now as well!

 

If our O is better, which I think we're all assuming will be the case, and the D again sucks, I think Smith should be on the hot seat. The implication behind that the D sucks, I think it that we aren't good enough for playoffs, etc. And circling back to the success thing, I agree that it does all boil down to record and playoff berth.

 

As long as we win the SB, we could give up 900 yards rushing and 12 TD's passing. Smith would still be safe. Albeit a jokeline...but safe. Winning solves/masks everything!

 

I do disagree about what standards HC are held to. I do agree that the end result is what matters. However just playoff berths don't count. One must do something with them. Martyball is a great example. He was ousted out of everywhere eventuall, even though he continually made the playoffs. My basic premise is that the end record is not good due to the failure of one side of the ball. On top of that, Smith has rec'd his chance. He demanded Babich, and after 2 years of failing, he didn't even oust him and instead takes control . To me, that is is second hire. If he fails again, it's time for a new HC. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

Here's hoping it doesn't come to that!

 

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.

[nfoligno]

lol. The ifs and buts game, huh.

 

Well, its a message board, and hypotheticals are pretty common. It's not like I am throwing out an unrealistic "what if". Our defense pretty much sucked last year. I know few who would disagree. While we have shuffled some, we have not really seen the major upgrades in personnel. We are simply banking on players playing better, whether due to coaching changes or whatever. On offense though, we have made very real, legit and big changes. Thus, I think it a realistic "what if" question, asking what if the offense is good but our defense is bad.

 

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

 

After the initial disappointment of losing the SB, most would call it a pretty damn good year. Lovie, Turner and Marninelli would be getting huge props.

 

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

 

No, our defense is not meant to be an "in your face" stuff you at the LOS type, but they are meant to do a little more than simply create turnovers and score. If our defense creates 3 turnovers and even scores a TD, that would be great, but if they give up 35 points also, I think most would consider them to have played poorly. I agree we are not likely go be a defense that stuffs the opponent and leads the league in yards given up. At the same time, besides what you mention, I think we are also expected to (a) limit an opposing teams scoring and ( create significant pass rush.

 

If you don't like the question, fine. Take a pass. But I am not sure why it is so out there. Lovie made the call to go w/ Babich, and it failed. Now, Lovie is taking over the defense. If the defense fails, I think it appropriate to ask what happens to Lovie.

[adam]

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.

 

The game sort of dictates what schemes are effective at the time. If the Cover-2 is completely "figured out", now matter how good your players are, as long as the other team executes, you're toast. So Lovie might have no choice but to move to some other scheme, even if it is not one he is an expert in.

[nfoligno]

Your preaching to the choir. I have never been a fan of the cover two. Even when our defense was playing well, I felt the scheme actually held us back from playing on another level.

 

But that is me. Lovie is another story. IMHO, Lovie has been just as stubborn as Jauron, but he has more wins, and has not been ripped nearly so much. That isn't meant to be a positive comment on Jauron, but a point on Lovie. Jauron was trashed for his support of Shoop, but how is that different from Lovie's BFF Babich. Anyway, point is, I do not have the confidence you do that Lovie would change his scheme.

 

The game sort of dictates what schemes are effective at the time. If the Cover-2 is completely "figured out", now matter how good your players are, as long as the other team executes, you're toast. So Lovie might have no choice but to move to some other scheme, even if it is not one he is an expert in.

[azbearsfan]

After the initial disappointment of losing the SB, most would call it a pretty damn good year. Lovie, Turner and Marninelli would be getting huge props.

 

As would I, but you know people would be calling for Lovie's head. Just look at Mad above.

 

 

No, our defense is not meant to be an "in your face" stuff you at the LOS type, but they are meant to do a little more than simply create turnovers and score. If our defense creates 3 turnovers and even scores a TD, that would be great, but if they give up 35 points also, I think most would consider them to have played poorly. I agree we are not likely go be a defense that stuffs the opponent and leads the league in yards given up. At the same time, besides what you mention, I think we are also expected to (a) limit an opposing teams scoring and ( create significant pass rush.

 

 

Yes but if you lead the league in scoring defense and are at the top of the heap in turnovers created, you are probably not giving up 35 points a game. If you look at the comments of many, they are mad because the defense is something it is not meant to be. As long as people know that, its cool if you disagree on what type of defense to run. Just dont get mad when we are not stonewalling team yard-wise.

 

If you don't like the question, fine. Take a pass. But I am not sure why it is so out there. Lovie made the call to go w/ Babich, and it failed. Now, Lovie is taking over the defense. If the defense fails, I think it appropriate to ask what happens to Lovie.

 

And I've said as much, the original point of this thread was the 20th ranking of Lovie which I find ridiculous. That's what is out there. And by reading some of comments it looks like people want to give Rivera credit for all Lovie's wins and bash Lovie for the losses. Which is certainly their right on a message board, its just irritating. Never said Lovie is the best coach in the world, but he absolutely does not get the respect he deserves, especially here.

[azbearsfan]

The game sort of dictates what schemes are effective at the time. If the Cover-2 is completely "figured out", now matter how good your players are, as long as the other team executes, you're toast. So Lovie might have no choice but to move to some other scheme, even if it is not one he is an expert in.

 

 

Thats true for any defense. If the offense executes, any defense is toast.

[madlithuanian]

Did you even read my post?

 

Here's exactly what I wrote...

 

"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."

 

 

 

 

 

 

After the initial disappointment of losing the SB, most would call it a pretty damn good year. Lovie, Turner and Marninelli would be getting huge props.

 

As would I, but you know people would be calling for Lovie's head. Just look at Mad above.

[Mongo3451]

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.

Gotta disagree here. Lovie said "trust me" when he let Rivera go. He squarely took ownership at that point

[azbearsfan]

If he tanks again like he did the last time we went to a SB and lost, then we need a new HC.

 

 

Yeah I did.

 

 

 

Please dont act like you give Lovie credit for wins now. You always say the team wins in spite of him and kill him for losses.

[nfoligno]

Yes but if you lead the league in scoring defense and are at the top of the heap in turnovers created, you are probably not giving up 35 points a game. If you look at the comments of many, they are mad because the defense is something it is not meant to be. As long as people know that, its cool if you disagree on what type of defense to run. Just dont get mad when we are not stonewalling team yard-wise.

 

Can't totally agree. I do agree that, even when working well, a Lovie defense is not likely to be tops in the leauge in terms of yardage. At the same time, I do think it fair to question whether we are fully utilizing talent. I remember that Az game a few years ago when a rookie Leinart was tearing us up in the 1st half. 2nd half, our defense did a lot of things different, agressive. It was like the "Remember the Titans" quote about not giving up an extra yard. The defense looked pisses when they would gain a yard. IMHO, the 1st half and 2nd half defenses were examples of a Lovie defense and a Rivera defense. In many games, that Lovie defense may be enough to win, but I would also salivate at the thought of what the defense could be.

 

And I've said as much, the original point of this thread was the 20th ranking of Lovie which I find ridiculous. That's what is out there. And by reading some of comments it looks like people want to give Rivera credit for all Lovie's wins and bash Lovie for the losses. Which is certainly their right on a message board, its just irritating. Never said Lovie is the best coach in the world, but he absolutely does not get the respect he deserves, especially here.

 

Two old sayings come to mind:

 

"What have you done for me lately". You may not like that statement, but it is hard to argue. We went to the SB. Great. That was 3 years ago. What happened since. Coaches with more skins on the wall than Lovie find their respect drop.

 

"You made your own bed...." I am not saying the SB was all Rivera, and Lovie was just along for the ride. But, as I believe Mongo pointed out, Lovie famously said, "trust me" when he allowed Rivera to walk. We are talking about a Chicago Bear from the glory days, and the man many felt was integral to the defense that helped carry us to the SB. But Lovie wanted his BFF and said, "trust me". Since then, our defense has been a joke, and we have missed the playoffs the two years since that SB loss. You can point to 20 or more excuses/reasons, but at the end of the day, Lovie made a very controversial decision, told fans to trust him for the move, and it blew up in his face.

 

I never really commented on the 20th ranking. Frankly, I never thought it that big of a deal. It was someones opinion. Most here are quick to dismiss the opinions of the hacks that work at the big networks. It was about as valuable as power rankings.

 

I have never been a big Lovie fan. I don't take away credit for the SB, but at the same time, I do feel he was the main reason Rivera is gone, and further, I do feel Rivera's loss was a huge factor in why our defense has tanked.

[lemonej]

I look at this whole Lovie/Rivera debate as similar to Ryan and Ditka. In each case neither has achieved the same success that they enjoyed when they were together. Since Rivera has been gone how successful has he been as San Diego's DC? They have a lot of talent on that defense but seem to come up short of being dominating. I remember Lovie chose Rivera himself and then realized they had philosophical differences. Lovie got a late start at assembling a staff as is the case whenever the Bears hire a new coach they rarely get their first choice and tend to drag their feet in the process. Lovie originally wanted Marinelli to run his defense but Tampa wouldn't let him go out of his contract. So he had an OC that didn't get off the bus running and a DC who came from a totally different scheme calling defensive signals. It seems he is content with Turner and now that Marinelli is here he should have what he thinks he needs to be succesful.

[BigDaddy]

Yes but if you lead the league in scoring defense and are at the top of the heap in turnovers created, you are probably not giving up 35 points a game. If you look at the comments of many, they are mad because the defense is something it is not meant to be. As long as people know that, its cool if you disagree on what type of defense to run. Just dont get mad when we are not stonewalling team yard-wise.

 

You make it sound as if it's just a matter of people liking or disliking the scheme. You are right about one thing, people are mad because this defense IS something it's NOT meant to be, it's unsuccessful. I don't think anyone on this board cares one way or another whether we run, a 4-3, 3-4, 46, Cover 2, what ever as long as it's successful. For the last 2 years it HAS NOT worked, they have failed. The objective of any and every defense in the NFL is the same, stop the other team from scoring. The better you do that, the more games you will win.

 

Hey, Lovie Smith has everything a HC could ask for, he has his original DC choice onboard, he's got better than average defensive talent, he now has a franchise QB, a very good to hopefully great RB, a healthy back up RB in Jones, a revamped o line. He's building on a 9-7 record. All he has to do is win. If he wins, he's the man. If he can't win, we need to find someone who can. It's not like he hasn't been given a fair chance.

[azbearsfan]

Can't totally agree. I do agree that, even when working well, a Lovie defense is not likely to be tops in the leauge in terms of yardage. At the same time, I do think it fair to question whether we are fully utilizing talent. I remember that Az game a few years ago when a rookie Leinart was tearing us up in the 1st half. 2nd half, our defense did a lot of things different, aggressive. It was like the "Remember the Titans" quote about not giving up an extra yard. The defense looked pisses when they would gain a yard. IMHO, the 1st half and 2nd half defenses were examples of a Lovie defense and a Rivera defense. In many games, that Lovie defense may be enough to win, but I would also salivate at the thought of what the defense could be.

 

Ridiculous. Both halfs were Rivera's defense. So it is safe to say that either Rivera allowed his defense to enter that game complacent or he himself was complacent in his preparation against a rookie quarterback. Please dont make it seems line Arizona was this awesome offensive team that we shut down in the second half against all odds like some movie. They were garbage and any half way decent defense should have killed them. Of course they looked pissed, they were being embarrassed on national TV by a crappy team.

 

 

 

"What have you done for me lately". You may not like that statement, but it is hard to argue. We went to the SB. Great. That was 3 years ago. What happened since. Coaches with more skins on the wall than Lovie find their respect drop.

 

 

lol He went 7-9 with a crappy RB, a worse line (by your own admission), a revolving door at QB, and a defense decimated by injuries.

Then this year he went 9-7, one game out of the playoffs, with a rookie RB, no WR, a crap DL and secondary.

 

 

"You made your own bed...." I am not saying the SB was all Rivera, and Lovie was just along for the ride. But, as I believe Mongo pointed out, Lovie famously said, "trust me" when he allowed Rivera to walk. We are talking about a Chicago Bear from the glory days, and the man many felt was integral to the defense that helped carry us to the SB. But Lovie wanted his BFF and said, "trust me". Since then, our defense has been a joke, and we have missed the playoffs the two years since that SB loss. You can point to 20 or more excuses/reasons, but at the end of the day, Lovie made a very controversial decision, told fans to trust him for the move, and it blew up in his face.

 

How about "hindsight is 20-20"? He hired Babich who was up for other D-Coord jobs in the league. So it wasn't just Lovie who thought Babich was coord material. Obviously, a bad move looking back. And it is also obvious that Rivera wasn't long for Chicago anyway. He was interviewing all over the league. Could he have overcome the injuries the defense had the following year? We really dont know, but I'm sure you think he could have sprinkled some magic 1985 fairy dust on Tommie's knee, the oline, Bensen, etc since he is from the "glory days".

 

 

I never really commented on the 20th ranking. Frankly, I never thought it that big of a deal. It was someones opinion. Most here are quick to dismiss the opinions of the hacks that work at the big networks. It was about as valuable as power rankings.

 

Well that was really the point of the thread.

 

 

I have never been a big Lovie fan. I don't take away credit for the SB, but at the same time, I do feel he was the main reason Rivera is gone, and further, I do feel Rivera's loss was a huge factor in why our defense has tanked.

 

Fan or not, its hard to argue what Lovie has done to bring us back to relevance in the NFL.

 

That being said, I'm glad he has taken back the defense as there will be no excuses this year. If it tanks, we will probably have a new coach (although I dont know if we would shell out the money for a Shanny or Cowher) and it does great then we will be competing for a Super Bowl.

[azbearsfan]

You make it sound as if it's just a matter of people liking or disliking the scheme. You are right about one thing, people are mad because this defense IS something it's NOT meant to be, it's unsuccessful. I don't think anyone on this board cares one way or another whether we run, a 4-3, 3-4, 46, Cover 2, what ever as long as it's successful. For the last 2 years it HAS NOT worked, they have failed. The objective of any and every defense in the NFL is the same, stop the other team from scoring. The better you do that, the more games you will win.

 

 

A more important question is why has the defense been bad? Do you know why (and dont just say "the league has figured it out". Thats the ignorant thing to say)?

 

Do you know that since the Super Bowl we have actually run less and less of a pure Cover Two scheme? This is the main reason why think Lovie is taking over the defense and brought in Roddy M. They are going to try to get back to pass rush with the front four, people in there zones, tactical blitzing, pressure, turnovers, defense scoring, etc.

 

Hey, Lovie Smith has everything a HC could ask for, he has his original DC choice onboard, he's got better than average defensive talent, he now has a franchise QB, a very good to hopefully great RB, a healthy back up RB in Jones, a revamped o line. He's building on a 9-7 record. All he has to do is win. If he wins, he's the man. If he can't win, we need to find someone who can. It's not like he hasn't been given a fair chance.

 

I agree. This is a huge year for him and I think Lovie is excited for it.

[defiantgiant]

Yes but if you lead the league in scoring defense and are at the top of the heap in turnovers created, you are probably not giving up 35 points a game. If you look at the comments of many, they are mad because the defense is something it is not meant to be. As long as people know that, its cool if you disagree on what type of defense to run. Just dont get mad when we are not stonewalling team yard-wise.

 

Can't totally agree. I do agree that, even when working well, a Lovie defense is not likely to be tops in the leauge in terms of yardage. At the same time, I do think it fair to question whether we are fully utilizing talent. I remember that Az game a few years ago when a rookie Leinart was tearing us up in the 1st half. 2nd half, our defense did a lot of things different, agressive. It was like the "Remember the Titans" quote about not giving up an extra yard. The defense looked pisses when they would gain a yard. IMHO, the 1st half and 2nd half defenses were examples of a Lovie defense and a Rivera defense. In many games, that Lovie defense may be enough to win, but I would also salivate at the thought of what the defense could be.

 

I don't agree. A good Tampa-2 should be close to the top of the league in yards, as well. The one worrisome thing about the Tampa-2 is that it's sort of boom-or-bust. The defense is predicated on creating opportunities to stop an opponent's drive with a turnover, so it relies on an extremely high level of execution to be successful. Basically it calls for defenders to reliably strip ballcarriers, intercept passes, or sack the QB. If they can't do that, the Tampa-2 just turns into a defense that gives up yards.

 

When a Tampa-2 defense is working at an elite level, it allows very, very few points and should be close to the top of the league in turnovers. It should also be allowing relatively few yards. When something goes wrong (like we saw in 2007 and 2008) then a Tampa-2 gives up both yards and scores.

 

The 2005 Bears were 2nd in the league in picks with 24, 9th in sacks with 41, 12th in forced fumbles with 26, and 5th in passes broken up. In 2006, they ranked 2nd, 8th, 3rd, and 1st in those respective categories. The 2005 Bears led the league in scoring defense, and the 2006 Bears were 3rd.

 

But here's the thing: in 2005, they were 2nd in the league in yards allowed, giving up only 281 total yards per game; in 2006 they were 5th. So when this defense was successful, it was BOTH a great scoring defense and a great yardage defense. The problem is just that the scheme requires such an elite performance from the players that things go downhill badly when just a couple of guys can't do their jobs.

[nfoligno]

Ridiculous. Both halfs were Rivera's defense. So it is safe to say that either Rivera allowed his defense to enter that game complacent or he himself was complacent in his preparation against a rookie quarterback. Please dont make it seems line Arizona was this awesome offensive team that we shut down in the second half against all odds like some movie. They were garbage and any half way decent defense should have killed them. Of course they looked pissed, they were being embarrassed on national TV by a crappy team.

 

We simply disagree.

 

One, make no mistake. I never said Az was some elite offense (at the time). Not only that, but I also would add that their offense began to play more conservative in the 2nd half w/ a nice lead, thus better enabling us to turn the tide. So I am not pretending our defense suddenly shut down a great offense playing at their best. The point of the pointing to the movie was a change in attitude and the way they played.

 

Two, Rivera is the DC, and thus responsible for both halves. No argument. But it is my opinion that in the 1st half, he was running the defense Lovie Smith pushed. In the 2nd half, that is far from what I saw. 1st half of that game was frankly what I have seen the last two years. Secondary that plays bend/don't break. DL rushes the passer, and if the DL can't get it done, then oh well. It was pathetic.

 

In the 2nd half, what I saw was closer to 1985. Suddenly, our CBs were playing bump and run. Suddenly, the team that seemed to play bend/break in the 1st half appeared to all hover over the LOS. I watched all three LBs, as well as Mike Brown, standing on top of the LOS. On the snap, one, two or even three would blitz. It was the closest thing to the mid 80s I have seen.

 

What was amazing to me was, how defensive Lovie Smith was after the game. Seriuosly, I will never forget it. Lovie was asked about the changes made at half time, and the difference in scheme/play calling. Lovie Smith, very annoyed, said we didn't change anything. He said the players simply began to execute. As shocked as I was, the reporters in the room seemed even more so. I remember the camera showing the expression of the media. If he wanted to say we were in the same scheme, but calling different plays, it would be one thing, but trying to say we did nothing different was an insult to anyone watching.

 

Frankly, many times I have heard Lovie Smith defend "his scheme" to the point of throwing coaches and players under the bus. This was the first of many times I recall him doing just that. He did not want to give credit to Rivera for making changes that altered the game. He did not want to admit the cover two may not have worked best that day, and a change was needed. He simply would not allow for any criticism of the cover two.

 

I am sure you will disagree all over the place, but I remember it all to well, and that is simply how I feel.

 

lol He went 7-9 with a crappy RB, a worse line (by your own admission), a revolving door at QB, and a defense decimated by injuries.

Then this year he went 9-7, one game out of the playoffs, with a rookie RB, no WR, a crap DL and secondary.

 

You don't think every non-playoff coach in the league can point to a dozen "reasons" the team missed the playoffs? I agree there are many reasons for our not making the playoffs the last two years. I would also point out Lovie absolutely factors in as well, but is not individual in that regard. But I just think you are missing the point. Every teams that misses the playoffs can point to a dozen (or more) reasons and excuses, but that only works for so long.

 

How about "hindsight is 20-20"? He hired Babich who was up for other D-Coord jobs in the league. So it wasn't just Lovie who thought Babich was coord material. Obviously, a bad move looking back. And it is also obvious that Rivera wasn't long for Chicago anyway. He was interviewing all over the league. Could he have overcome the injuries the defense had the following year? We really dont know, but I'm sure you think he could have sprinkled some magic 1985 fairy dust on Tommie's knee, the oline, Bensen, etc since he is from the "glory days".

 

Dude, let's get one thing straight. It is not that I believe Rivera was/is some mad genius that can turn iron into gold. I think he is a good coach, but it is FAR MORE about how bad Marinelli was, rather than how God-like Rivera was.

 

Also, I disagree 100% it is a matter of hindsight 20/20. Not when many questioned the move in the first place.

 

- You have said several times that Babich was up for DC jobs in the league. With who? Not saying he wasn't at all, but I just do not recall our LB coach being the huge attraction you make out. I remember well Rivera name out there for promotion, but not nearly so much Babich.

 

- Also, I hate this idea that "Rivera wasn't long for Chicago", and thus it was the right move to let him go. So you have a rising star who is drawing interest from other teams, so rather than ride that star as long as possible, you let him go? Sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. That is the epitomy of defeatist thinking.

 

- Finally, what could he have done for the team the following season? Do I he would have sprinkles magic dust and make them great? No. Do I believe we would have been better w/ him, yes? Seriously, it is this simple. Babich was an awful DC. Rivera was a good DC. You don't have to believe in magic to believe our defense would have been better w/ a better coach. Rivera may not have been able to do anything about the OL, Benson or the offense in geneneral, but I do not believe our defense would have been one of the bottom 3 ranked teams in the entire league.

 

Well that was really the point of the thread.

 

As often happens, the original point heads off into tangents. I avoided the original, as it just wasn't worth it. Tangent discussions can be more fun though:)

 

Fan or not, its hard to argue what Lovie has done to bring us back to relevance in the NFL.

 

This can be a whole other thread, but I think it has more to do w/ organizational structure than coach. Look, I am not trying to totally take away all credit from Lovie. But I think it has to be pointed out that hiring Lovie was not the only change the team made which may have had an effect on the team overall.

 

Since the 80s, our team has lacked an organizational structure most winning teams saw. We had a meddling owner that would not open the wallet for the team. We didn't have a GM, and didn't have people in place to make personnel decision who were competent to do so. Even when we had Hatley, who I felt was a very good personnel guy, he didn't have the power, and thus could only offer opinions. Even after we did hire a GM, he was forced to retain a coaching staff he did not want, and who did not run schemes he agreed with.

 

Finally, the day came when:

 

(a) We had an ownership that sat back and stayed out of daily operations.

( We had a President who also stayed out of day-to-day operations, and opened up the purse, allowing the GM to make moves never before possible.

© We had a GM who had a few years experience, and a game plan.

(d) We had a head coach the GM wanted, and who had a solid relationship together.

 

So while I am not trying to say Lovie has nothing to do with our recent success, I do believe it has more to do w/ the organizational power structure changes. IMHO, Wanny and Jauron may have looked like solid coaches if they were part of a similar structure, rather than the slap happy structure we had back then.

[nfoligno]

Lemon,

 

(a) Not sure it is fair to criticize Rivera for SD's defense. Rivera was the inside LB coach under Ted Cottrell after leaving Chicago. Last year, SD fired Cottrell, and Rivera was promoted, I believe around the bye week, which for them was midseason. The perception is that their defense was improved under Rivera. It wasn't great, but improved. So I am not sure it is fair to criticize Rivera for SD's defensive struggles when he was not in charge of the defense, and it did imporve once he took over.

 

( I don't recall Rivera ever being Lovie's choice. As I recall, after not being allowed to interview Marinelli, Lovie wanted Babich, but Lovie was not allowed him either. Can't recall whether it was Angelo, Phillips, or both, but Babich was considered too green, and the team wanted more of a name, which Rivera obviously was in Chicago. Rivera was never a Lovie choice, but at the time, Lovie didn't have the power to really fight for who/what he wanted.

 

I look at this whole Lovie/Rivera debate as similar to Ryan and Ditka. In each case neither has achieved the same success that they enjoyed when they were together. Since Rivera has been gone how successful has he been as San Diego's DC? They have a lot of talent on that defense but seem to come up short of being dominating. I remember Lovie chose Rivera himself and then realized they had philosophical differences. Lovie got a late start at assembling a staff as is the case whenever the Bears hire a new coach they rarely get their first choice and tend to drag their feet in the process. Lovie originally wanted Marinelli to run his defense but Tampa wouldn't let him go out of his contract. So he had an OC that didn't get off the bus running and a DC who came from a totally different scheme calling defensive signals. It seems he is content with Turner and now that Marinelli is here he should have what he thinks he needs to be succesful.

[madlithuanian]

Glad you did. Didn't seem like it.

 

Oh, I still think many of the wins came in spite of his coaching. In fact, I'm not really sure he coaches at all. He seems to let his coordinators do all the work, with no interjection that I can see. The few things I can give him credit for are that the players seem to like and respect him, he does appear overall to have the players in condition, he does seem to have a very good "start of the game" game plan, and he's delivered on some promises (beating Green Bay, going to the playoffs and SB...) I also believe he is a smart man. I think he can learn from his mistakes if his ego will let him. I don't foresee any action by the GM to let him go after this season. I think the Bears will do well and make the playoffs. We'll see if it's despite or in tandem w/ Smith. I think it'll be obvious in the end. I just hope that if Smith doesn't change his ways to become more adaptive, especially within games, that the management insn't lulled into thinking he can take us the distance. If Smith does make a change in some of his philosophy, then I think he find success even in the eyes of a crumudgeon like myself.

 

We've all seen what the Lakers did with Rudy T and with Phil... A good coach makes a huge difference, even if the pretty good coach gets them pretty far.

 

 

If he tanks again like he did the last time we went to a SB and lost, then we need a new HC.

 

 

Yeah I did.

 

 

 

Please dont act like you give Lovie credit for wins now. You always say the team wins in spite of him and kill him for losses.

[madlithuanian]

agreed. And that's where Smith failed...he did not adjust. When the elites went down, you must change your ways.

 

The problem is just that the scheme requires such an elite performance from the players that things go downhill badly when just a couple of guys can't do their jobs.

[nfoligno]

There is a fine line here to be considered.

 

When you have a DC and an OC, how much do you want the HC to meddle. As you said, Lovie is part of the pre-game planning, but once the game begins, how much do you want the HC usurping the authority of the coordinators?

 

Many of the things you are giving Lovie credit for are exactly what a HC is measured by. Pre-game planning/prep. Morale and conditioning of the players. Overall organizational aspects. While some disagree, I also give Lovie credit for allowing young players an opportunity to play/start (w/ some very obvious exceptions) while also giving veterans the opportunity to keep their job, even when their apparant replacement is on the roster. Much of what Lovie does I believe does fall w/in the expectations of a HC.

 

I too agree that a couple years ago, some of our wins were in spite of Lovie, or that our team (even in wins) could have simply been better. Much of that is based on the simple lack of confidence in his system, and the believe a different system could have simply been better.

 

I will say this though. I do believe Lovie has to get a significant amount of credit for last year. That was simply not a 9 win team, and I think you have to look at the coaching staff for credit. I give Turner a ton of credit for getting as much as he did, w/ as little as he had. I still do not have jack for respect for Babich, but also think it has to be pointed out that in the one or two areas on defense Lovie did take over, improvement was seen. Like the nickel back play.

 

I am still not a big Lovie fan, but also want to see what happens this year. At the end of the day, I think he really made his own bed w/ the Babich situation, and he needs to prove capable this year.

 

Glad you did. Didn't seem like it.

 

Oh, I still think many of the wins came in spite of his coaching. In fact, I'm not really sure he coaches at all. He seems to let his coordinators do all the work, with no interjection that I can see. The few things I can give him credit for are that the players seem to like and respect him, he does appear overall to have the players in condition, he does seem to have a very good "start of the game" game plan, and he's delivered on some promises (beating Green Bay, going to the playoffs and SB...) I also believe he is a smart man. I think he can learn from his mistakes if his ego will let him. I don't foresee any action by the GM to let him go after this season. I think the Bears will do well and make the playoffs. We'll see if it's despite or in tandem w/ Smith. I think it'll be obvious in the end. I just hope that if Smith doesn't change his ways to become more adaptive, especially within games, that the management insn't lulled into thinking he can take us the distance. If Smith does make a change in some of his philosophy, then I think he find success even in the eyes of a crumudgeon like myself.

 

We've all seen what the Lakers did with Rudy T and with Phil... A good coach makes a huge difference, even if the pretty good coach gets them pretty far.

[madlithuanian]

Very true.

 

I do think there is a fine line as you mention. You don't want a jerry jones atmosphere, but also, you want to know your HC will step in when it seems to be needed. I honestly don't feel that Smith has ever done that. At least I can't think of an instance.

 

You mentioned a few more areas Smith was good at that I missed! The young players point was good, but conversely, why not Bennett/ There just seems to be as many questionable non-starts as starts. Maybe no different than any other team...

 

I'm still not sure how much credit Smith gets for last year, other than by default. And that, I can't argue with. Maybe the decision alone to let Kyle play over Rex and the surprise of how good Forte was was all...

 

I do think Smith's a smart man...I just hope he learns from it, and doesn't let ego thwart that. I'll gladly re-embrace him as long as I feel he is successful being adaptive and not being stubborn to a fault.

 

 

 

There is a fine line here to be considered.

 

When you have a DC and an OC, how much do you want the HC to meddle. As you said, Lovie is part of the pre-game planning, but once the game begins, how much do you want the HC usurping the authority of the coordinators?

 

Many of the things you are giving Lovie credit for are exactly what a HC is measured by. Pre-game planning/prep. Morale and conditioning of the players. Overall organizational aspects. While some disagree, I also give Lovie credit for allowing young players an opportunity to play/start (w/ some very obvious exceptions) while also giving veterans the opportunity to keep their job, even when their apparant replacement is on the roster. Much of what Lovie does I believe does fall w/in the expectations of a HC.

 

I too agree that a couple years ago, some of our wins were in spite of Lovie, or that our team (even in wins) could have simply been better. Much of that is based on the simple lack of confidence in his system, and the believe a different system could have simply been better.

 

I will say this though. I do believe Lovie has to get a significant amount of credit for last year. That was simply not a 9 win team, and I think you have to look at the coaching staff for credit. I give Turner a ton of credit for getting as much as he did, w/ as little as he had. I still do not have jack for respect for Babich, but also think it has to be pointed out that in the one or two areas on defense Lovie did take over, improvement was seen. Like the nickel back play.

 

I am still not a big Lovie fan, but also want to see what happens this year. At the end of the day, I think he really made his own bed w/ the Babich situation, and he needs to prove capable this year.

[nfoligno]

Don't get me wrong. I am not a Lovie fan. I simply don't think you can totally take away credit for some of what has happened.

 

Honestly though, I wonder how much better he is than, say, Jauron. I see many simalarities. Both were the sort to stand back and let their coordinators do their job. Both were loyal to a fault (Jauron/Shoop - Lovie/Babich). Both had that "stoic" demeanor. Many will say we have seen more success under Lovie, but I still believe much of that has to do w/ the changes in organizational structure. Jauron had a GM in place, but one who never wanted him in the first place, and who did VERY little to support the coach, while Lovie has a GM doing anything possible to support the coach. Also, while we began to spend more pre-Lovie, it wasn't until after the new stadium deal that the purse opened wide.

 

So I do give Lovie a share of credit, but also believe much of the teams success has been due to other factors.

 

Very true.

 

I do think there is a fine line as you mention. You don't want a jerry jones atmosphere, but also, you want to know your HC will step in when it seems to be needed. I honestly don't feel that Smith has ever done that. At least I can't think of an instance.

 

You mentioned a few more areas Smith was good at that I missed! The young players point was good, but conversely, why not Bennett/ There just seems to be as many questionable non-starts as starts. Maybe no different than any other team...

 

I'm still not sure how much credit Smith gets for last year, other than by default. And that, I can't argue with. Maybe the decision alone to let Kyle play over Rex and the surprise of how good Forte was was all...

 

I do think Smith's a smart man...I just hope he learns from it, and doesn't let ego thwart that. I'll gladly re-embrace him as long as I feel he is successful being adaptive and not being stubborn to a fault.

[madlithuanian]

I'll give you that. As much as blame for errors, I should accept giving credit for positives.

 

I do see similarities between him and Jauron...and I think that's why I'm a bit gun-shy to call Smith good or great. ...for all the reasons you basically mention. Personally, the most bitter pill for me to smallow was after the SB loss. He got his loot, got his lackey in, and things have gone downhill since with the sole exception of Kyle and Forte I feel. I trusted him, like he asked me to, and I have been let down. He kept his word early on, but recently he has not. I just have a hard time trusting him now. Henceforth why I question every move. He simply has lost my carte blanc trust.

 

I think I'm on board on your assessment of the "other factors". There is a real theme there and as you mentioned in a previous post, it stems back to the ousting of Mikey McCaskey.

 

Thankfuly, I am a believer that it starts at the top. And in that department, we appear to be on the right track. I imagine as long as that continues to be a positive, everything else should fall into place. Winning franchises like the Pats and Steelers have good front offices...and now we appear to be getting closer to that than before.

 

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I am not a Lovie fan. I simply don't think you can totally take away credit for some of what has happened.

 

Honestly though, I wonder how much better he is than, say, Jauron. I see many simalarities. Both were the sort to stand back and let their coordinators do their job. Both were loyal to a fault (Jauron/Shoop - Lovie/Babich). Both had that "stoic" demeanor. Many will say we have seen more success under Lovie, but I still believe much of that has to do w/ the changes in organizational structure. Jauron had a GM in place, but one who never wanted him in the first place, and who did VERY little to support the coach, while Lovie has a GM doing anything possible to support the coach. Also, while we began to spend more pre-Lovie, it wasn't until after the new stadium deal that the purse opened wide.

 

So I do give Lovie a share of credit, but also believe much of the teams success has been due to other factors.

[nfoligno]

I never gave Lovie "carte blanc" trust. It is why I am considered such a nay-sayer on this board. I do not give anyone "benefit of doubt", at least not on all matters, nor do I have blind faith. I will criticize my favorite players/coach as easily as give praise to my biggest enemy. Hell, the fact that Angelo is my new BFF should be evidence of that.

 

Back to Lovie, I just feel the changes in our organization structure are significant, a major factor in our teams turnaround, and an aspect that so rarely gets consideration. Lovie is part of that change, but it is that big picture change I think is key to our turnaround, rather than simply who our HC, DC, OC, or GM (individually) is.

 

I'll give you that. As much as blame for errors, I should accept giving credit for positives.

 

I do see similarities between him and Jauron...and I think that's why I'm a bit gun-shy to call Smith good or great. ...for all the reasons you basically mention. Personally, the most bitter pill for me to smallow was after the SB loss. He got his loot, got his lackey in, and things have gone downhill since with the sole exception of Kyle and Forte I feel. I trusted him, like he asked me to, and I have been let down. He kept his word early on, but recently he has not. I just have a hard time trusting him now. Henceforth why I question every move. He simply has lost my carte blanc trust.

 

I think I'm on board on your assessment of the "other factors". There is a real theme there and as you mentioned in a previous post, it stems back to the ousting of Mikey McCaskey.

 

Thankfuly, I am a believer that it starts at the top. And in that department, we appear to be on the right track. I imagine as long as that continues to be a positive, everything else should fall into place. Winning franchises like the Pats and Steelers have good front offices...and now we appear to be getting closer to that than before.

[madlithuanian]

I fully admit, I gave him all the benefit of the doubt. I was just ecstatic that Jauron and Shoop n' Poop were gone! I figured anything'd be better! Having heard Smith's name a lot in prior years for HC jobs, I thought we probably landed a good one. I just kind of fell right into the trap. And early on, he really delivered. We beat Green Bay,etc... Later, once the novelty wore off, I started questioning. And this was really in the SB season. I tend to be more critical when we're doing well than not. I think because the expectation has simply gone up...and the team can't afford silly errors when making a legit run.

 

I do think, as we move forward and eventually get a new coach (either because Smith retires after 4 championships or is fired because the D sucks again), I will be a little more discerning. I won't be so ready to accept something different just because it's different. As you mentioned about the front office, my expectation now is simply higher now that we have some solid structure in place.

 

 

 

 

I never gave Lovie "carte blanc" trust. It is why I am considered such a nay-sayer on this board. I do not give anyone "benefit of doubt", at least not on all matters, nor do I have blind faith. I will criticize my favorite players/coach as easily as give praise to my biggest enemy. Hell, the fact that Angelo is my new BFF should be evidence of that.

 

Back to Lovie, I just feel the changes in our organization structure are significant, a major factor in our teams turnaround, and an aspect that so rarely gets consideration. Lovie is part of that change, but it is that big picture change I think is key to our turnaround, rather than simply who our HC, DC, OC, or GM (individually) is.