Perry Fewell for DC

[nfoligno]

Lovie is only a Lame Duck coach is he, and the team, fail. Similar can be said of many coaches (most) in the NFL. Lovie may be more on the hotseat, but a good season and the lame duck talk is null and void. Here in Dallas, not long ago, he was believed there was zero chance of Wade Phillips being w/ the team after this season. Well, Dallas finished strong and has made the playoffs (won the division in fact) and Jerry has already said they are picking up the 2010 option for Wade. Wade was more of a lame duck than Lovie due to Jason Garrett, yet the teams does well and all that talk fades.

 

Contractually, Lovie may well have the final say, but I just find it hard to believe he could do whatever he wants right now. He just doesn't have that sort of capital at this point.

 

Yesterday we were told that Smith has the final say in his staff. To me, that seems like he still holds the power. Maybe it's lip service, but until I see otherwise, I'm not going to think otherwise.

 

And really, you're kind of saying we have a lame duck ocach. How healthy is that?

 

[madlithuanian]

Agreed, stranger things have happened. But do you honestly feel that Smith is the right man for the job?

 

Lovie is only a Lame Duck coach is he, and the team, fail. Similar can be said of many coaches (most) in the NFL. Lovie may be more on the hotseat, but a good season and the lame duck talk is null and void. Here in Dallas, not long ago, he was believed there was zero chance of Wade Phillips being w/ the team after this season. Well, Dallas finished strong and has made the playoffs (won the division in fact) and Jerry has already said they are picking up the 2010 option for Wade. Wade was more of a lame duck than Lovie due to Jason Garrett, yet the teams does well and all that talk fades.

 

Contractually, Lovie may well have the final say, but I just find it hard to believe he could do whatever he wants right now. He just doesn't have that sort of capital at this point.

 

[Pixote]

I found this article about Fewell. I am getting to like this guy. I hope when he interviews with us next week he does not leave without signing a contract.

 

http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/...ccountable.html

 

The title says it all: Bowen: Fewell would hold players accountable

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Probably the best option we are going to get at this point.

 

Peace

 

Buffalo had a strong pass defense despite a lot of injuries. Fewell would be a real real nice fit, imo.

[nfoligno]

NOOOOOOOOO!

 

If that isn't clear enough, HELL NO!

 

I ripped Smith back when he was the HC of a team going to the SB. Hell, go back to when we hired him, and I blasted the move then. I always thought he was over-rated, and his defense was average at best in St.L, and lived off turnovers due more to the greatest show on turf forcing teams to become one dimensional by halftime.

 

My argument is far more than those under the HC are as important, and likely more so, than the HC himself.

 

Our HC has virtually nothing to do w/ the offense. Everyone points this out. The OC has near autonomy.

 

We have one of the best special teams coaches in the game, and I think he too is given a lot of freedom. Thus the HC really has little to do w/ this area either.

 

The HC has a defensive background, and has forced his cover two scheme onto the team. At the same time, when we had Rivera calling the plays within Lovie's scheme, our defense was considered elite. So as much as I dislike the scheme, I think the playcalling within the scheme, as well as when to use what, are more a factor than Lovie mentioning the cover two. Often I saw our D look good on 1st and 2nd down, but the playcall on 3rd down was a joke and we would give up big 3rd down completions. Babich couldn't call a game to save his life, and Lovie didn't fair much better. Improve our DC and I think it can have a greater effect on the defense than many believe. How often did it seem like an offense called just the right play to beat our defense? You can turn that around and simply say our defensive call was simply wrong on that play. That isn't the HC. That's the DC.

 

Okay, how about player development. Is it the HC who usually gets credit for developing young players, or does that go to the assistants?

 

I am not saying the HC isn't important, but I am saying his supporting coaches are as important and likely more than simply the HC himself. I actually like Hoke as the DB coach, Babich as the LB coach and Marinelli as the DL coach. If we upgrade the guy who actually calls defensive plays, I think our defense can improve. On offense, we basically fired everyone, and have a chance to see big improvements there. Lovie has nothing to do w/ that.

 

So no, I do not believe Lovie is the right man for the job. At the same time, I believe you can have a boss who isn't great, but if you have numerous solid managers below him, your business can still run very well.

 

Agreed, stranger things have happened. But do you honestly feel that Smith is the right man for the job?

 

[defiantgiant]

Buffalo had a strong pass defense despite a lot of injuries. Fewell would be a real real nice fit, imo.

Yeah, Buffalo got devastated by injuries, and Jauron put together an extremely undersized front seven, but Fewell still managed to get decent production out of them. They were close to a Lions/Rams type of talent deficit on D, but they finished midpack in yards and points and #2 in passing defense. That speaks to good coaching. Also, like nfo said, he coached our DBs back when they were picking everybody off. If he could get our secondary back to that form, we'd be a much better defense.

 

Ideally, I'd rather have Mike Zimmer than Fewell, since he runs a totally non-Tampa-2 defense. Zimmer, I think, could be like Rivera - he's got experience running both 4-3 and 3-4 defenses, he heads up a defense that can both stuff the run and get takeaways, and his players play incredibly hard for him (which is something we're badly missing on this defense.) Zimmer would be my first choice, but I'd be OK with Fewell.

[madlithuanian]

Thank you! My stomach is now settled!

 

I completley get what you're saying. I'm just holding steadfast, right or wrong, to not trusting JA and LS to make good decisions on their hires.

 

NOOOOOOOOO!

 

If that isn't clear enough, HELL NO!

 

I ripped Smith back when he was the HC of a team going to the SB. Hell, go back to when we hired him, and I blasted the move then. I always thought he was over-rated, and his defense was average at best in St.L, and lived off turnovers due more to the greatest show on turf forcing teams to become one dimensional by halftime.

 

My argument is far more than those under the HC are as important, and likely more so, than the HC himself.

 

Our HC has virtually nothing to do w/ the offense. Everyone points this out. The OC has near autonomy.

 

We have one of the best special teams coaches in the game, and I think he too is given a lot of freedom. Thus the HC really has little to do w/ this area either.

 

The HC has a defensive background, and has forced his cover two scheme onto the team. At the same time, when we had Rivera calling the plays within Lovie's scheme, our defense was considered elite. So as much as I dislike the scheme, I think the playcalling within the scheme, as well as when to use what, are more a factor than Lovie mentioning the cover two. Often I saw our D look good on 1st and 2nd down, but the playcall on 3rd down was a joke and we would give up big 3rd down completions. Babich couldn't call a game to save his life, and Lovie didn't fair much better. Improve our DC and I think it can have a greater effect on the defense than many believe. How often did it seem like an offense called just the right play to beat our defense? You can turn that around and simply say our defensive call was simply wrong on that play. That isn't the HC. That's the DC.

 

Okay, how about player development. Is it the HC who usually gets credit for developing young players, or does that go to the assistants?

 

I am not saying the HC isn't important, but I am saying his supporting coaches are as important and likely more than simply the HC himself. I actually like Hoke as the DB coach, Babich as the LB coach and Marinelli as the DL coach. If we upgrade the guy who actually calls defensive plays, I think our defense can improve. On offense, we basically fired everyone, and have a chance to see big improvements there. Lovie has nothing to do w/ that.

 

So no, I do not believe Lovie is the right man for the job. At the same time, I believe you can have a boss who isn't great, but if you have numerous solid managers below him, your business can still run very well.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

I ripped Smith back when he was the HC of a team going to the SB. Hell, go back to when we hired him, and I blasted the move then. I always thought he was over-rated, and his defense was average at best in St.L, and lived off turnovers due more to the greatest show on turf forcing teams to become one dimensional by halftime.

 

My argument is far more than those under the HC are as important, and likely more so, than the HC himself.

 

what???? are you serious?

 

who in most instances works with the gm in finding the assistants or flat out wants this control himself? who moves the team forward and emphasizes which aspects need to be changed or improved upon in all aspects of the game? who holds these assistants accountable (or should)? who dictates the TYPE of offense and/or defense that the team is going to run simply based upon the HC's strengths and knowledge and his ability to judge not only subordinate coaching talent but player talent on his team and how to get the most out of that talent? who makes the final decisions on how to attack opponents on gameday (or should)?

 

this is like saying the first mate or the guy swabbing the deck is more important than the freaking captain of your ship.

 

Our HC has virtually nothing to do w/ the offense. Everyone points this out. The OC has near autonomy.

 

and this has been a major problem in my opinion WITH lovie smith!! i don't expect HC's to be D and O geniuses but i DO expect them to be knowledgeable enough to understand what works and what doesn't work and convey/impliment this TO his coordinators!!!! lovie smith just doesn't know enough about offense to even have any constructive input to make a difference. he basically just mouths some buzz words in press conferences and lets his offensive coordinator have full control. hell even shea got no input from lovie OR didn't listen to him anyway and he was a complete idiot. how do you explain that???

 

this brings me to lovie's failings even on the defensive side of the ball. in my opinion he is so limited in knowledge that as a one trick pony he doesn't have the brains to even realize it doesn't work or if he does, the ability to change it. it's called arrogance and stupidity if you don't want to listen to someone who knows more than you do or has a better way to impliment it to make a poor product better.

 

seriously... in another post you said "please don't put me in a situation of defending him". well just what is it if you are doing if not defending him? if you want to defend him for whatever reasons i have no problem with that but at least say you are and stand by it. just don't give us both sides and the middle.

 

 

[nfoligno]

who in most instances works with the gm in finding the assistants or flat out wants this control himself? who moves the team forward and emphasizes which aspects need to be changed or improved upon in all aspects of the game? who holds these assistants accountable (or should)? who dictates the TYPE of offense and/or defense that the team is going to run simply based upon the HC's strengths and knowledge and his ability to judge not only subordinate coaching talent but player talent on his team and how to get the most out of that talent? who makes the final decisions on how to attack opponents on gameday (or should)?

 

And how does the work on gameday. I am not saying, and repeated this, that a HC is not important. I am saying the importance of those under him is equally important. You mention, for example, who holds the assistants accountable? Well, if you have quality assistants doing a good job, you don't so often have to worry about such. You need to hold assistants responsible when they are not getting it done.

 

You talk about scheme and game plan, and yes, that is the HC. But on game day, playcalling and adjustements are bigger. Our defense, w/ Lovie as the HC, was dominant with Rivera calling plays. Lovie still devised the game plan and scheme, but Rivera called the plays and could better adapt when needed.

 

this is like saying the first mate or the guy swabbing the deck is more important than the freaking captain of your ship.

 

Okay, have your HC (captain), DC (first mate) OC (navigator) and lets throw in the special teams coach to get all three phases (Sargeant at arms). Captain says where to go, but the navigator gets you there. Captain tells the first mate what he wants, but the 1st mate works w/ the crew to get it done. Captain wants to defend his ship, or attack another, but its the sargeant at arms in charge of the marines that makes sure it gets done.

 

Okay, maybe a hokey analogy, but you started it Seriously though, while not saying the HC isn't important, at the same time, I do think there the staff below are of equal import. You can game plan and practice all you want, but on game days, those plans so often have to be thrown out the window. It is on game days teams win or lose, not in the planning leading up to games. And on game days, it is more the staff below the HC than the HC himself that carries the day.

 

and this has been a major problem in my opinion WITH lovie smith!! i don't expect HC's to be D and O geniuses but i DO expect them to be knowledgeable enough to understand what works and what doesn't work and convey/impliment this TO his coordinators!!!! lovie smith just doesn't know enough about offense to even have any constructive input to make a difference. he basically just mouths some buzz words in press conferences and lets his offensive coordinator have full control. hell even shea got no input from lovie OR didn't listen to him anyway and he was a complete idiot. how do you explain that???

 

Honestly, I just don't know how different that is from most places. Here in Dallas, you have Wade Phillips as the HC, but Jason Garrett pretty much has full control over the offense. We have done it your way before though. Jauron liked the very conservative offenses, and thus often made sure kept everything close to the vest. That's what you want? Sorry, but even if the HC has "some" knowledge of the other side of the ball, who do you want making decisions? The HC w/ "some" knowledge or the OC who is supposed to have loads of it. IMHO, your opinion here is more based on Turner than Lovie. If we had a good/great OC, I just don't think you would be so upset we didn't have a HC sticking his nose into the offenses affairs.

 

this brings me to lovie's failings even on the defensive side of the ball. in my opinion he is so limited in knowledge that as a one trick pony he doesn't have the brains to even realize it doesn't work or if he does, the ability to change it. it's called arrogance and stupidity if you don't want to listen to someone who knows more than you do or has a better way to impliment it to make a poor product better.

 

Absolutely no argument here, and is actually what I have been saying for years. Go back to when we hired Lovie. Said then I didn't like him or his defense. When we hired Rivera, I wasn't thrilled because of his former ties to the bears. I was thrilled because, while he was not experienced as a DC, he was experienced in numerous different defensive schemes. He played in several, including the 46. And his time w/ Jimmy Johnson was huge. I even felt his learning the cover two would be a good thing too as he would create a bit of a mix of schemes. In many ways, that is what I think we got. We all talk about the cover two, but really don't run it more than 40% (or less) of the time. Anyway, when a team would attack our cover two, Rivera better knew how to adapt and change. Babich and Lovie have never known other than the cover two, and thus just don't have the knowledge to adapt.

 

That has always been a criticism of mine. But my point is that if you have a better, more well rounded DC, he could work within the general idea of the cover two Lovie wants, while still being able to make the defense as a whole effective.

 

seriously... in another post you said "please don't put me in a situation of defending him". well just what is it if you are doing if not defending him? if you want to defend him for whatever reasons i have no problem with that but at least say you are and stand by it. just don't give us both sides and the middle.

 

You are misunderstanding my point entirely. I do not like Lovie Smith. I have never cared for him, do not today. But if asked whether we can win w/ Lovie Smith, my answer is yes. I would say we need a strong group of assistants, but we can absolutely make that happen. Frankly, I think Lovie's 2nd and 3rd seasons basically proves my point. Even w/ Lovie and his cover two, Rivera (and can I throw in Brick Haley) ran a defense that was considered elite. Further, we had Toub running an elite special teams. Not much by way of offense, but we have a chance now to improve that area as well.

 

So you say I am on the fence. I am not. I don't like Lovie, and I would much rather he were fired. But, yes there is a but, if asked whether I believe we can win with Lovie, my answer would be yes, so long as the assistants under him are good enough.

[Lucky Luciano]

And how does the work on gameday. I am not saying, and repeated this, that a HC is not important. I am saying the importance of those under him is equally important. You mention, for example, who holds the assistants accountable? Well, if you have quality assistants doing a good job, you don't so often have to worry about such. You need to hold assistants responsible when they are not getting it done.

 

You talk about scheme and game plan, and yes, that is the HC. But on game day, playcalling and adjustements are bigger. Our defense, w/ Lovie as the HC, was dominant with Rivera calling plays. Lovie still devised the game plan and scheme, but Rivera called the plays and could better adapt when needed.

 

well then what does this mean? "those under the HC are as important, and likely more so, than the HC himself."

 

onward: what you are failing to see is that the people under him are usually HIS choice in the first place and it is HIS job to govern what they are doing not only on the field game day but in training camp, practice etc. etc. throughout the entire season.

 

now, not a single defensive coach was fired, not even ONE and... what does he say about running the defense as well as being HC? well gee... it was a bit more work doing both jobs than i thought it would be so we better hire one because it's too much work? hmmmm. wasn't this idiot a defensive coordinator BEFORE he became our head coach? hasn't he been a head coach for over SIX YEARS??? and now it's a surprise how hard the dual job is? what has he been doing over the last 10_+ years???

 

in fact isn't baboonich still our DC? i never heard of his demotion have you? if this monkey on a stick wasn't good enough to be DC and lovie had to take over his job THIS year what does that say about lovies decision of keeping him for TWO years?????? any and ALL problems with this defense is soley on lovies shoulders, period. it's his baby and at least 50% of our offensive problems SHOULD also be on his shoulders!!

 

and... isn't it the freaking HC's job to make changes on gameday EVEN if whatever coordinator of his choosing (or not) is running the show and is failing? or does a HC just sit back on game day listening to new kids on the block in his headset and hope everything turns out great in the end and make his decisions/evaluations on TUESDAY watching game film???????????

 

Okay, have your HC (captain), DC (first mate) OC (navigator) and lets throw in the special teams coach to get all three phases (Sargeant at arms). Captain says where to go, but the navigator gets you there. Captain tells the first mate what he wants, but the 1st mate works w/ the crew to get it done. Captain wants to defend his ship, or attack another, but its the sargeant at arms in charge of the marines that makes sure it gets done.

 

all i can say is if you had been in charge during the 40's we would all be speaking japanese.

 

Okay, maybe a hokey analogy, but you started it Seriously though, while not saying the HC isn't important, at the same time, I do think there the staff below are of equal import. You can game plan and practice all you want, but on game days, those plans so often have to be thrown out the window. It is on game days teams win or lose, not in the planning leading up to games. And on game days, it is more the staff below the HC than the HC himself that carries the day.

 

the importance of game planning AND especially practice is just that... planning to play your opponents and planning for contingencies when things change during the week and at gametime. it's what you learn in pop warner for X's sake.

 

if x team does this, we do that. if x player gets hot we do this. it's plain common sense and strategic planning anyone worth jack $%!& knows and does playing/coaching football. you don't wait until halftime or the day after to figure it out or you just lost the battle. THAT is the job of the head coach on gameday to bring this learned practical information and practice to bear NOW through his coordinators and players.

 

 

 

and this has been a major problem in my opinion WITH lovie smith!! i don't expect HC's to be D and O geniuses but i DO expect them to be knowledgeable enough to understand what works and what doesn't work and convey/impliment this TO his coordinators!!!! lovie smith just doesn't know enough about offense to even have any constructive input to make a difference. he basically just mouths some buzz words in press conferences and lets his offensive coordinator have full control. hell even shea got no input from lovie OR didn't listen to him anyway and he was a complete idiot. how do you explain that???

 

Honestly, I just don't know how different that is from most places. Here in Dallas, you have Wade Phillips as the HC, but Jason Garrett pretty much has full control over the offense. We have done it your way before though. Jauron liked the very conservative offenses, and thus often made sure kept everything close to the vest. That's what you want? Sorry, but even if the HC has "some" knowledge of the other side of the ball, who do you want making decisions? The HC w/ "some" knowledge or the OC who is supposed to have loads of it. IMHO, your opinion here is more based on Turner than Lovie. If we had a good/great OC, I just don't think you would be so upset we didn't have a HC sticking his nose into the offenses affairs.

 

where do you keep coming up with this stuff? most head coaches in the nfl let their coordinators do anything they want with no input or final say? a GIANT whatever!!!

 

do you think if wade phillips saw garrett running a WR midget up the middle against the williams budahs in minny for no gain for half a dozen 3 and out series he would have no say in the matter? does wade then call jerry and ask for permission to change the type of plays coming in from garrett on tuesday after the game? if so the dallas org is nuttier than i ever dreamed possible.

 

you now throw out jauron... that imbecile let his OC get him fired for running garbage gameplans and again not knowing enough (sound familiar) to do anything constructive about it or even understand the offensive player talent on his own roster.

 

but just to be sure i get you.... you are saying that a HC whose forte' is not offense (or visa-versa) should just let his coordinators do anything they want to right? that when his team FAILS to outscore/stop it's opponents year in and year out we should just fire the coordinators because it's their job on gameday??? like, "it's not my job man, you figure it out".

 

the point is if we HAD good coordinators lovie wouldn't NEED to stick his nose into their affairs.

 

Babich and Lovie have never known other than the cover two, and thus just don't have the knowledge to adapt.

didn't you just tell me in another post how good a job baboonich did as our linebackers coach? yikes!!

 

You are misunderstanding my point entirely. I do not like Lovie Smith. I have never cared for him, do not today. But if asked whether we can win w/ Lovie Smith, my answer is yes. I would say we need a strong group of assistants, but we can absolutely make that happen. Frankly, I think Lovie's 2nd and 3rd seasons basically proves my point. Even w/ Lovie and his cover two, Rivera (and can I throw in Brick Haley) ran a defense that was considered elite. Further, we had Toub running an elite special teams. Not much by way of offense, but we have a chance now to improve that area as well

 

So you say I am on the fence. I am not. I don't like Lovie, and I would much rather he were fired. But, yes there is a but, if asked whether I believe we can win with Lovie, my answer would be yes, so long as the assistants under him are good enough..

 

if you believe what you say then i see absolutely no reason for you to want to get rid of lovie. just hire better coordinators. in fact there is no reason to ever hire good head coaches. just good assistants.

 

finally........... and all this time i just misunderstood dave wannstedt and dick jauron and lovie smith. if only we could have dave and dick back with better coordinators.

 

 

[nfoligno]

onward: what you are failing to see is that the people under him are usually HIS choice in the first place and it is HIS job to govern what they are doing not only on the field game day but in training camp, practice etc. etc. throughout the entire season.

 

now, not a single defensive coach was fired, not even ONE and... what does he say about running the defense as well as being HC? well gee... it was a bit more work doing both jobs than i thought it would be so we better hire one because it's too much work? hmmmm. wasn't this idiot a defensive coordinator BEFORE he became our head coach? hasn't he been a head coach for over SIX YEARS??? and now it's a surprise how hard the dual job is? what has he been doing over the last 10_+ years???

 

One, we basically fired everyone last year. This year, the only one replaced is Lovie, at least as the DC.

 

Two, no reason to argue how stupid it was for Lovie to initially take the DC role, nor for him to now say it was harder than expected. I said then it was a bad idea. Again, I think you forget, I never thought much of Lovie as a DC, prior to his joining the Bears.

 

in fact isn't baboonich still our DC? i never heard of his demotion have you? if this monkey on a stick wasn't good enough to be DC and lovie had to take over his job THIS year what does that say about lovies decision of keeping him for TWO years?????? any and ALL problems with this defense is soley on lovies shoulders, period. it's his baby and at least 50% of our offensive problems SHOULD also be on his shoulders!!

 

One, if you go back, I blasted Lovie when he promoted Babich. Two, I blasted Lovie for taking so long to make a change. Three, I have blasted Lovie and said most of the issues on defense are on him. Not sure of your reason to this argument. My point is going back to when Rivera was here as evidence that, even w/ Lovie as the HC, our defense can still do very well.

 

As for offense, no, I just do not put that nearly as much on Lovie. I would say it was far more about (a) initially the lack of a QB and ( Turner. After getting a QB, and our offense still struggling, our OC was dumped, and justly so. To be discussed further below, but I think HCs are less involved w/ the side of the ball that is not their forte than you make out.

 

and... isn't it the freaking HC's job to make changes on gameday EVEN if whatever coordinator of his choosing (or not) is running the show and is failing? or does a HC just sit back on game day listening to new kids on the block in his headset and hope everything turns out great in the end and make his decisions/evaluations on TUESDAY watching game film???????????

 

Using us as the example, I ripped Lovie for not stepping in sooner w/ Babich. On offense, no, I do not fault him nearly as much. I fault our OC.

 

all i can say is if you had been in charge during the 40's we would all be speaking japanese.

 

And if you were in charge, we would see a mutiny. Oh, the fun w/ these analogies

 

the importance of game planning AND especially practice is just that... planning to play your opponents and planning for contingencies when things change during the week and at gametime. it's what you learn in pop warner for X's sake.

 

if x team does this, we do that. if x player gets hot we do this. it's plain common sense and strategic planning anyone worth jack $%!& knows and does playing/coaching football. you don't wait until halftime or the day after to figure it out or you just lost the battle. THAT is the job of the head coach on gameday to bring this learned practical information and practice to bear NOW through his coordinators and players.

 

I would argue the HC is more involved on a higher level than the details. I do not believe it is the norm for a HC to be involved such to the extent that if you see a team in X alignment, he says we need to shift to X set. And then go through every possible alignment. I would argue that is far more the job of the OC and DC. Why the hell do we even have an OC and DC if, according to you, the HC decides every formation and playcall anyway?

 

where do you keep coming up with this stuff? most head coaches in the nfl let their coordinators do anything they want with no input or final say? a GIANT whatever!!!

 

You always seem to enjoy taking it to extremes. I never said the HC doesn't have any involvement what-so-ever. But at the same time, I think the involvement of a defensive background HC is limited in the running of the offense.

 

do you think if wade phillips saw garrett running a WR midget up the middle against the williams budahs in minny for no gain for half a dozen 3 and out series he would have no say in the matter? does wade then call jerry and ask for permission to change the type of plays coming in from garrett on tuesday after the game? if so the dallas org is nuttier than i ever dreamed possible.

 

Funny you bring up such an example, as there was a bit of a funny situation this year. Early on, Dallas was racking up like 200 yards on the ground a game. They have a huge OL, and a trio of RBs no one seemed able to stop. For some reason, Garrett went absolutely pass happy. There was a game when Dallas got to the 1 yard line, and then Garrett called for 4 passing plays in a row (going for it on 4th down) and they turned it over on downs. They did this even though their RBs were averaging like 7 or 8 yards a carry. Wade did nothing to step in, and when reporters questioned why the offense got away from the run, not just in that game but in others, Wade basically had no answer. He didn't even say it was a problem. Jerry then stepped in and said they needed to run the ball more and especially needed to get Felix Jones more carries. So in the next game, Garrett went overboard, and kept running his backs into stonewalls. Most felt it was as if he was making a point.

 

Mentioning this (a) to point out that in fact not all HCs get involved w/ the other side of the ball, ( it isn't always best for a non-offense oriented guy (jerry in this case) getting involved and © yes, in fact, Dallas is just that messes up.

 

you now throw out jauron... that imbecile let his OC get him fired for running garbage gameplans and again not knowing enough (sound familiar) to do anything constructive about it or even understand the offensive player talent on his own roster.

 

What I personally think you fail to recall though is, that conservative offense we ran was one in which the HC, Jauron, wanted.

 

but just to be sure i get you.... you are saying that a HC whose forte' is not offense (or visa-versa) should just let his coordinators do anything they want to right? that when his team FAILS to outscore/stop it's opponents year in and year out we should just fire the coordinators because it's their job on gameday??? like, "it's not my job man, you figure it out".

 

Again you go to extremes and saying "do anything they want". No, if Turner sent Wolfe up the gut against Minny play in and play out, I would expect even Lovie to step in and ask Turner what the hell he is doing. But otherwise, you get what I am saying. Sticking w/ the Bears, I do not want Lovie getting overly involved and telling our OC what plays to call, or how to run the offense. It is simply not what Lovie knows, and if he doesn't trust his OC enough to get the job done, or if our offense is not getting the job done, then I think a change needs to be made. Prior to this year, I thought the problem on offense was more about talent, as I was never a fan of Rex, and then we had all those years w/ the likes of Krenzel, Hutchinson, Shea, etc. But this year showed me that even if talent was a key problem, so was the OC.

 

I think if you went around the league, you would find few D background HCs nearly as involved in the offense as you would make out. I think the HC relies on the OC to get it done, and if that doesn't happen, a change is made.

 

the point is if we HAD good coordinators lovie wouldn't NEED to stick his nose into their affairs.

 

Hmm, seems like this is exactly what I said.

 

didn't you just tell me in another post how good a job baboonich did as our linebackers coach? yikes!!

 

Yes, I did. Babich knows little in terms of scheme beyond the cover two, but that doesn't mean he can teach and develop his players (as a LB coach).

 

if you believe what you say then i see absolutely no reason for you to want to get rid of lovie. just hire better coordinators. in fact there is no reason to ever hire good head coaches. just good assistants.

 

Once again, you misunderstand. I am not saying our situation, even if we hire a bunch of great assistants, is ideal. My point is not that is what you want, but simply that you can win w/ that situation. If you have a weak leader, you can still win if you have great support, but the room for error is slim. I would much rather get rid of Lovie. Because we have a weak HC, we need not just good, but damn good assistants. If we had a better HC, that may not be the case. But my point is simply that we can win w/ Lovie as the HC, depending on how good our assistants are. Evidence of that is when we had Rivera running the D. You argue theory, but offer nothing to contradict this. We went to the SB w/ freaking Rex Grossman. Lovie was our HC, and yet we had an elite defense. Hell, and we went to the SB w/ a weak OC too. Point is, our team did have success w/ Lovie as head coach, but we had a much better DC. After we replaced Rivera, our defense tanked, but if we again add a quality DC, it could be good again. I don't think it can be elite like it was as I don't think we have the talent we did then, but I also think our offense could be much better than it was w/ Cutler at QB and a better OC.

 

finally........... and all this time i just misunderstood dave wannstedt and dick jauron and lovie smith. if only we could have dave and dick back with better coordinators.

 

Again, it isn't that I would want them back, or even that I want Lovie. Only saying that you can have a lesser HC if you have better assistants. It isn't that should be the goal, or that it is the ideal, but only that it is possible.

[AZ54]

I'll jump in on this. In OUR situation with a weak head coach the assistants are more important to the success of the team. IF we had a head coach who was a good DC then I feel he could more effectively act as a DC or at least provide good insight and coaching into the meeting room and during the game; and in that situation a lesser skilled DC would work for us.

 

As far as the military analogy we (officers) always knew if we had a good first sergeant the squadron would run well. In short, putting quality people in key supporting roles makes a big difference in an organization. That is the managers job, or in the Bears case, the head coaches job. I'm not a fan of Lovie anymore and wish he were gone. Now that the decision to keep him around has been made if we want success on D we need to bring in a DC who will be independent enough to run the show, even if they are nominally running his cover 2. I see other teams run a cover 2 where they actually cover WRs so it can be done...Pittsburgh won a Superbowl with the cover 2.

[nfoligno]

Nicely put, and far more concise than I normally offer

 

Yea, my intention is not to say that HCs are not important. And I agree 100% that a strong HC has far greater importance. But we have a weak HC and thus the importance of the assistance is very high. My key point though has always been that if you have a very strong group of assistants, even under a weak HC, you can still have success.

 

Regarding the scheme, we run the cover two (reportedly) only about 30-40% of the time. IMHO it is not so much that we run the cover two plays, but when we do. The Sun Times had a GREAT article pointing out how often (most of the time) we ran the cover two when in 3rd and long situations, and pointed to that as a direct reason we were among the worst teams in the NFL defending 3rd and long.

 

To me, it isn't simply saying "cover two". The problem is not that we run it a 1/3 or however much of the time. Indy, Carolina and others run it with success. Two big differences though are: (a) other teams seem to run the cover two at more appropriate times, where as we always run it in the same situations, become predictable and thus easier to attack and ( other teams do more to alter/shift/adapt their cover two. Indy is a great example, and an article points out all the things they have done to "tweak" their cover two, while we are still by and large running it the same way TB did years ago. The league has adjusted to the cover two TB made so popular. Other defenses that like the cover two have adjusted to those adjustments. Lovie has not, and still believes the original way should work.

 

 

 

I'll jump in on this. In OUR situation with a weak head coach the assistants are more important to the success of the team. IF we had a head coach who was a good DC then I feel he could more effectively act as a DC or at least provide good insight and coaching into the meeting room and during the game; and in that situation a lesser skilled DC would work for us.

 

As far as the military analogy we (officers) always knew if we had a good first sergeant the squadron would run well. In short, putting quality people in key supporting roles makes a big difference in an organization. That is the managers job, or in the Bears case, the head coaches job. I'm not a fan of Lovie anymore and wish he were gone. Now that the decision to keep him around has been made if we want success on D we need to bring in a DC who will be independent enough to run the show, even if they are nominally running his cover 2. I see other teams run a cover 2 where they actually cover WRs so it can be done...Pittsburgh won a Superbowl with the cover 2.

 

[madlithuanian]

Just remember, it's hard to soar like and eagle when you work for a bunch of turkeys.

 

Nicely put, and far more concise than I normally offer

 

Yea, my intention is not to say that HCs are not important. And I agree 100% that a strong HC has far greater importance. But we have a weak HC and thus the importance of the assistance is very high. My key point though has always been that if you have a very strong group of assistants, even under a weak HC, you can still have success.

 

Regarding the scheme, we run the cover two (reportedly) only about 30-40% of the time. IMHO it is not so much that we run the cover two plays, but when we do. The Sun Times had a GREAT article pointing out how often (most of the time) we ran the cover two when in 3rd and long situations, and pointed to that as a direct reason we were among the worst teams in the NFL defending 3rd and long.

 

To me, it isn't simply saying "cover two". The problem is not that we run it a 1/3 or however much of the time. Indy, Carolina and others run it with success. Two big differences though are: (a) other teams seem to run the cover two at more appropriate times, where as we always run it in the same situations, become predictable and thus easier to attack and ( other teams do more to alter/shift/adapt their cover two. Indy is a great example, and an article points out all the things they have done to "tweak" their cover two, while we are still by and large running it the same way TB did years ago. The league has adjusted to the cover two TB made so popular. Other defenses that like the cover two have adjusted to those adjustments. Lovie has not, and still believes the original way should work.

 

[Connorbear]

Just remember, it's hard to soar like and eagle when you work for a bunch of turkeys.

Sounds like a documentary:

 

"Soaring with Turkeys - The 2009 Chicago Bears"

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

#1 with a bullet!

 

Sounds like a documentary:

 

"Soaring with Turkeys - The 2009 Chicago Bears"

 

Peace

 

[xvflutop]

History. So far, Smith has basically hired his own yes-men when given the chance.

 

Smith appears so amazingly stubborn, that I see no evidence that he wouldn't interfere w/ Fewell or anyone who dared to veer away too far from his baby.

 

Sorry, I need to actually see something different before I even remotely give anything involving Smith any sliver of a benefit of a doubt.

 

Like i said, I think it will be better. it's hard not to be worse.

 

I think the big thing to consider is Lovie's head is now firmly on the chopping block. I couldn't imagine him messing with anything that is successful just because he wants to see his scheme used.

[madlithuanian]

Never underestimate the power of ego. Espcially when you'll be paid a ludicrous sum whether you do well or not.

 

I think the big thing to consider is Lovie's head is now firmly on the chopping block. I couldn't imagine him messing with anything that is successful just because he wants to see his scheme used.

 

[AZ54]

Nicely put, and far more concise than I normally offer

 

Yea, my intention is not to say that HCs are not important. And I agree 100% that a strong HC has far greater importance. But we have a weak HC and thus the importance of the assistance is very high. My key point though has always been that if you have a very strong group of assistants, even under a weak HC, you can still have success.

 

Regarding the scheme, we run the cover two (reportedly) only about 30-40% of the time. IMHO it is not so much that we run the cover two plays, but when we do. The Sun Times had a GREAT article pointing out how often (most of the time) we ran the cover two when in 3rd and long situations, and pointed to that as a direct reason we were among the worst teams in the NFL defending 3rd and long.

 

To me, it isn't simply saying "cover two". The problem is not that we run it a 1/3 or however much of the time. Indy, Carolina and others run it with success. Two big differences though are: (a) other teams seem to run the cover two at more appropriate times, where as we always run it in the same situations, become predictable and thus easier to attack and ( other teams do more to alter/shift/adapt their cover two. Indy is a great example, and an article points out all the things they have done to "tweak" their cover two, while we are still by and large running it the same way TB did years ago. The league has adjusted to the cover two TB made so popular. Other defenses that like the cover two have adjusted to those adjustments. Lovie has not, and still believes the original way should work.

 

I agree on the cover 2. It's not about concept but how you apply the concept. For all the griping about the cover 2 you don't here much talk about us going to a cover 3, cover 1, or cover 0 and 4-3 versus 3-4 doesn't determine the DB coverage scheme behind the front 7. I'm far from a football analyst and really can't say much about any cover system except this; Any pass coverage should require players to stop the completion and not just to make a tackle after the catch. I don't have a problem defending the first down line on 3rd and long and forcing plays underneath and making the tackle.

 

Lovie doesn't apply his zone scheme effectively as we drop back to far to defend the first down line. From here on out it's the Lovie 2 we don't like not necessarily the cover 2 or even the Tampa 2 (seeing as Tampa's DBs were much more effective in pass coverage back in the day). Lovie doesn't adapt his scheme to what teams are doing to defeat him (i.e. RB dumpoffs as in Minn game, slants as in Packer game). Things that are obvious to fans.

[Lucky Luciano]

One, we basically fired everyone last year. This year, the only one replaced is Lovie, at least as the DC.

 

we fired two. linebackers coach lloyd lee and defensive backs coach steven wilks. we also let our defensive line coach take a job in the college ranks to incidently make room for marinelli so we in essence traded one for the other in this instance because we wanted to.

 

hmmmm, fired our linebackers coach we hired in 2008? well i guess that shoots to hell your theory about babich being the guy who exclusively coached our backers doesn't it? the guy who coached up all of our excellent linebackers, according to YOU, was fired last year or was it the guy he replaced, hardy nickerson who was LBer coach in 2007? so let's see, we have lovie who started as a LBer coach as our HC, then babich, then nickerson, then lee, and back to babich. LOL!!!!

 

One, if you go back, I blasted Lovie when he promoted Babich. Two, I blasted Lovie for taking so long to make a change. Three, I have blasted Lovie and said most of the issues on defense are on him. Not sure of your reason to this argument. My point is going back to when Rivera was here as evidence that, even w/ Lovie as the HC, our defense can still do very well.

 

sorry but i just don't see it as this black and white. you say with good coordinators we could still do very well. i say look at what we had in 06. we fielded 3-4 pro-bowl players on this defense and still couldn't control the passing game. the problems we had that kept us from seriously contending to win it all in 06 are the same ones we currently have and in fact we are even in considerably worse shape today and this is due to both scheme and player personnel. we had average to poor corners if expected to play man coverages and the zones we played then held the same problems we face now. we couldn't get off the field and an excellent offensive team with a good + qb arial attack and a good line would beat us 8 out of 10 times.

 

in 06 we only played 3 teams with a winning record during the regular season. we lost 1 out of those three to the patriots so that 13-3 record, although admirable, was not like we were playing in one of the strongest divisions in the nfl and a soft schedule. i do believe that rivera was/is a better coordinator than lovie in his best days and certainly better than baboonich ever thought of being plus i think he was hampered somewhat by our head coach which helped to create some major problems for us with the type of cover 2 lovie insists on running.

 

with this said and with what lovie just stated in that trumped up press interview leads me to believe he will still insist on running what he wants to run no matter who our DC is. so how is this going to win us superbowls in the future any more than it won us any in the past even with very good coordinators if they are hamstringed before they get here in the same manner or worse than rivera was? we are just killing time.

 

one final note on this subject... even when/if you do have/find excellent coordinators and if you have relative success it is short lived because these guys are then thrown into the HC prospect pool every offseason and often end up coaching elsewhere. this then throws it all back to finding someone who was either fired by another club OR finding someone who has never done it before and we end up exactly in the same situation we are now.

 

I would argue the HC is more involved on a higher level than the details. I do not believe it is the norm for a HC to be involved such to the extent that if you see a team in X alignment, he says we need to shift to X set. And then go through every possible alignment. I would argue that is far more the job of the OC and DC. Why the hell do we even have an OC and DC if, according to you, the HC decides every formation and playcall anyway?

 

You always seem to enjoy taking it to extremes. I never said the HC doesn't have any involvement what-so-ever. But at the same time, I think the involvement of a defensive background HC is limited in the running of the offense.

 

just more sidestepping BS you are throwing against the wall. when did i EVER say a HC should be relaying every minute detail to any coordinators at gametime? so just who are you "arguing" this with?

 

but i will tell you and you can believe it or not... a good HC should have his finger on the pulse of the game flow and what ALL of his coordinators are doing on the field. also what his coordinators are doing should have already been gone over during the week of practice and watching game film and determining their overall strategy. he should also be adept enough to move ANY coordinator into a different direction if what he sees on the field from an opponent is not being schemed or adjusted to correctly by the people under him OR if there are special circumstances involved leading up to a change. that is the difference between good coaches and knuckleheads like we get.

 

one more item i want to bring up... you keep inferring that a HC like lovie who is defensive oriented coach doesn't know jack about offensive playcalling or how his coordinators run an offense and implying this is somehow acceptable. i have to disagree. no i don't believe a HC should 'possibly' be as adept at offense as his OC but i find it almost impossible to believe someone who has been a DC does NOT understand offenses and how they work!! how in gods name as a DC could you devise a defensive scheme if you didn't understand what someone's offense was even doing????

 

yet we seem to find these drones as HC's who either don't know, don't care or don't want to be bothered with it. what does that say about the quality of coaches we hire and why they are doomed to fail and keep failing??

 

What I personally think you fail to recall though is, that conservative offense we ran was one in which the HC, Jauron, wanted.

 

you mean like the conservative gary crowton?? LOL!!!

 

although nearly impossible to fathom the mindset of these dregs of the nfl we hire for head coaches, maybe jauron wanted a conservative offense after crowton to coast along in his job and not worry about getting fired as quickly. why else would you STUBBORNLY keep that imbecile john shoop on the payroll at that position? to devise offensive schemes that run for 3 yds and a cloud of dust for 3 downs or dink and dunk in statistically safe passing routes and then punt? maybe because he was in over-his-head as a head coach then and was in over-his-head as a HC in buffalo recently. he was and is a one dimentional coach much like what we have now.

 

Yes, I did. Babich knows little in terms of scheme beyond the cover two, but that doesn't mean he can teach and develop his players (as a LB coach).

 

boy you got me here. so tell me... if you as a coach know little (in your own words) and one scheme, and that scheme is piss poor, just how are you going to develop players to be much better than what they were in the first place?

 

for instance: since baboonich was designated our DC i believe we started moving our backers up to the LOS to fool all these offenses into thinking we were going to blitz up the middle then drop them back to wander around aimlessly. hmmmm that was 2-3 years ago wasn't it and it did work but for how long? one game against the colts? two before the rest of the entire nfl had this figured out? and we have been running it for 3 years now? i also just love the blitz by our backers right up the gut at the snap so they can get caught in the wash with all the jumbo tackles and not even come close to breathing on qb's stepping back to pass. makes for easy completions, career game highs for good qb's and fat stats for nobody qb's though.

 

Once again, you misunderstand. I am not saying our situation, even if we hire a bunch of great assistants, is ideal. My point is not that is what you want, but simply that you can win w/ that situation. If you have a weak leader, you can still win if you have great support, but the room for error is slim. I would much rather get rid of Lovie. Because we have a weak HC, we need not just good, but damn good assistants. If we had a better HC, that may not be the case. But my point is simply that we can win w/ Lovie as the HC, depending on how good our assistants are.

 

Again, it isn't that I would want them back, or even that I want Lovie. Only saying that you can have a lesser HC if you have better assistants. It isn't that should be the goal, or that it is the ideal, but only that it is possible.

 

you are right. i don't get you. if we can win it all CONSISTANTLY i don't give a dam who is at the helm including lovie. but this is NOT the case and hasn't been EVEN with rivera who you keep bringing up. we LOST the superbowl. that is NOT winning, it is losing and in my opinion the colts could have beat us every day for a straight month!!! not only did our offense fail but so did our DEFENSE because it was not an elite defense as you keep wanting to imply. we gave up 430 yards of offense to the colts. you think elite defenses do that? to cap it off they could have put up more in the 4th qtr but they rode the clock and gave lovie a break.

 

so in my opinion if you put very good assistants under poor head coaches it is a losing proposition that at the very very best might get you into one superbowl. very similar to the ditka era only without the incredible player talent he had.

 

 

[madlithuanian]

Honestly, I have no idea what the hell we play. Maybe it should be called the "Zombie 4 Step".

 

1. The DB's take about 10 steps each, moving away from the LOS to guarantee 6-7 yd completions like clockwork

2. The LB's get winded running up and back from the line like a stinger practice drill

3. The safeties are always running like wild horses since they are completely out of position trying to make up lost ground since the players involved aren't natrual at their positions

5. The DL is stepping back getting pushed back by the OL

 

Lots of steps...no cover.

 

 

I agree on the cover 2. It's not about concept but how you apply the concept. For all the griping about the cover 2 you don't here much talk about us going to a cover 3, cover 1, or cover 0 and 4-3 versus 3-4 doesn't determine the DB coverage scheme behind the front 7. I'm far from a football analyst and really can't say much about any cover system except this; Any pass coverage should require players to stop the completion and not just to make a tackle after the catch. I don't have a problem defending the first down line on 3rd and long and forcing plays underneath and making the tackle.

 

Lovie doesn't apply his zone scheme effectively as we drop back to far to defend the first down line. From here on out it's the Lovie 2 we don't like not necessarily the cover 2 or even the Tampa 2 (seeing as Tampa's DBs were much more effective in pass coverage back in the day). Lovie doesn't adapt his scheme to what teams are doing to defeat him (i.e. RB dumpoffs as in Minn game, slants as in Packer game). Things that are obvious to fans.

 

[AZ54]

Honestly, I have no idea what the hell we play. Maybe it should be called the "Zombie 4 Step".

 

1. The DB's take about 10 steps each, moving away from the LOS to guarantee 6-7 yd completions like clockwork

2. The LB's get winded running up and back from the line like a stinger practice drill

3. The safeties are always running like wild horses since they are completely out of position trying to make up lost ground since the players involved aren't natrual at their positions

5. The DL is stepping back getting pushed back by the OL

 

Lots of steps...no cover.

 

 

That's funny. I guess we'll just stick with the term cover 0. It works (doesn't work) for me.

 

Came across this interesting tidbit in an article about Perry Fewell:

 

*************************************************************************

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear08.article

 

''The person that is coming in, I would like for him to have some of the similar beliefs that I have,'' Smith said Tuesday. ''But at the same, as you evaluate what you are doing, with the new year, you want to bring in new ideas.

 

''That's what I am excited about, bringing in some of our new ideas, getting some of our old players back.''

*************************************************************************

 

This is the first indication I've seen of Lovie admitting his scheme didn't work and that while we might stick with the overall concept we need better ways to apply it. What I like about it is not so much that Smith admits he's wrong rather that this public statement means the new DC is going to be given some free reign to run the show. I think that's very important for us to have any shot at getting someone decent.

 

 

 

 

 

[madlithuanian]

I like the Smith quote...but I fear it's just lip service to placate those of us hollerin' for his ousting.

 

That's funny. I guess we'll just stick with the term cover 0. It works (doesn't work) for me.

 

Came across this interesting tidbit in an article about Perry Fewell:

 

*************************************************************************

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/be...-bear08.article

 

''The person that is coming in, I would like for him to have some of the similar beliefs that I have,'' Smith said Tuesday. ''But at the same, as you evaluate what you are doing, with the new year, you want to bring in new ideas.

 

''That's what I am excited about, bringing in some of our new ideas, getting some of our old players back.''

*************************************************************************

 

This is the first indication I've seen of Lovie admitting his scheme didn't work and that while we might stick with the overall concept we need better ways to apply it. What I like about it is not so much that Smith admits he's wrong rather that this public statement means the new DC is going to be given some free reign to run the show. I think that's very important for us to have any shot at getting someone decent.

 

[AZ54]

Seeing as Lovie usually says nothing about nothing it's highly unusual for him to say something.