I might be okay with this

[nfoligno]

Okay, I realize everyone wanted Lovie gone. I did too. After taking a day, I began to think about some positives. Several of the positives are based on "what ifs," and we will have to see what comes of the near future situation. But this is why I am not as upset today.

 

1. I don't like Lovie. Frankly, I was never high on him from day one, and felt we went to the SB in spite of him more than due to him. With that said, we did go to the SB w/ him, so regardless how much credit any want to give, it is possible. I think the key more than Lovie is who is below Lovie. An army can have a so-so general if it has solid majors, captains, sargeants.

 

2. As much as I dislike Lovie, it is the assistants I have far more felt killed this team, though Lovie was also essentially an assistant (DC) this year. Honestly, I believe the assistants are a greater factor in the wins and losses than the HC. The HC (usually) isn't calling plays or actually working and developing players. Those under him are. Between last year and this year, we have gone through and fired pretty much everyone. Defensive assistant replacements last year were actually not bad (DL, LB, DB). We simply failed at DC, and hopefully that is rectified this year. And now we get to focus on offense, and the coaching failures there.

 

2a. On defense, who we hire to be our next DC is going to be a big deal. While we didn't get want we wanted in the release of Lovie, at the same time, I get the feeling Lovie has been pressured some the way some on this board would like. He is not simply promoting one of his own. While he talked about sticking w/ the cover two at the press conference, but also followed that up w/ some comments about having to be open. That gave me a bit of hope that we will not simply hire another TB/St.L cover two boy. That doesn't mean I expect some drastic change, but it could mean we see a situation like when Rivera was added. You can still talk about cover two, but tweak it such that it is effective, as I believe we did a few years back.

 

2b. On offense, I like several names I have heard thus far, and in general, like the direction is seems like we are taking. Further, while you always have to be careful what you wish for, I have a hard time believing we will actually get worse coaching. I believe our OL coach was one of, if not the worse OL coach in the NFL. Turner was too often a joke as a playcaller, and we had a QB coach who didn't get along w/ our prized QB. It was a bad situation, at has to get better.

 

So while we may still have Lovie, as seen in the past, if those under him may make a greater difference. When we went to the SB, we had a different DC and DL coach. We may again have solid guys in those positions, and this time have better offensive coaching too.

 

3. As much as I wanted Lovie gone, did anyone really have that much trust in Angelo making our next coaching decision? There have been many threads discussing whether Lovie and Angelo are tied together. I personally believe this move slides that answer toward the positive. Either Lovie and his new staff win, or we finally get the total overhaul so many want. IMHO, we are better off with that situation than we would be if we allowed Angelo to hire a new HC, only to potentially see Angelo fired in another year or so and then be again in a situation where we bring in a GM w/ a HC he didn't choose.

 

It really comes down to who we bring in now. That Marinelli will not be the DC is big for me. When that was first reported, it made me more sick than the news Lovie would be retained. Now, for me at least, there is some bit of hope. Even Fewell, who has been thrown out there several times, would seem an upgrade to me. He has the ties to Smith to make Smith comfortable, but isn't just a cover two guy. I actually think he has done a pretty decent job in Buffalo, which doesn't have a lot of elite talent, and he did a good job of developing talent while there. He would bring more diversity to the defense than we have seen since the SB. On the other side of the ball, whether it is Martz, or the guy from USC, I just believe we are looking at a better situation. Key for me as much as who the new OC will be is who will be the new OL coach.

 

So I know everyone is sick to their stomach that Lovie is still the coach, but I do think there is still a lot of positive that can result from this, and if that positive doesn't happen, I feel we are closer than we would otherwise be to the total house cleaning so many want.

[madlithuanian]

You're settling nfo. You are trying to rationalize viewing next year.

 

All your points are valid...but also just a stop gap band-aid that we all know how the movie will end.

 

Until Smith and Angelo are gone, and better are put into place...we won' go anywhere real lofty.

 

My bigger fear is that we will improve just enough to retain the clown-ship and get another year. And then maybe even another so-so year and everyone gets re-upped.

 

I'm tired of inconsistency. We have no foundation in anything. We're not good at anything.

 

The Steelers are good on D (hurt this year by losing Polamalu to the Madden curse)

The Colts are good on O (Manning, et al)

The Pats are solid (on O w/ Brady and on D with always a decent D)

Philly are solid on O and more than solid on D

 

Granted, that's only 13% of the league. But that's what i want. That's what the ownership should want/. it appears they don't.

 

Okay, I realize everyone wanted Lovie gone. I did too. After taking a day, I began to think about some positives. Several of the positives are based on "what ifs," and we will have to see what comes of the near future situation. But this is why I am not as upset today.

 

1. I don't like Lovie. Frankly, I was never high on him from day one, and felt we went to the SB in spite of him more than due to him. With that said, we did go to the SB w/ him, so regardless how much credit any want to give, it is possible. I think the key more than Lovie is who is below Lovie. An army can have a so-so general if it has solid majors, captains, sargeants.

 

2. As much as I dislike Lovie, it is the assistants I have far more felt killed this team, though Lovie was also essentially an assistant (DC) this year. Honestly, I believe the assistants are a greater factor in the wins and losses than the HC. The HC (usually) isn't calling plays or actually working and developing players. Those under him are. Between last year and this year, we have gone through and fired pretty much everyone. Defensive assistant replacements last year were actually not bad (DL, LB, DB). We simply failed at DC, and hopefully that is rectified this year. And now we get to focus on offense, and the coaching failures there.

 

2a. On defense, who we hire to be our next DC is going to be a big deal. While we didn't get want we wanted in the release of Lovie, at the same time, I get the feeling Lovie has been pressured some the way some on this board would like. He is not simply promoting one of his own. While he talked about sticking w/ the cover two at the press conference, but also followed that up w/ some comments about having to be open. That gave me a bit of hope that we will not simply hire another TB/St.L cover two boy. That doesn't mean I expect some drastic change, but it could mean we see a situation like when Rivera was added. You can still talk about cover two, but tweak it such that it is effective, as I believe we did a few years back.

 

2b. On offense, I like several names I have heard thus far, and in general, like the direction is seems like we are taking. Further, while you always have to be careful what you wish for, I have a hard time believing we will actually get worse coaching. I believe our OL coach was one of, if not the worse OL coach in the NFL. Turner was too often a joke as a playcaller, and we had a QB coach who didn't get along w/ our prized QB. It was a bad situation, at has to get better.

 

So while we may still have Lovie, as seen in the past, if those under him may make a greater difference. When we went to the SB, we had a different DC and DL coach. We may again have solid guys in those positions, and this time have better offensive coaching too.

 

3. As much as I wanted Lovie gone, did anyone really have that much trust in Angelo making our next coaching decision? There have been many threads discussing whether Lovie and Angelo are tied together. I personally believe this move slides that answer toward the positive. Either Lovie and his new staff win, or we finally get the total overhaul so many want. IMHO, we are better off with that situation than we would be if we allowed Angelo to hire a new HC, only to potentially see Angelo fired in another year or so and then be again in a situation where we bring in a GM w/ a HC he didn't choose.

 

It really comes down to who we bring in now. That Marinelli will not be the DC is big for me. When that was first reported, it made me more sick than the news Lovie would be retained. Now, for me at least, there is some bit of hope. Even Fewell, who has been thrown out there several times, would seem an upgrade to me. He has the ties to Smith to make Smith comfortable, but isn't just a cover two guy. I actually think he has done a pretty decent job in Buffalo, which doesn't have a lot of elite talent, and he did a good job of developing talent while there. He would bring more diversity to the defense than we have seen since the SB. On the other side of the ball, whether it is Martz, or the guy from USC, I just believe we are looking at a better situation. Key for me as much as who the new OC will be is who will be the new OL coach.

 

So I know everyone is sick to their stomach that Lovie is still the coach, but I do think there is still a lot of positive that can result from this, and if that positive doesn't happen, I feel we are closer than we would otherwise be to the total house cleaning so many want.

 

[nfoligno]

The Steelers are good on D (hurt this year by losing Polamalu to the Madden curse)

 

Actually, the Steelers were not that good on D this year. You mention the loss of Polamalu, but didn't we lose our defensive leader to start the season too? If the loss of one player is an acceptible excuse for Pitt, why not us? Frankly, Pitt is a good example of how fluid things are. Besides the D which wasn't so good this year, Pitt was also always known to be an OL machine, but the last two years their OL has been pretty bad. Not Chicago bad, but bad just the same.

 

The Colts are good on O (Manning, et al)

 

Um, Indy has a QB who could go down as the best ever. Yea, they are going to be pretty consistent on O.

 

The Pats are solid (on O w/ Brady and on D with always a decent D)

 

Pats are an all around good team, and have in Bilichek a guy who is more likely than not to keep them there.

 

Philly are solid on O and more than solid on D

 

Phily was actually a very average defense this year.

 

I get what you are saying, and I am not going to disagree. I too want an identity. The bears had been known for D and running the ball. Even in our bad years, it was often the passing offense that was believed to be our downfall. Things are likely changing, but that doesn't mean we can't establish a new identity.

 

You say I am "settling" and these moves are no more than a bandaid. Maybe. But I honestly think they could be more than just a bandaid. We fired the entire offense, and while it remains to be seen who we hire, I like some of what I have read so far. On defense, we are not settling for promoting one of our current guys, and are looking outside. That honestly means something.

 

You say we are not going anywhere lofty. Why? Under Smith, in his 2nd year, we won the division. We then went to the SB the following season. Since then we have utterly collapsed, but (a) that we did achieve that level defies the statement it can't happen and ( I think the current moves could move further toward those early years and further from more recent. After the SB, Lovie got the big head and power, and moves away from what worked and toward what didn't. I believe that his recent failures after "trust me" are pushing us back to the situation of before, where we could see a defense that doesn't just conform to Lovie. Further, I would argue we could have a vastly superiour offense than we did then.

 

Look, I was a Lovie basher when most still sung his praises. But at the same time, if we have better captains under him, yes, I think we can achieve those high levels.

 

 

 

You're settling nfo. You are trying to rationalize viewing next year.

 

All your points are valid...but also just a stop gap band-aid that we all know how the movie will end.

 

Until Smith and Angelo are gone, and better are put into place...we won' go anywhere real lofty.

 

My bigger fear is that we will improve just enough to retain the clown-ship and get another year. And then maybe even another so-so year and everyone gets re-upped.

 

I'm tired of inconsistency. We have no foundation in anything. We're not good at anything.

 

Granted, that's only 13% of the league. But that's what i want. That's what the ownership should want/. it appears they don't.

 

[madlithuanian]

Regarding the Steelers, you make good points, but I still think overall they are a D that generates more pressure. And while their OL stunk...much of the blame I hear (from Pit fans) is that Big Ben holds the ball way too long. Other than that, their O actually looked pretty darn good. Mendenhall ran very well once given the job and Ben through for a ton of yards. Also his fair share of red zone picks. I'm OK saying this year wasn't good. But when you lok at the past x amounts of seasons, the consitency is there.

 

The Colts...yup. But that's the way it works. Bears are considereed to be a running team due to Sayers, Payton and Anderson. Jones was maybe the best since then. You are what your best players are. But, the fact that they are consistent should not be discounted.

 

Pats are Pats.

 

Philly had a rockin' D according to fantasy, at least my league. (and yes, I know that's not the same as the real NFL) They got a ton of picks, sacks, held opponents to low scores. Maybe they gave up yards, but considering Jim Johnson was gone, I thought they did exceptionally well. And they have for many years.

 

I'm glad your glass is half full, because mine isn't even half empty. It's only got drops in it... That may change once the new coordinators are actually hired. But until then, I have zero faith that this inept regime will do the correct thing.

 

You mention in his 2nd year we went to the playoffs. I say la di da. Jauron got us in and so did Wanny. And really, how long ago was that? What exactly makes you think that something will change? The only thing I think that could happen is that Urlacher puts his finger in the damn to improve the D slightly and that Cutler could have the light turn on and rock it. That could happen. But nothing that this staff would do would make that happen. It would solely be on the players. So, maybe they were right all along. It's all on the players. The coaches are complete utter buffoons, so it's up to the players to coach themsleves.

 

Sorry. I'm still pissed off. And I still believe in the Peter Principle. You will only go as high as the low point...and that low point is JA&LS. I don't want to go back to the SB and lose again. I want to win. And I want to win a few.

 

 

 

The Steelers are good on D (hurt this year by losing Polamalu to the Madden curse)

 

Actually, the Steelers were not that good on D this year. You mention the loss of Polamalu, but didn't we lose our defensive leader to start the season too? If the loss of one player is an acceptible excuse for Pitt, why not us? Frankly, Pitt is a good example of how fluid things are. Besides the D which wasn't so good this year, Pitt was also always known to be an OL machine, but the last two years their OL has been pretty bad. Not Chicago bad, but bad just the same.

 

The Colts are good on O (Manning, et al)

 

Um, Indy has a QB who could go down as the best ever. Yea, they are going to be pretty consistent on O.

 

The Pats are solid (on O w/ Brady and on D with always a decent D)

 

Pats are an all around good team, and have in Bilichek a guy who is more likely than not to keep them there.

 

Philly are solid on O and more than solid on D

 

Phily was actually a very average defense this year.

 

I get what you are saying, and I am not going to disagree. I too want an identity. The bears had been known for D and running the ball. Even in our bad years, it was often the passing offense that was believed to be our downfall. Things are likely changing, but that doesn't mean we can't establish a new identity.

 

You say I am "settling" and these moves are no more than a bandaid. Maybe. But I honestly think they could be more than just a bandaid. We fired the entire offense, and while it remains to be seen who we hire, I like some of what I have read so far. On defense, we are not settling for promoting one of our current guys, and are looking outside. That honestly means something.

 

You say we are not going anywhere lofty. Why? Under Smith, in his 2nd year, we won the division. We then went to the SB the following season. Since then we have utterly collapsed, but (a) that we did achieve that level defies the statement it can't happen and ( I think the current moves could move further toward those early years and further from more recent. After the SB, Lovie got the big head and power, and moves away from what worked and toward what didn't. I believe that his recent failures after "trust me" are pushing us back to the situation of before, where we could see a defense that doesn't just conform to Lovie. Further, I would argue we could have a vastly superiour offense than we did then.

 

Look, I was a Lovie basher when most still sung his praises. But at the same time, if we have better captains under him, yes, I think we can achieve those high levels.

 

[nfoligno]

I'm glad your glass is half full, because mine isn't even half empty. It's only got drops in it... That may change once the new coordinators are actually hired. But until then, I have zero faith that this inept regime will do the correct thing.

 

Its not that my glass is half full. I am just waiting at this point to see who we bring in. Not just the DC and OC, but all the assistants. Angelo also mentioned that our pro and college personnel guys, as well as scouts, may not be safe. I am just waiting for this to play out a bit first.

 

You mention in his 2nd year we went to the playoffs. I say la di da. Jauron got us in and so did Wanny. And really, how long ago was that? What exactly makes you think that something will change? The only thing I think that could happen is that Urlacher puts his finger in the damn to improve the D slightly and that Cutler could have the light turn on and rock it. That could happen. But nothing that this staff would do would make that happen. It would solely be on the players. So, maybe they were right all along. It's all on the players. The coaches are complete utter buffoons, so it's up to the players to coach themsleves.

 

Jauron took us to one playoff game (and lost) in his 5 seasons.

 

Wanny took us to one playoff in 6 seasons.

 

Look, I am not trying to make Lovie out to be more than he is, and please don't put me in a situation of defending him. But you say we can't reach the higher levels, and yet we have already done that under Lovie. No, we didn't win the SB that year, but I think an improved offense could do it.

 

You say the coaches are all buffoons, and it going to have to be all on the players. What coaches are you talking about? Lovie, obviously, but most all the rest of the buffoons are gone. Before I write off our coaching staff, I want to see what our coaching staff is made of.

 

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

NFO, I'm settling into your camp and I'm quietly optmistic based upon the names I've heard from the media.

[nfoligno]

One of the top names I like mentioned for offense is Al Saunders. I don't know if he is really on the Bears radar, but was on the Tribs list of OC posibilities. He was the OC in KC when their offense was considered a high powered attack. He was a guy numerous teams liked, but KC wouldn't allow him out of his deal. Heck, you could say we liked him some years ago. Since we could not get him, we took his QB coach (Shea). No, that didn't workout, but that isn't due to Saunders. Shea had gained a rep off Saunder's coat tails. He has since not seen equal success, but few could w/ Wash and St.L of late. This year he joined Baltimore as an offensive coordinator, and that offense has looked much better, and I read he was part of that.

 

On defense, I haven't had a lot of time to look so far. Fewell looks pretty solid. Zimmer looks very good, but might to difficult to get. Key for me is getting someone who has experience (a) calling plays and ( outside the cover two. That doesn't mean he can't have worked w/ the cover two, like Fewell, but simply that his base of knowledge is greater than just that one scheme.

 

NFO, I'm settling into your camp and I'm quietly optmistic based upon the names I've heard from the media.

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

Al Saunders would be a fantastic hire as well.

[madlithuanian]

I gotcha. You're keeping your displeasure in check! I'm voicing it loud and early!

 

I think Smith has been better than Wanny or Jauron, but I still don't find him good enough. It's not good company to be in.

 

I do reference Smith, since the buck stops at him. I'm also referencing the entire defensive staff from Marinelli to Babitch, et al. I could easily switch my thoughts with the right DC hired and OC hired. But JA and LS have not shown me anything that they'll hire the right guys other than someone who can have a tea party with Smith.

 

My only real hope is that we see improvement on O and D, and one of the coordinators hired is so good, that despite a losing record, they are kept or possibly promoted. That's my one quasi realistic hope for the year.

 

I just fear the Fontes-ian barely making playoffs and keeping this regime around for far too long... We are slowly becoming Detroit I fear. As soone as our Barry Sanders gets too old (Cutler), we're screwed for a decade. And I fear Smith and JA may last long enough to squelch Cutler.

 

I'm glad your glass is half full, because mine isn't even half empty. It's only got drops in it... That may change once the new coordinators are actually hired. But until then, I have zero faith that this inept regime will do the correct thing.

 

Its not that my glass is half full. I am just waiting at this point to see who we bring in. Not just the DC and OC, but all the assistants. Angelo also mentioned that our pro and college personnel guys, as well as scouts, may not be safe. I am just waiting for this to play out a bit first.

 

You mention in his 2nd year we went to the playoffs. I say la di da. Jauron got us in and so did Wanny. And really, how long ago was that? What exactly makes you think that something will change? The only thing I think that could happen is that Urlacher puts his finger in the damn to improve the D slightly and that Cutler could have the light turn on and rock it. That could happen. But nothing that this staff would do would make that happen. It would solely be on the players. So, maybe they were right all along. It's all on the players. The coaches are complete utter buffoons, so it's up to the players to coach themsleves.

 

Jauron took us to one playoff game (and lost) in his 5 seasons.

 

Wanny took us to one playoff in 6 seasons.

 

Look, I am not trying to make Lovie out to be more than he is, and please don't put me in a situation of defending him. But you say we can't reach the higher levels, and yet we have already done that under Lovie. No, we didn't win the SB that year, but I think an improved offense could do it.

 

You say the coaches are all buffoons, and it going to have to be all on the players. What coaches are you talking about? Lovie, obviously, but most all the rest of the buffoons are gone. Before I write off our coaching staff, I want to see what our coaching staff is made of.

 

[BearFan2000]

nfo, you and I are on the same page, and summed up what I was thinking very well.

 

I also like everyone else wanted Lovie gone and when that didn't happen coupled with the epic fail of a press conference and the rumors floating around that we would simply promote Rod and call it good and then bring in some chump to take over as OC. I was in such a bad mood yesterday even before the conference when it was leaked that Lovie would stay and Ron would be the obvious firing, and the likely addition of a DC to relieve Lovie of defensive play calling. I was sick to my stomach and the press conference...... words can't describe how infuriating it was to listen to. Now that the dust has settled I'm trying to take a fresh look at it.

 

But like you when the Rod to DC rumor was squashed I breathed a big sigh of relief. I'd like to see Zimmer be the DC, and Bates the OC and if Love does let them do their thing. Zimmer brings experience beyond Lovie's box and can install a hybrid cover two with elements from various different schemes which is what Ron R. did and that is what worked in 05/06. When Ron was gone in 07 Babich basically did what lovie wanted which was primarily cover 2 with few wrinkles and was very predictable. It only got worse last year as Lovie himself took over play calling. Bringing in a DC who has a wider range of influences and if he's allowed to implement his system. Then the D could once again be decent. Also Zimmer has experience as a DC.

 

If we get a guy like Bates who has a working relationship with Jay and knows him as good as anyone in the league you would already have a starting point. But, it's not just that he knows Jay and has that connection he helped develop Jay..... hello, a guy who can develop QB's.... have we ever had that? Jay is the present but we need to think future and his backups I think that both Hainie and Basenez would benefit under him. But he also has experience in coordinating an Offense. I think he'd be a good fit.

 

If you have crappy assistants and coordinators it doesn't matter how much of a good coach you are. But if you have good assistants and coordinators you can be an average coach and succeed. The hands on people in the staff are the ones that make the biggest difference. If we bring in the right people the formula could work.

[madlithuanian]

I do like Sauders as well for all the reasons you mention.

 

I'm a little mor worried about the defense in all honesty. I kind of think JA will hire the OC with a small blessing from Smith, whereas Smith will hire the DC with a small blessing from JA. But, even with that, I still fear bad decisions could still be made.

 

 

 

One of the top names I like mentioned for offense is Al Saunders. I don't know if he is really on the Bears radar, but was on the Tribs list of OC posibilities. He was the OC in KC when their offense was considered a high powered attack. He was a guy numerous teams liked, but KC wouldn't allow him out of his deal. Heck, you could say we liked him some years ago. Since we could not get him, we took his QB coach (Shea). No, that didn't workout, but that isn't due to Saunders. Shea had gained a rep off Saunder's coat tails. He has since not seen equal success, but few could w/ Wash and St.L of late. This year he joined Baltimore as an offensive coordinator, and that offense has looked much better, and I read he was part of that.

 

On defense, I haven't had a lot of time to look so far. Fewell looks pretty solid. Zimmer looks very good, but might to difficult to get. Key for me is getting someone who has experience (a) calling plays and ( outside the cover two. That doesn't mean he can't have worked w/ the cover two, like Fewell, but simply that his base of knowledge is greater than just that one scheme.

 

[defiantgiant]

I'm OK with the coaching changes and with Lovie staying. I'm all right with him as a head coach, as long as he's not calling the defensive plays. Lovie has his problems: he's too willing to stick with incompetent-but-loyal assistant coaches and doesn't crack the whip when his star players underperform. But at the end of the day, he's a pretty good coach. With a competent OC and an independent-minded DC, we could have a very good coaching staff. The only change I wanted that didn't happen was Angelo getting fired: his awful drafting and talent evaluation put Lovie in a position that very few (if any) coaches could coach their way out of.

 

Angelo has final authority over the roster, and that should be enough to cost him his job. The roster has gotten steadily worse and worse every year since he basically blew up the Super Bowl team. He sent Chris Harris to Carolina for a 5th-rounder. He traded Thomas Jones plus a 2nd for the picks that ended up being Dan Bazuin, Garrett Wolfe, Kevin Payne, and Marcus Harrison, none of whom are even close to starting-caliber players. He let Berrian and Moose walk when we had no receivers behind them, then brought in Marty Booker and Brandon Lloyd as their replacements. Lovie's made some bad coaching decisions, but they're nothing compared to the horrendous personnel decisions Angelo's responsible for.

[madlithuanian]

At least as of right now, I may be the sole person holding Smith and JA as big problem that can't be overcome.

 

I refuse to drink Kool Aid right now. Even a watered down glass.

 

I may relent later depending on how things play out. But, all this is fantasyland speculation until the actual hires occur.

 

 

nfo, you and I are on the same page, and summed up what I was thinking very well.

 

I also like everyone else wanted Lovie gone and when that didn't happen coupled with the epic fail of a press conference and the rumors floating around that we would simply promote Rod and call it good and then bring in some chump to take over as OC. I was in such a bad mood yesterday even before the conference when it was leaked that Lovie would stay and Ron would be the obvious firing, and the likely addition of a DC to relieve Lovie of defensive play calling. I was sick to my stomach and the press conference...... words can't describe how infuriating it was to listen to. Now that the dust has settled I'm trying to take a fresh look at it.

 

But like you when the Rod to DC rumor was squashed I breathed a big sigh of relief. I'd like to see Zimmer be the DC, and Bates the OC and if Love does let them do their thing. Zimmer brings experience beyond Lovie's box and can install a hybrid cover two with elements from various different schemes which is what Ron R. did and that is what worked in 05/06. When Ron was gone in 07 Babich basically did what lovie wanted which was primarily cover 2 with few wrinkles and was very predictable. It only got worse last year as Lovie himself took over play calling. Bringing in a DC who has a wider range of influences and if he's allowed to implement his system. Then the D could once again be decent. Also Zimmer has experience as a DC.

 

If we get a guy like Bates who has a working relationship with Jay and knows him as good as anyone in the league you would already have a starting point. But, it's not just that he knows Jay and has that connection he helped develop Jay..... hello, a guy who can develop QB's.... have we ever had that? Jay is the present but we need to think future and his backups I think that both Hainie and Basenez would benefit under him. But he also has experience in coordinating an Offense. I think he'd be a good fit.

 

If you have crappy assistants and coordinators it doesn't matter how much of a good coach you are. But if you have good assistants and coordinators you can be an average coach and succeed. The hands on people in the staff are the ones that make the biggest difference. If we bring in the right people the formula could work.

 

[nfoligno]

I do reference Smith, since the buck stops at him. I'm also referencing the entire defensive staff from Marinelli to Babitch, et al.

 

Marinelli is the only assistant I think didn't do well. Hoke gets a bit of a pass. He was screwed. He didn't have much to work with in the beginning, but injuries and lack of pass rush pretty much sealed his fate. I do think Bowman showed some development this year. I think Steltz and Afalava also both showed promise. But there was only so much we should have expected in our secondary.

 

Hate to say it, but I think Babich deserves loads of credit. We lost Urlacher early, and at times Hunter and even Briggs were missing. Not to mention Roach also hurt at one point. But for the most part, I thought we had pretty solid play from whatever LB was in there. There was an obvious dropoff from Urlacher, but I don't think we often lost due to our LB position, and yet we suffered the worst injuries there.

 

I could easily switch my thoughts with the right DC hired and OC hired. But JA and LS have not shown me anything that they'll hire the right guys other than someone who can have a tea party with Smith.

 

Well, technically, Angelo hired Rivera. Yes, Lovie made the power play and pushed Ron out, but (a) still have to credit Angelo with the hire and ( I just don't think Lovie has that power today. I don't care what his contract says, or what they say to the public. I do not believe the decision of our new staff is all Lovie. In fact, I think it will be far more Ted and Angelo.

 

My only real hope is that we see improvement on O and D, and one of the coordinators hired is so good, that despite a losing record, they are kept or possibly promoted. That's my one quasi realistic hope for the year.

 

Not my hope. I hope we either find a better chemistry and make huge strides forward, or we miss the playoffs in embarassing fashion again and everyone down to the fast water boy is gone.

 

I just fear the Fontes-ian barely making playoffs and keeping this regime around for far too long... We are slowly becoming Detroit I fear. As soone as our Barry Sanders gets too old (Cutler), we're screwed for a decade. And I fear Smith and JA may last long enough to squelch Cutler.

 

We don't have a Barry Sanders. We don't have a single player so good he can carry and entire team devoid of talent. Cutler showed this year he can't do it w/o better coaching and OL. Forte? Nope. Briggs? Not a chance. There is no one.

 

I don't think we are anything close to Det, either years ago as a middle of the road team that couldn't get to the next level or a total bottom feeder.

 

[nfoligno]

Chicken and egg.

 

I still think a huge problem has been our coaches ability to evaluate talent. Too many players jumping around so much they can never develop at any one area. Is DM a CB? FS? SS? Nickel? Changes every game. Williams a LT? RT? No, LT?

 

There are players Angelo has drafted that I think coaching decisions really put everything into question. Lets just look at this year.

 

From all accounts, Lovie made a big push to sign Pace, and then move Williams to RT. You can blame Angelo for Omiyale, but doesn't Lovie get blame for continuing to start him rather than Beekman? Bennett looked pretty good this year. Maybe he should have been looked at last year. Will Iglesias go the same route? DA finished the season w/ a bang. Is it Angelo's fault Turner and Co would not give him a chance, despite our QB begging for him? How about Cutler. I am not taking blame off Cutler, but every "expert" out there seemed dumbfounded as to why we waited until the final two games to move Cutler outside the pocket, as that was an area he excelled at in Denver.

 

I am not saying we had the most talented offense, but I do think coaching was a greater reason for their failure than simply pure talent. Even on the OL. If we started the year w/ Williams - Beekman - Kreutz - Garza - Schaffer/Omiyale, do you not think we would have been better off? The coaches choose who started and where. How might our offense looked if DA started all year?

 

On the other side, I to this day don't understand our handling of Graham. He does well last year at CB, so his reward is to be burried on the depth chart so deep that McBride (who didn't even make the roster) gets starting reps over him in camp. DM continues to move all over, never developing at any one position. Steltz looked pretty strong when finally given a chance, but why didn't he get a chance sooner. How about Williams for that matter. And speaking of LBs, why does our MLB have to call plays, regardless who our MLB is?

 

Man, we can go on forever. I have been a long time Angelo basher, but if you ask me which has been the greater downside, talent or coaching, I would say coaching. If Pioli, or name your favorite GM, were adding players, but coaches were incapable of (a) developing and ( knowing how to utilize that talent, that favorite GM of yours won't look so good. Angelo is far from my favorite, and plenty of his moves I have blasted, and I continue to do so. At the same time, I also think there have been numerous examples that make me question how much of the problem is him and how much is player development.

 

I'm OK with the coaching changes and with Lovie staying. I'm all right with him as a head coach, as long as he's not calling the defensive plays. Lovie has his problems: he's too willing to stick with incompetent-but-loyal assistant coaches and doesn't crack the whip when his star players underperform. But at the end of the day, he's a pretty good coach. With a competent OC and an independent-minded DC, we could have a very good coaching staff. The only change I wanted that didn't happen was Angelo getting fired: his awful drafting and talent evaluation put Lovie in a position that very few (if any) coaches could coach their way out of.

 

Angelo has final authority over the roster, and that should be enough to cost him his job. The roster has gotten steadily worse and worse every year since he basically blew up the Super Bowl team. He sent Chris Harris to Carolina for a 5th-rounder. He traded Thomas Jones plus a 2nd for the picks that ended up being Dan Bazuin, Garrett Wolfe, Kevin Payne, and Marcus Harrison, none of whom are even close to starting-caliber players. He let Berrian and Moose walk when we had no receivers behind them, then brought in Marty Booker and Brandon Lloyd as their replacements. Lovie's made some bad coaching decisions, but they're nothing compared to the horrendous personnel decisions Angelo's responsible for.

 

[Lucky Luciano]

Hate to say it, but I think Babich deserves loads of credit. We lost Urlacher early, and at times Hunter and even Briggs were missing. Not to mention Roach also hurt at one point. But for the most part, I thought we had pretty solid play from whatever LB was in there. There was an obvious dropoff from Urlacher, but I don't think we often lost due to our LB position, and yet we suffered the worst injuries there.

 

tell me exactly what he has done to deserve any credit? plugged in veteran linebackers to replace veteran linebackers and played them exactly the same way the better backer they replaced played? did we see any good or different schemes from our backers in there? or did we see the same things that didn't work no matter who we put in.

 

who improved and how?

 

[madlithuanian]

Agreed on Bowman, Steltz and Afalava. I'm not so sure to give props to Babitch. Briggs is a probowler, so it's not like he lost everything. But also, they were picked about in the middle, allowing TE's and WR's to roam free. Part of which was the DB's giving WR's enough room that would take Hoss, Pa Adam, and Little Joe at least a day's ride to check out the bonanza... I guess I fault Babitch by title. He's DC, he deserves blame for collecting a salary as such. If not, he should return the money and earn LB salary. But I guess that's semantics.

 

I have no problem giving Angelo credit for Rivera. As with a lot of things, he does make some good calls. However, he makes just as many, if not more, bad calls. The list is pretty extensive and well hashed out.

 

I guess I see no hope with Smith, so it's hard for me to think it will turn around. Other than with smoke & mirrors.

 

I didn't mean to directly compared Cutler to Sanders, obviously he is not even a RB...but I meant in terms of our one star player. Someone who is being wasted under the current regime.

 

I'm just struggling at the moment with my anger, disappointment and balancing that against some modicum of earnestly looking forward to next season. I'm just having a hard time of it. I think I need the rest of the year to play out to the Super Bowl and see who we hire.

 

 

I do reference Smith, since the buck stops at him. I'm also referencing the entire defensive staff from Marinelli to Babitch, et al.

 

Marinelli is the only assistant I think didn't do well. Hoke gets a bit of a pass. He was screwed. He didn't have much to work with in the beginning, but injuries and lack of pass rush pretty much sealed his fate. I do think Bowman showed some development this year. I think Steltz and Afalava also both showed promise. But there was only so much we should have expected in our secondary.

 

Hate to say it, but I think Babich deserves loads of credit. We lost Urlacher early, and at times Hunter and even Briggs were missing. Not to mention Roach also hurt at one point. But for the most part, I thought we had pretty solid play from whatever LB was in there. There was an obvious dropoff from Urlacher, but I don't think we often lost due to our LB position, and yet we suffered the worst injuries there.

 

I could easily switch my thoughts with the right DC hired and OC hired. But JA and LS have not shown me anything that they'll hire the right guys other than someone who can have a tea party with Smith.

 

Well, technically, Angelo hired Rivera. Yes, Lovie made the power play and pushed Ron out, but (a) still have to credit Angelo with the hire and ( I just don't think Lovie has that power today. I don't care what his contract says, or what they say to the public. I do not believe the decision of our new staff is all Lovie. In fact, I think it will be far more Ted and Angelo.

 

My only real hope is that we see improvement on O and D, and one of the coordinators hired is so good, that despite a losing record, they are kept or possibly promoted. That's my one quasi realistic hope for the year.

 

Not my hope. I hope we either find a better chemistry and make huge strides forward, or we miss the playoffs in embarassing fashion again and everyone down to the fast water boy is gone.

 

I just fear the Fontes-ian barely making playoffs and keeping this regime around for far too long... We are slowly becoming Detroit I fear. As soone as our Barry Sanders gets too old (Cutler), we're screwed for a decade. And I fear Smith and JA may last long enough to squelch Cutler.

 

We don't have a Barry Sanders. We don't have a single player so good he can carry and entire team devoid of talent. Cutler showed this year he can't do it w/o better coaching and OL. Forte? Nope. Briggs? Not a chance. There is no one.

 

I don't think we are anything close to Det, either years ago as a middle of the road team that couldn't get to the next level or a total bottom feeder.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

I am literally disgusted and sick that Lovie is still the coach. I read what you people are saying on here about next year and I get agita just thinking about it. My glass is not half anything...its bone fricken dry. I don't even want to think about seeing his face on the sideline, at the podium, or even in a god dam restaurant. His scheme, his coaching, his communication skills....ugggh!!!! I am seriously dreading next season cause I really reached my pinnacle of disgust this year and not sure I want to go through with it again. He has basically made watching my favorite team a miserable experience. I am not even happy when they win because they look like shit doing it.

 

Thank God the Hawks have been such a good distraction the last couple years. Actually, how I felt about the Hawks pre Rocky Wirtz is a lot how I'm starting to feel about the Bears and that's just not giving a shit. That's what happens when your organization gives the impression that they don't care. Fans can handle losing when the effort is there and when the see the improvement and it helps when they can see that the players and coaches feel as bas as they do. But when fans see the same mistakes and the same lack of accountability and hear the same things over and over without a hint of emotion, they tend to get emotionless themselves. This team has taken on the personality of Lovie and it has no place on the gridiron!

[nfoligno]

One, I think Babich has to get credit for developing our LBs. Not Urlacher, but every other one developed under him, and that includes Briggs. When have seen so many problems w/ player development, but at LB, we have been able to turn out player after player.

 

Two, I don't think you give enough credit to being able to replace starters. Whether you are talking about the DL, secondary, or where ever, we have struggled over the years to replace starters. Yet at LB this year, we suffered injury after injury, but were able to continually plug in players w/o crippling the team. Yes, there was a dropoff from Urlacher, but the same would be true for any team that loses one of its best players.

 

Three, yes, I did see us do some things different based on who was in there. For example, the area in which our MLB would be responsible for seemed greater when the more athletic Roach was in there as opposed to when Hunter was. When Roach was in, he seemed to draw more coverage assignments, as opposed to when Hunter was in, as we would more often keep him in the box and us a safety in coverage. When Briggs went down, I don't think we did much of anything different, but again, I think the way Williams developed has to be credited to Babich.

 

Player development is a big issue on this team, and I think Babich has done a good job developing LB talent. Babich was an utter failure as a DC, but that doesn't mean he isn't a good LB coach.

 

tell me exactly what he has done to deserve any credit? plugged in veteran linebackers to replace veteran linebackers and played them exactly the same way the better backer they replaced played? did we see any good or different schemes from our backers in there? or did we see the same things that didn't work no matter who we put in.

 

who improved and how?

 

[Lucky Luciano]

One, I think Babich has to get credit for developing our LBs. Not Urlacher, but every other one developed under him, and that includes Briggs. When have seen so many problems w/ player development, but at LB, we have been able to turn out player after player.

 

i could just as well say lovie smith developed them as he was a linebacker coach too. hmmm....

 

briggs was here before babich came in. he came in in 2003 as a 3rd round pick.

 

player after player? you mean every one developed under him like... okwo, leon joe, marcus freeman, rodriques wilson, joey larocque?

 

or was it jamar williams who was sitting on the bench for 4 years?

 

or do you mean like nick roach who beat out the amazing hunter hillenmier at strongside backer for a while after pisa a NEW free agent last season went down or the one who was demoted from middle linebacker and replaced by hunter hillenmier?

 

if we traded both of these backers together in one package could we get a 2nd round pick for both? a 3rd?

 

these are decent utility/special team guys with the possible exception of roach who has been around only 3 years and may develope or not. if not then not only is lovie an idiot for playing inferior players but so is babich.

 

Two, I don't think you give enough credit to being able to replace starters. Whether you are talking about the DL, secondary, or where ever, we have struggled over the years to replace starters. Yet at LB this year, we suffered injury after injury, but were able to continually plug in players w/o crippling the team. Yes, there was a dropoff from Urlacher, but the same would be true for any team that loses one of its best players.

 

plug in who? what were you seeing that our backers (beside briggs) looked like we will be starting ANY of them next season? was linebacker a real strength this season? which games? how are they ranked in the rest of the nfl? do you believe we should get rid of an average LB in pisa then next season and pencil in roach or williams? we don't need any backers in free agency then if we cut pisa? it would save us some cash starting roach or williams so how bout it? say the word.

 

[nfoligno]

Briggs was here before babich came in. he came in in 2003 as a 3rd round pick.

 

But he didn't start until the following year, I believe, when Babich was here.

 

player after player? you mean every one developed under him like... okwo, leon joe, marcus freeman, rodriques wilson, joey larocque?

 

No team in the NFL, and no coach in the NFL, develops every player added to the team. But I would simply argue we have seen a solid level of development at LB, especially if compared against ANY other position on the team.

 

or was it jamar williams who was sitting on the bench for 4 years?

 

Yea, its Williams, or Babich's fault there. Williams was drafted when we though Briggs could depart, but then Briggs stayed. Williams though has developed, and played well in the few chances he has gotten.

 

or do you mean like nick roach who beat out the amazing hunter hillenmier at strongside backer for a while after pisa a NEW free agent last season went down or the one who was demoted from middle linebacker and replaced by hunter hillenmier?

 

Yes, Roach, a draft after-thought came in and played well. When you have undrafted rookie FAs, or late round picks, there is little expectation for them to even make the team, much less contribute, much less actually start. Roach is not a great player, but has developed into a better player than any expected on draft day. I would argue the same for Hunter as well. I am not saying any of these players are great. But my point is, they are players who came w/ little hype and who developed into pretty nice players.

 

if we traded both of these backers together in one package could we get a 2nd round pick for both? a 3rd?

 

these are decent utility/special team guys with the possible exception of roach who has been around only 3 years and may develope or not. if not then not only is lovie an idiot for playing inferior players but so is babich.

 

I still think Hunter is a pretty good player. Roach isn't bad, and as you said, developing still. Williams looks like a pretty solid player, but stuck behind Briggs, a pro bowler. I would argue both Hunter and Roach have developed and played at a much higher level than any would have expected when they were in the draft. At the end of the day, I would say this. You look at our team, and we have suffered our fair share of injuries. At most any other position, unit, the loss of a single player seems to destory the unit as a whole. At LB though, we suffered more injuries than any other unit, and yet I don't feel they were so much the reason for the losses.

 

plug in who? what were you seeing that our backers (beside briggs) looked like we will be starting ANY of them next season? was linebacker a real strength this season? which games? how are they ranked in the rest of the nfl? do you believe we should get rid of an average LB in pisa then next season and pencil in roach or williams? we don't need any backers in free agency then if we cut pisa? it would save us some cash starting roach or williams so how bout it? say the word.

 

Man are you missing the point. Roach is a backup worthy player. I actually like Hunter, but few consider him to be much of a starter. Williams isn't a starter either. I am not saying we should want any of them to start, but the point is they played well enough when forced into starting roles. Whether you admit it or not, that means something. It doesn't mean you plan for that player to be your future starter, but when a player who (according to you) is little more than a special teams/utility player, and he steps in and plays decent to well as a starter, you have to credit the coach.

[Mongo3451]

A poop sandwich dressed up with the best of trimmings, still tastes like poop.

[madlithuanian]

So eliquently put!

 

 

A poop sandwich dressed up with the best of trimmings, still tastes like poop.

 

[Uncle Buck]

At least as of right now, I may be the sole person holding Smith and JA as big problem that can't be overcome.

 

I refuse to drink Kool Aid right now. Even a watered down glass.

 

I may relent later depending on how things play out. But, all this is fantasyland speculation until the actual hires occur.

 

 

I'm with you on this team. I am in the same corner as Boers and Bernstein, Lovie is going to hire a defensive coordinator who will follow Lovie's exact orders and if Lovie is displeased, he will simply pull the play calling into his own hands. New boss same as the old boss.

 

Even if an offensive coordinator is somewhat successful, the defense will let this team down. Lovie can't and won't change. The press conference gave plenty of evidence that this guy won't change.

 

I do not want any of these three leading this team going forward. They will not take us to the promised land. Yesterday's decision simply jaded a bunch of fans (note jade-I'm not leaving) and delayed the inevitable.

[madlithuanian]

I hear ya!

 

I'm with you on this team. I am in the same corner as Boers and Bernstein, Lovie is going to hire a defensive coordinator who will follow Lovie's exact orders and if Lovie is displeased, he will simply pull the play calling into his own hands. New boss same as the old boss.

 

Even if an offensive coordinator is somewhat successful, the defense will let this team down. Lovie can't and won't change. The press conference gave plenty of evidence that this guy won't change.

 

I do not want any of these three leading this team going forward. They will not take us to the promised land. Yesterday's decision simply jaded a bunch of fans (note jade-I'm not leaving) and delayed the inevitable.