Lovie Must be Fired!

[Alaskan Grizzly]

My concern about Lovie is management of the game and management of the team. This is an undisciplined team. That goes against the coach's preparation. I think it is interesting how the bears have three coordinators (Tice, Martz, Marinelli) with head coaching experience. If I have to have an interim, I want Tice.

 

Most of the complaints about how the team "performed" seems to be related to discipline. First off, I don't see it. Seemed, as many have said, that the Defense played pretty well. Not just well, damn good. The offense played pretty good too. The only player that stuck out to me that didn't seem to be "disciplined" was Johnny Knox. He seemed to have an excuse for each time he was out of position, which was in the majority.

 

Did anyone think for a moment that Detroit may have actually improved? Look at all the players they have on their team of note: Vandenbosh, Suh, Best, Pettigrew, Avril, Corey Williams, Peterson and Houston. Most of these players have been pretty successful elsewhere and others are pretty good on their own right.

 

What happens if the Bears end up winning a lot more? Will then the hate talk disperse? My guess is no but hey, at least the Bears will be winning.

 

[nfoligno]

Alaskia,

 

I think you are only seeing part of the picture. You say most of the complaints center around discipline. I disagree. Some talk about discipline and the fumbles, but I don't think that is the focus of the attack on Lovie for Sunday.

 

One. Going for it on 4th down. Middle of the 4th quarter, we are down by 2. 4th and goal at the 1. We were not able to move the ball an inch on 3 downs. Rather than hit the FG and take the lead, we go for it again on 4th down with the same results. No gain. If our D was playing poorly, I could understand this better. With a poor D, FG isn't going to win it. But out D was playing outstanding in the 2nd half. Taking the lead with the way our D was playing was smart. Going for it on 4th down after your OL failed to show any push what so ever was not.

 

Two. Defense on final drive. Okay, our D flat shut Detroit down and was playing inspired. Then our staff cut the ballz off our men, and call for a prevent defense. Keep everything in front. Don't get burned for an 80 yard play. First play, 24 yards, followed by 8, 10 and 16. Suddenly, after starting on their own 17, they are on our 25 and in striking distance. Why? Because we abandoned everything that had worked up to that point, and played a prevent defense than only prevents wins.

 

Three. Det does have improved talent, and an improved team, but on offense, there is only one player you need to take out of the equation and that is Calvin Williams. You make someone else on the team beat you. You do not play freaking Bowman one on one against Calvin Johnson. Is is exactly a player like this that caused me to say BS when I hear it is up to the player to play. Its up to the coaches to put those players in good situations, and our staff screwed Bowman over, and nearly our team. This is as stupid as last year, when playing Minny in the first game, we never gave Pace help on the left. We expected him to matchup with Allen by himself. Yea, he has to play the game, but our staff need to put player in better situations.

 

These examples may not seem like much, as all take place at the end of the game, but sorry, it is here and situations like this which seperates good from bad coaches. Lovie is a bad coach.

 

 

 

 

 

Most of the complaints about how the team "performed" seems to be related to discipline. First off, I don't see it. Seemed, as many have said, that the Defense played pretty well. Not just well, damn good. The offense played pretty good too. The only player that stuck out to me that didn't seem to be "disciplined" was Johnny Knox. He seemed to have an excuse for each time he was out of position, which was in the majority.

 

Did anyone think for a moment that Detroit may have actually improved? Look at all the players they have on their team of note: Vandenbosh, Suh, Best, Pettigrew, Avril, Corey Williams, Peterson and Houston. Most of these players have been pretty successful elsewhere and others are pretty good on their own right.

 

What happens if the Bears end up winning a lot more? Will then the hate talk disperse? My guess is no but hey, at least the Bears will be winning.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Alaskia,

 

One. Going for it on 4th down. Middle of the 4th quarter, we are down by 2. 4th and goal at the 1. We were not able to move the ball an inch on 3 downs. Rather than hit the FG and take the lead, we go for it again on 4th down with the same results. No gain. If our D was playing poorly, I could understand this better. With a poor D, FG isn't going to win it. But out D was playing outstanding in the 2nd half. Taking the lead with the way our D was playing was smart. Going for it on 4th down after your OL failed to show any push what so ever was not.

 

As others have pointed out, if it had worked (which it really should have) then this discussion is totally moot. The crowd seemed pretty enthusiastic to have the team try. Billick, in his commentary, said he would have done the FG but understood the bravado. Some of you say Lovie lacks this. So, in this he was attempting to make a statement. Something tells me that had Lovie decided to do just the FG many would have questioned why he didn't go for the score. The only question I have is why they didn't try Chester Taylor on that run.

 

Two. Defense on final drive. Okay, our D flat shut Detroit down and was playing inspired. Then our staff cut the ballz off our men, and call for a prevent defense. Keep everything in front. Don't get burned for an 80 yard play. First play, 24 yards, followed by 8, 10 and 16. Suddenly, after starting on their own 17, they are on our 25 and in striking distance. Why? Because we abandoned everything that had worked up to that point, and played a prevent defense than only prevents wins.

 

I don't have a counter for that other than thinking they were doing what you suggested, which is stopping the dink and dunk. The Bears knew that the Lions hadn't gone for the big play...yet...and knew it was coming. Had they done the opposite, the big play would have burned them. In fact I read recently that Johnson wasn't used "by design" for early on. Not really sure why you would do that but either way.

 

Three. Det does have improved talent, and an improved team, but on offense, there is only one player you need to take out of the equation and that is Calvin Williams. You make someone else on the team beat you. You do not play freaking Bowman one on one against Calvin Johnson. Is is exactly a player like this that caused me to say BS when I hear it is up to the player to play. Its up to the coaches to put those players in good situations, and our staff screwed Bowman over, and nearly our team. This is as stupid as last year, when playing Minny in the first game, we never gave Pace help on the left. We expected him to matchup with Allen by himself. Yea, he has to play the game, but our staff need to put player in better situations.

 

I assume you meant Calvin Johnson in the first sentence. I agree that Bowman should have had help. What about the "Safety"? Was he out of position? Many what ifs....which I understand you're not a fan of. In all reality, my feeling is Darelle Revis would have a hard time one on one with Megatron. Calvin Johnson is not the only factor they have on offense. Jahvid Best was the only player that scored for Detroit in the game and he's a rookie. Brandon Pettigrew gained much adulation last year as a rookie before his season ending knee injury. Heck the guy ran a 4.83 40 in the combine, not too shabby for a TE. Despite what many think, Shaun Hill is not a slouch. In fact he is a pretty decent #2. Obviously he can throw a pretty long and accurate ball. I believe the comment was made during the game that his record as a starter, mostly in SF, is 10-6 and he has a 23 TD 11 INT ratio which again isn't all that bad. And a few others to note; Tony Scheffler, Nate Burleson, Bryant Johnson and Kevin Smith all add up to an improved Offense.

 

These examples may not seem like much, as all take place at the end of the game, but sorry, it is here and situations like this which seperates good from bad coaches. Lovie is a bad coach.

 

In your (and a few others) eyes.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Sorry, double post.

[nfoligno]

As others have pointed out, if it had worked (which it really should have) then this discussion is totally moot. The crowd seemed pretty enthusiastic to have the team try. Billick, in his commentary, said he would have done the FG but understood the bravado. Some of you say Lovie lacks this. So, in this he was attempting to make a statement. Something tells me that had Lovie decided to do just the FG many would have questioned why he didn't go for the score. The only question I have is why they didn't try Chester Taylor on that run.

 

Earlier in the game, they took the FG. Sure, fans (especially those at the game) want to go for it. Fans go off emotion. Coaches are supposed to go off logic and strategy. Sorry, but this was simply a bad call. Period. Sure, if it worked it looks good, but that "if" is the point. Anytime you go for a risky play, and it works, it looks better, but that doesn't mean it was a good call. You take the points and put the game in the hands of the defense that had 100% shut detroit down in the second half.

 

I don't have a counter for that other than thinking they were doing what you suggested, which is stopping the dink and dunk. The Bears knew that the Lions hadn't gone for the big play...yet...and knew it was coming. Had they done the opposite, the big play would have burned them. In fact I read recently that Johnson wasn't used "by design" for early on. Not really sure why you would do that but either way.

 

Sorry, but the reason they had not gone for the big play prior that was, at least in part, because the bears attacked and didn't give King time. I am not saying Lovie is the only one to do this, but FAR too often coaches go into prevent. There is a reason for the expression "prevent only prevents wins." If were up more than a score, or there is even less time on the clock its one thing, but going into prevent when we did was simply a bad, and chicken @#$# call. Trust the D that played great all game. Don't abandon the scheme that worked.

 

I assume you meant Calvin Johnson in the first sentence. I agree that Bowman should have had help. What about the "Safety"? Was he out of position? Many what ifs....which I understand you're not a fan of. In all reality, my feeling is Darelle Revis would have a hard time one on one with Megatron. Calvin Johnson is not the only factor they have on offense. Jahvid Best was the only player that scored for Detroit in the game and he's a rookie. Brandon Pettigrew gained much adulation last year as a rookie before his season ending knee injury. Heck the guy ran a 4.83 40 in the combine, not too shabby for a TE. Despite what many think, Shaun Hill is not a slouch. In fact he is a pretty decent #2. Obviously he can throw a pretty long and accurate ball. I believe the comment was made during the game that his record as a starter, mostly in SF, is 10-6 and he has a 23 TD 11 INT ratio which again isn't all that bad. And a few others to note; Tony Scheffler, Nate Burleson, Bryant Johnson and Kevin Smith all add up to an improved Offense.

 

One. you said Revis would have had a hard time covering Megatron. I agree, but isn't that all the more reason to double him. If you have a WR that good, doesn't he demand double coverage?

 

Two. You ask what about the safety. I read a detailed report on what happened. We blitzed one DB, and only DM was left in coverage, but Det sent their TE down the deep seem, and DM was forced to cover him, which was the right thing per our playcall. Briggs, by design, releasaed the TE, and DM has to pick him up. That left Bowman on an island. I like that we blitzed, but why are we blitzing a S when Det needs to thrown at or near the endzone? It would seem a LB would be better, if you are going to blitz. If he is burned, then it is a shorter gain and in the middle of the field, which Det needed to avoid w/o any more time outs.

 

Three. Finally, I agree Det has some other talented players, but come on. None are remotely close to Calvin. Good looking rookie, but w/o any timeouts, the rookie is not a great option. Det had to either attack the sideline or the endzone due to time and no timeouts. When you are at the end of the game, you make opponents beat you with lesser players. I used the Bulls of old as an example. Yea, the Bulls had Pippen, Paxon and others, but with the game on the line, did opponents worry so much about them? No. They did whatever possible to stop MJ, and made the others beat them. No different here. Calvin is so far and away more talented than the rest of the offense, he should have been the sole focus of our attention. That doesn't mean you totally ignore the rest, but you simply do whatever necessary to take out their top playmaker.