lovie says.......

[Lucky Luciano]

Lovie Smith - “It’s not a whole lot of fun finishing your season knowing that, but we’re a good football team and we’re going to try and keep as many of our coaches and players together as possible,” Smith said. “We don’t want to tear this team down and start over or anything like that. This is a good football team, and we’re going to win a lot of games with this core remaining the same.”

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/01/bea...-13-finish-8-8/

 

referring to an 8-8 season, losing 5 out of 6 games to end the season and missing the playoffs 4 out of the last 5 YEARS!!

 

yea, who wouldn't want to to keep as many players and coaches together after that exemplary record?

[madlithuanian]

This is not news. We all well knew that the built in excuse of the Cutler injury would spare everyone. I foresee no firings at all. Martz may or may not be brought back. That's about the only question on staff. The other major question is how much will JA spend to try to get us closer.

 

 

referring to an 8-8 season, losing 5 out of 6 games to end the season and missing the playoffs 4 out of the last 5 YEARS!!

 

yea, who wouldn't want to to keep as many players and coaches together after that exemplary record?

 

[Bears4Ever_34]

They would have been 12-4 if Cutler had not gone down with his injury. They aren't bad like an 8-8 team but they still need to invest in getting younger impact players on defense. Urlacher, Briggs, and Tilman can only play at a high level for so long before they start to decline. Melton is the only young starter out there that I see significant talent in. Moore is the other but he's not a starter.

[Lucky Luciano]

They would have been 12-4 if Cutler had not gone down with his injury. They aren't bad like an 8-8 team but they still need to invest in getting younger impact players on defense. Urlacher, Briggs, and Tilman can only play at a high level for so long before they start to decline. Melton is the only young starter out there that I see significant talent in. Moore is the other but he's not a starter.

 

really? while we had a very weak schedule this season, we only beat 2 teams with even a winning record with cutler, the lions once and the falcons. there is no possible way to say that we would be 12 and 4 if cutler wasn't injured. we lost 4 out of the last 5 games to teams without winning records. 2 of those teams were starting backup quarterbacks also, the raiders and the chiefs. the chiefs and seahawks were played in soldier field. we beat '0' teams with winning records and '0' teams with records as good as ours when cutler went down.

 

so let me ask you, even with cutler healthy do you feel we were even close to being good enough to win a superbowl? even with every player like last season who was healthy do we have the talent to win it all?

 

finally... we were outcoached and outplayed nearly all season. who hired/drafted our backups? who coached them? who penciled them in as starters? who watched them play on sundays and told us they gave us the best chance to win?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bears4Ever_34]

really? while we had a very weak schedule this season, we only beat 2 teams with even a winning record with cutler, the lions once and the falcons. there is no possible way to say that we would be 12 and 4 if cutler wasn't injured. we lost 4 out of the last 5 games to teams without winning records. 2 of those teams were starting backup quarterbacks also, the raiders and the chiefs. the chiefs and seahawks were played in soldier field. we beat '0' teams with winning records and '0' teams with records as good as ours when cutler went down.

 

so let me ask you, even with cutler healthy do you feel we were even close to being good enough to win a superbowl? even with every player like last season who was healthy do we have the talent to win it all?

 

finally... we were outcoached and outplayed nearly all season. who hired/drafted our backups? who coached them? who penciled them in as starters? who watched them play on sundays and told us they gave us the best chance to win?

You are really all over the place with this one. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You say we lost 4 out of 5 games to teams without winning records but that was without Cutler. I'm not talking about w/o Cutler. I'm talking as if we had him. We would easily be 12-4. We had 7 wins at the time he went down, while he was playing the best football of his career, do you honestly believe we would not have beat the Raiders, the Chiefs, Broncos, or Seahawks with #6? We were in all of those games with one of the worst quarterbacks in football. How would we not easily beat any of those teams with a significantly better quarterback?

[Stinger226]

They would have been 12-4 if Cutler had not gone down with his injury. They aren't bad like an 8-8 team but they still need to invest in getting younger impact players on defense. Urlacher, Briggs, and Tilman can only play at a high level for so long before they start to decline. Melton is the only young starter out there that I see significant talent in. Moore is the other but he's not a starter.

Of course we need young impact players, but if you dont get Cutler an offense line and some targets at WR, you will waste Culters best years. He will be beat up and never play again at a top 10 qb level. You cant fill all of your holes in one season but if you ignore the OL and WR spots, we lose the advantage of having Culter.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I think it easy to wax hypothetical and take it either positive or negative with what "could have been" had Cutler not gotten hurt. But with the way things were trending, I think it safe to assume the Bears would've won most (maybe not all) of their remaining games. They were on a five game winning streak with signs of improvement each week. The line was blocking, most of the receivers were catching (even Williams) and the team was looking at playing a host of teams that did not match up in the AFC West.

 

Unfortunately, and hindsight being 20/20, the team didn't adjust away from Hanie fast enough. What wouldve happened had McCown started a few weeks earlier? What if Orton signed? What if Cutler didn't get hurt? A lot of "what ifs".

 

As expected a few would rather see the team dismantle and re-build entirely. I haven't seen that and still don't. Just a few tweaks here and there. Goodbye Angelo and Martz(?).

[balta1701-A]

Orton could not have signed with the Bears. The Chiefs claimed him on waivers and had priority. There was nothing the Bears could do.

[Connorbear]

I am amazed people get upset at what Lovie says. He has been saying the same stuff for years. Bottom line to me is win or go home. Next year they best make the playoffs or he should be gone.

 

Peace

 

[selection7]

I'm talking as if we had him. We would easily be 12-4. We had 7 wins at the time he went down, while he was playing the best football of his career, do you honestly believe we would not have beat the Raiders, the Chiefs, Broncos, or Seahawks with #6? We were in all of those games with one of the worst quarterbacks in football. How would we not easily beat any of those teams with a significantly better quarterback?

If games were guaranteed based on what teams have on paper, teams wouldn't have to play. Granted, there's a decent chance we could've gone 5-1 down the stretch with Cutler, but to say "easily". Come on. Also, beating those four teams you mentioned would've only made us 11-5. And the Seattle game was not close (though they didn't pull away until the 4th). I'm not saying I don't see your point that Lovie had this team in a good direction...just saying there's no reason to exaggerate.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I am amazed people get upset at what Lovie says. He has been saying the same stuff for years. Bottom line to me is win or go home. Next year they best make the playoffs or he should be gone.

 

Peace

 

Amen. And, no offense to your "field", but they (players and coaches) shouldn't have to talk to the media if they choose not to. What matters, as you said, is what the end product is during and after the game. Lovie would be better served to not have to talk. Not because he doesn't know or have anything to say, but because he owes us (the fans) no explanation.

[madlithuanian]

I think there is some kind of contractual obligation for the coaches/players to speak to the media...

 

 

 

Amen. And, no offense to your "field", but they (players and coaches) shouldn't have to talk to the media if they choose not to. What matters, as you said, is what the end product is during and after the game. Lovie would be better served to not have to talk. Not because he doesn't know or have anything to say, but because he owes us (the fans) no explanation.

 

[Connorbear]

I think there is some kind of contractual obligation for the coaches/players to speak to the media...

Correct. That is why Barber was going to be fined if he didn't speak.

 

Peace

[Connorbear]

Amen. And, no offense to your "field", but they (players and coaches) shouldn't have to talk to the media if they choose not to. What matters, as you said, is what the end product is during and after the game. Lovie would be better served to not have to talk. Not because he doesn't know or have anything to say, but because he owes us (the fans) no explanation.

I agree they shouldn't have to but it is in their contract.

 

Peace

[jason]

really? while we had a very weak schedule this season, we only beat 2 teams with even a winning record with cutler, the lions once and the falcons. there is no possible way to say that we would be 12 and 4 if cutler wasn't injured. we lost 4 out of the last 5 games to teams without winning records. 2 of those teams were starting backup quarterbacks also, the raiders and the chiefs. the chiefs and seahawks were played in soldier field. we beat '0' teams with winning records and '0' teams with records as good as ours when cutler went down.

 

so let me ask you, even with cutler healthy do you feel we were even close to being good enough to win a superbowl? even with every player like last season who was healthy do we have the talent to win it all?

 

finally... we were outcoached and outplayed nearly all season. who hired/drafted our backups? who coached them? who penciled them in as starters? who watched them play on sundays and told us they gave us the best chance to win?

 

Do I believe we would have been 12 and 4 with Cutler? Yes. The Bears hung tough with some bad teams, and having Cutler would have been the difference.

 

Were the Bears close to a Super Bowl winning team? It would have been very unlikely, but it was possible. The problem is, Lovie Smith teams just don't stomp a mudhole in opponents. They let bad teams hang around, and they turn games with great teams into ugly games. It's the Love-2 philosophy. Bend but don't break, make the opponent fight for big gains, hope for a mistake/turnover. I actually think losing out the way they did was much better for the team because they are better than 8-8, and getting better draft picks will help the team overall. It's just too bad the coaches were too stupid/stubborn to realize the last game didn't matter, and winning it would hurt the team more than losing it.

[lemonej]

Do I believe we would have been 12 and 4 with Cutler? Yes. The Bears hung tough with some bad teams, and having Cutler would have been the difference.

 

Were the Bears close to a Super Bowl winning team? It would have been very unlikely, but it was possible. The problem is, Lovie Smith teams just don't stomp a mudhole in opponents. They let bad teams hang around, and they turn games with great teams into ugly games. It's the Love-2 philosophy. Bend but don't break, make the opponent fight for big gains, hope for a mistake/turnover. I actually think losing out the way they did was much better for the team because they are better than 8-8, and getting better draft picks will help the team overall. It's just too bad the coaches were too stupid/stubborn to realize the last game didn't matter, and winning it would hurt the team more than losing it.

Thank You. With a lot of former HCs on staff the stubborness has risen to an all-time high. Be it Martz,Marinelli, or Tice they all were a tad stubborn this year and with 2 of them on the same side of the field I believe that contributed to some of the problems the offense had.

[Bears4Ever_34]

If games were guaranteed based on what teams have on paper, teams wouldn't have to play. Granted, there's a decent chance we could've gone 5-1 down the stretch with Cutler, but to say "easily". Come on. Also, beating those four teams you mentioned would've only made us 11-5. And the Seattle game was not close (though they didn't pull away until the 4th). I'm not saying I don't see your point that Lovie had this team in a good direction...just saying there's no reason to exaggerate.

I don't see how it's an exaggeration in the least bit. Did you see what we were up against?? Cutler could not have played any worse than Caleb Haine did in those 5 games he started in. And we were in ALL of those games! The way Cutler was playing we would have easily beaten the Raiders, Chiefs (Tyler Palko? lol), the Broncos (Tim Tebow? lol) and the Seattle Seahawks. None of those teams are playoff teams and at the time Cutler went down the Bears were scoring 26 ppg which was good enough for 6th in the league. I can't honestly see any scenario in which the Bears lose any of those games that Caleb Haine played in. He was playing at quite possibly the worst possible level you could play at quarterback and we were still in every single game until the very end. There is no way in the world that Jay Cutler plays that poorly in the same games and gets the same result. All they needed is essentially a Josh Mcown to come in and play like he did and they still probably win most of those games. Average football beats those teams and Jay Cutler was playing well beyond average before his injury.

[selection7]

I don't see how it's an exaggeration in the least bit. Did you see what we were up against?? Cutler could not have played any worse than Caleb Haine did in those 5 games he started in. And we were in ALL of those games! The way Cutler was playing we would have easily beaten the Raiders, Chiefs (Tyler Palko? lol), the Broncos (Tim Tebow? lol) and the Seattle Seahawks. None of those teams are playoff teams and at the time Cutler went down the Bears were scoring 26 ppg which was good enough for 6th in the league. I can't honestly see any scenario in which the Bears lose any of those games that Caleb Haine played in. He was playing at quite possibly the worst possible level you could play at quarterback and we were still in every single game until the very end. There is no way in the world that Jay Cutler plays that poorly in the same games and gets the same result. All they needed is essentially a Josh Mcown to come in and play like he did and they still probably win most of those games. Average football beats those teams and Jay Cutler was playing well beyond average before his injury.

OK, I'll be more specific.

 

You're making such a strong assertion about the hypothetical. My point is partly based on the idea that you can't simply add Cutler and everything else is guaranteed to stay the same. As it turned out with Hanie, we were close in 4 of those 6. But we were perhaps lucky to be close in a couple of those and it would take avoiding bad luck to not have a couple of those re-played games end up harder the second time round. If you could rewind time and play those last 6 games with Jay (but not Forte, who you didn't mention) 100 times, how many times would we win 5 out of 6? You'd have to answer we'd do it at least 80-85 times out of 100 for "easily" to be an appropriate description, IMO. You'd make that bet? Knowing in most cases, losing any game but the Packers means failure? Beating all those teams means finishing the season 10-1.

 

Also, the Seahawks scored 24 straight points on us. It wasn't close. Same for the Pack. Yes, Hanie threw 2 pick sixes, but we lost by well more than 14, and do you remember what was happening when Cutler hurt his thumb? Sometimes picks get taken to the house, sometimes they don't...it's chance (I mean that in general. I realize Jay's hustle did save a TD on his play where he got injured). I definitely would have liked our chances against the Seahawks with our starter, but did everyone like the Packers chances against the Chiefs? Yep. But they lost anyway. This is the free-agency era NFL, on any given Sunday you still have to play the games. Plus, yes, Jay had some games at probably the highest level we'd seen from him...but not with consistency. Heck, 2 out of his last 4 games he had a 69 and a 60 QBR. Jay is a lot of great things, but consistent isn't one of things he's shown us (yet).

 

So is that enough rebuttle to support that easily 12-4 is unneeded exaggeration? That is all I said after all.

[Bears4Ever_34]

You're making such a strong assertion about the hypothetical. My point is partly based on the idea that you can't simply add Cutler and everything else is guaranteed to stay the same.

 

My hypothetical is also highly probable due to the fact that the teams we played were god awful while we were busy winning 5 in a row. You're right, adding Cutler doesn't make things stay the same, it makes them much much better. It's like going from Curtis Painter to Peyton Manning. The Colts easily win more than 2 games with Manning healthy for the season. Is that not fair to say?

 

 

But we were perhaps lucky to be close in a couple of those and it would take avoiding bad luck to not have a couple of those re-played games end up harder the second time round.

 

It works both ways though. Wasn't Denver lucky that Marion Barber found a way to single handily cost us the game with his numerous miscues throughout the game? The illegal formation, the stepping out of bounds, the fumble etc.. Was Kansas City lucky that Chris Conte decided to slap the ball away from Urlacher in the final seconds of the half, leading to a hail mary touchdown?

 

 

Also, the Seahawks scored 24 straight points on us. It wasn't close. Same for the Pack. Yes, Hanie threw 2 pick sixes

 

Lol 2 pick 6's is going to do that to you. Has Cutler ever done that in his career? I don't believe so. Cutler is also a player that while having an off game, has the ability to get his team back into the game by making some good passes. All you get with Haine is either bad or really bad.

 

 

but did everyone like the Packers chances against the Chiefs? Yep. But they lost anyway.

 

Yeah but they also didn't lose to a Tyler Palko lead offense. Kyle Orton is a serviceable quarterback in this league.

So is that enough rebuttle to support that easily 12-4 is unneeded exaggeration? That is all I said after all.

I still think anytime you go up against a significantly worse team basically 4 games in a row after Cutler went down, you should win this games and with the way we were playing at the time most of those games would have been won by double digits if not all of them.

 

[selection7]

My hypothetical is also highly probable due to the fact that the teams we played were god awful while we were busy winning 5 in a row. You're right, adding Cutler doesn't make things stay the same, it makes them much much better. It's like going from Curtis Painter to Peyton Manning. The Colts easily win more than 2 games with Manning healthy for the season. Is that not fair to say?

A] All those teams were not god awful. B] I never said anything about "things staying the same". I specifically said "everything else" other than what Cutler can affect. Don't play cute word games with me. These sort of debates go on easily enough without any help. C] your last point is irrelevant to our central argument

 

It works both ways though. Wasn't Denver lucky that Marion Barber found a way to single handily cost us the game with his numerous miscues throughout the game? The illegal formation, the stepping out of bounds, the fumble etc.. Was Kansas City lucky that Chris Conte decided to slap the ball away from Urlacher in the final seconds of the half, leading to a hail mary touchdown?

It is to my point's advantage that it works both ways. Things going a little better than expected in a game won't help us get any more than 1 win out of it. Things going worse could result in a loss, even with Jay.

 

Lol 2 pick 6's is going to do that to you. Has Cutler ever done that in his career? I don't believe so. Cutler is also a player that while having an off game, has the ability to get his team back into the game by making some good passes. All you get with Haine is either bad or really bad.

As previously stated, 2 pick sixes does not cause you to lose by 24 points. Whether Cutler has done it twice is irrelavant. That Cutler very well could do it once (or twice, even), however, is relevant, as I previously pointed out.

 

Yeah but they also didn't lose to a Tyler Palko lead offense. Kyle Orton is a serviceable quarterback in this league.

I still think anytime you go up against a significantly worse team basically 4 games in a row after Cutler went down, you should win this games and with the way we were playing at the time most of those games would have been won by double digits if not all of them.

Kyle Orton had been on the Chiefs for 3 weeks and was still healing from a finger injury. The unbeaten Packers chance of winning that game was much more likely than our chances of going 5-1 with Jay. That's what you should take from that. But actually, your statement here, worded the way you did, I might even agree with. Of course, winning most of the games by double digits is not the same as winning all 5 of them easily.

[Bears4Ever_34]

A] All those teams were not god awful.

Oakland was the most penalized team in the National Football league this year and I believe set a record for it. They were an awful football team this year. Denver has Tim Tebow. Need I say more? They have virtually no offensive game to speak of and the only time they were winning was when their defense carried them and allowed them to stay close in games. Kansas City had probably the 2nd worst backup in the league next to Caleb Haine and lossed all of their good players to injuries. They were terrible. Seattle was below average. And Minnesota currently has a top 3 draft pick.

 

 

 

B] I never said anything about "things staying the same".

You said, "you can't simply add Cutler and everything else is guaranteed to stay the same". What doesn't Cutler affect when he's out there? Or any quarterback for that matter? They are the single most important part to a game for any position in sports. His play affects field position, how many points we score, the defensive strategy (less 8-9 man boxes), and time of possession on offense which directly correlates to how much time the defense has to be on the field. My response was that you are right. Nothing is guaranteed to same because it most likely gets better for us when Cutler is playing. There is no word games to be played.

 

C] your last point is irrelevant to our central argument

How? Your words insinuate that you don't believe you can make the argument that adding a player of Cutler's caliber translates into winning all those games against awful football teams. But almost any human on earth would tell you that if you inserted a guy like Peyton Manning in place of Curtis Painter you win alot of football games. Of course there is always a chance you lose games, it happens to everyone but the Bears had as great a chance as anyone to finish the season off with only 1 more loss after winning 7 out of 10 games because of the sub par teams they were playing. I firmly believe in all of those remaining games with the exception of GB would have been pretty damn convincing wins.

 

 

It is to my point's advantage that it works both ways. Things going a little better than expected in a game won't help us get any more than 1 win out of it. Things going worse could result in a loss, even with Jay.

No it's not. Luck is luck. Judging luck is stupid and pointless. Things going a little better than expected? What does that even mean? If Caleb Haine plays atleast average football we are in the playoffs. The only thing that he couldn't do was be terrible and he was beyond that. If there was anyone that had luck on their side it was the team playing against the Bears.

 

 

 

As previously stated, 2 pick sixes does not cause you to lose by 24 points. Whether Cutler has done it twice is irrelavant. That Cutler very well could do it once (or twice, even), however, is relevant, as I previously pointed out.

2 pick sixes has a lot to do with it, which is what I said. Cutler's skill allows him to get away with interceptions from time to time, Caleb is simply a talentless quarterback that doesn't have that luxury. In his worst game as a quarterback Haine put the final dagger in the Bears and took the wind right out of their sails. The psychological impact from the loss of Cutler was noticeable in the very first game without him but it only got worse as the year went on and then losing our RB didn't help the cause. That game was just a microcosm of how far the Bears had fallen off w/o #6 where everything just went south in a hurry. Before Cutler went down I think people took what we had in him for granted. I know I did. I honestly couldn't believe how wrong I was about how great of a quarterback he actually was after seeing what he had behind him and how he worked magic with the talent on offense. It was a real eye opener for all Bears fans. I think you are losing sight of just how much of a difference he makes.

 

Of course, winning most of the games by double digits is not the same as winning all 5 of them easily.

Eh, it kind of is. Winning by two or more scores is really where I was getting at in my statements. We would have won all of those games but there would have been some like the Chiefs, and Broncos games that would have ended in blowout wins and then there probably would have been some like the Raiders, Hawks games that still would have been won by double digits but perhaps not to the degree of the other two. Still, nonetheless it would have been a game that was never in any doubt which is what I believe constitutes the word, 'easy' as an appropriate word to describe it.

 

This conversation isn't going to get anywhere, so I've said all I need to say about how I feel, and there really isn't anything out there that could change my perception of where this team was going and the type of teams we were going up against, unless you can tell me that all of those teams upgraded their talent level considerably before each of those games and could convince me that Jay Cutler wasn't a great quarterback.

[selection7]

This conversation isn't going to get anywhere, so I've said all I need to say about how I feel, and there really isn't anything out there that could change my perception of where this team was going and the type of teams we were going up against, unless you can tell me that all of those teams upgraded their talent level considerably before each of those games.

No kidding. I could do this all day, but I don't really need this type of debate practice (only on the point about luck did I have to think for a moment about why you were off the mark). If I was going to ask anything next, it would be what you think the central argument is. You sometimes do a good job of arguing things that prove points other than what we're talking about though. I'll give you that.

[Bears4Ever_34]

No kidding. I could do this all day, but I don't really need this type of debate practice (only on the point about luck did I have to think for a moment about why you were off the mark). If I was going to ask anything next, it would be what you think the central argument is. You sometimes do a good job of arguing things that prove points other than what we're talking about though. I'll give you that.

I've only responded based on some of your comments that I don't necessarily agree with. You're original comment was about my exaggeration which I don't find accurate based on the fact that the teams we were going up against were crap and with the way Cutler was playing, I think we would have finished 12-4. I don't see how that is any kind of exaggeration. I find that to be a fair assessment. Then you decided to start getting 'more specific' and through all of that we had more differences of opinions. But then again, you didn't really have much to say about it other than trying to use luck as a basis for you argument.

[Lucky Luciano]

My hypothetical is also highly probable due to the fact that the teams we played were god awful while we were busy winning 5 in a row. You're right, adding Cutler doesn't make things stay the same, it makes them much much better. It's like going from Curtis Painter to Peyton Manning. The Colts easily win more than 2 games with Manning healthy for the season. Is that not fair to say?

 

well if that is the case and we get a free rewind, why not the teams we played also? do the chiefs never lose their starting qb, cassell?, for the season? do the raiders never lose their starting qb either? how about other players like key receivers or defensive ends? maybe offensive linemen?

 

[Bears4Ever_34]

well if that is the case and we get a free rewind, why not the teams we played also? do the chiefs never lose their starting qb, cassell?, for the season? do the raiders never lose their starting qb either? how about other players like key receivers or defensive ends? maybe offensive linemen?

Then we are talking about something completely different.