CrackerDog Posted August 19, 2012 Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 it is completely meaningless and 'smart' coaches and organizations realize this and play the rookies or players that they want to evaluate BEFORE the off-season so they can make moves to either keep If I felt like it I could provide several examples of Bill Belichick playing star players in "meaningless" games and he's plenty smart. And if you've gotten to the end of a snake bit season like the Bears had last year and don't know what your players are capable of, THAT would make Lovie stupid. It's all a matter of opinion, of course, but I think those that hate Lovie will find reasons, whatever they may be, to justify their hate. More power to you. I frankly don't love Smith but I have a hard time condemning a guy who took us to a Superbowl with Sexy Rexy at QB and then got us to the NFC Championship only two seasons ago, a game we might have won with the breaks going our way instead of against us. Ah well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 of COURSE he would want to play. this is why you hire good coaching staffs to make these determinations on whether it is smart or safe (past injury considerations) to play these franchise players or sit them for the good of your team the following season. would you let cutler play in that situation and risk taking a beating like he did against the giants 2 seasons ago? risk a career ending injury just because.... what? i sure as hell wouldn't. this is just one reason why angelo is gone and lovie should be. I get that you're never going to like Lovie. Maybe that would be the best way to approach this. Beyond that, there really is no way to determine WHEN to pull a player (unless you have a fully functional crystal ball). If Urlacher plays, it's for a matter of reasons to include him wanting to and him needing to. As far as pulling Cutler, we know he's the starting QB for the team, why bother having him play anymore Pre Season games? He's proven what he needs. What if HE gets hurt? Is Lovie "stupid" for letting him play to experience different looks from different teams? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 There is no way to justify playing Urlacher vs MIN last year. He can be injured at any point, but when he does in a meaningless game, that is just bad player management. Derrick Rose vs Philly comes to mind. There are 40.6 million reasons to justify him playing. And for him to decide whether he wants to. If he had left the game the play before his injury, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 f I felt like it I could provide several examples of Bill Belichick playing star players in "meaningless" games and he's plenty smart. And if you've gotten to the end of a snake bit season like the Bears had last year and don't know what your players are capable of, THAT would make Lovie stupid. 1. belichick... a poor example on your part. in his entire tenure in new england he missed the playoffs only twice. EDIT: he actually missed the playoffs 3 time if you count his first season with the pats. 2002 - game 16 was NOT a meaningless game. at 9-7 they needed a win in week 17 and got it. they needed a loss by the jets to make the playoffs which they did NOT get. not playing brady and their starters wasn't in the equation. 2008 - game 16 was NOT a meaningless game. at 11-5 they were still in the hunt for a playoff spot but needed a loss by the dolphins or ravens to get in. so not playing brady or their starters again wasn't in the equation. 2. i don't understand what your meaning is - "don't know what your players are capable of". urlacher started all 16 games so where is lovie evaluating the talent at MLB? tillman started all 16, briggs started all 16 and cutler was already injured and not able to play so no joy there. It's all a matter of opinion, of course, but I think those that hate Lovie will find reasons, whatever they may be, to justify their hate. More power to you. I frankly don't love Smith but I have a hard time condemning a guy who took us to a Superbowl with Sexy Rexy at QB and then got us to the NFC Championship only two seasons ago, a game we might have won with the breaks going our way instead of against us. Ah well... i don't "hate" lovie. i do certainly dislike him as a coach because i don't believe he is good enough or football smart enough to be a head coach and it is even questionable in my opinion he is even good enough to be a DC. the superbowl argument is dead and has been long ago buried. he can't live on LOSING a superbowl to justify a lifetime career as chicago's head coach. his actual abilities and failures after the superbowl season have been well documented by me and other on this site for years and if you handed me a resume with the coaching decisions and personnel decisions lovie has made over the last SIX years he wouldn't even get an interview from me. as far as the NFC championship game season? are you kidding me? we got our brains beat out by the packers not once, but twice when we had the chance to put them out of contention. so that reasoning isn't valid in the least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Luciano Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 I get that you're never going to like Lovie. Maybe that would be the best way to approach this. Beyond that, there really is no way to determine WHEN to pull a player (unless you have a fully functional crystal ball). If Urlacher plays, it's for a matter of reasons to include him wanting to and him needing to. As far as pulling Cutler, we know he's the starting QB for the team, why bother having him play anymore Pre Season games? He's proven what he needs. What if HE gets hurt? Is Lovie "stupid" for letting him play to experience different looks from different teams? no, i do NOT like poor coaches who never learn and consider themselves beyond approach for their faults. i don't like coaches who 'coach' scared when the point is not to better the franchise but keep their position intact. i disagree... there IS a way to determine when to pull a franchise player and they are in meaningless games or when one has injuries that can be aggrevated. what urlacher or any player wants is and SHOULD be second to what is good for the health of the team. playing players in pre-season is a whole different area. yes you need to get your players some real contact to get them in game shape before the season starts unless you are running full contact camps. but...... do you really believe that they should put their key starters in for 4 quarters the entire pre-season? there is a reason they limit time and reps for the key starters who ALREADY are going to make the team and are near locks as starters or have the age as veterans to not need the pre-season time on the field. think about it!! There are 40.6 million reasons to justify him playing. And for him to decide whether he wants to. If he had left the game the play before his injury, we wouldn't be having this discussion. this is an oximoron. if you have "40.6 million reasons" do you really want to risk paying them "reasons" to a guy on IR who got there for no apparent reason what-so-ever??? in other words why risk the cap health of your franchise by risking injury to a key player for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LT2_3 Posted August 20, 2012 Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 If I felt like it I could provide several examples of Bill Belichick playing star players in "meaningless" games and he's plenty smart. And if you've gotten to the end of a snake bit season like the Bears had last year and don't know what your players are capable of, THAT would make Lovie stupid. It's a matter of whether you are trying to win the game or not. I can see the value of sitting a vet if you have a bonafide prospect that you want to evaluate, but that wasn't the case here. There was no one behind Urlacher to play that would be acceptable. I would give this kind of criticism more credence if the people leveling the criticism also gave the same criticisms when vets were played in nearly meaningless games but did NOT get injured. I mean, if it's such a no brainer, then they should be saying the same things whether a player gets hurt or not. Right? It's all a matter of opinion, of course, but I think those that hate Lovie will find reasons, whatever they may be, to justify their hate. More power to you. I frankly don't love Smith but I have a hard time condemning a guy who took us to a Superbowl with Sexy Rexy at QB and then got us to the NFC Championship only two seasons ago, a game we might have won with the breaks going our way instead of against us. Ah well... I have a personal theory that at least SOME of the folks complaining about this wanted us to lose that game in the hopes that a 7-9 season would have gotten Lovie canned. I say that because everyone keeps saying this was a meaningless game. It was not a meaningless game. The difference between 7-9 and 8-8 on a team's psychology going into the offseason means something - hence - it wasn't meaningless. Now people can argue the merits of that sort of thinking, but they can't dismiss it out of hand unless they have another agenda - like wanting the coach fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 It's a matter of whether you are trying to win the game or not. I can see the value of sitting a vet if you have a bonafide prospect that you want to evaluate, but that wasn't the case here. There was no one behind Urlacher to play that would be acceptable. I would give this kind of criticism more credence if the people leveling the criticism also gave the same criticisms when vets were played in nearly meaningless games but did NOT get injured. I mean, if it's such a no brainer, then they should be saying the same things whether a player gets hurt or not. Right? I have a personal theory that at least SOME of the folks complaining about this wanted us to lose that game in the hopes that a 7-9 season would have gotten Lovie canned. I say that because everyone keeps saying this was a meaningless game. It was not a meaningless game. The difference between 7-9 and 8-8 on a team's psychology going into the offseason means something - hence - it wasn't meaningless. Now people can argue the merits of that sort of thinking, but they can't dismiss it out of hand unless they have another agenda - like wanting the coach fired. Amen and amen, LT2_3. And to Lucky, sorry, picking Belichick was a good example on my part. That guy has played his starters in games that were over at halftime against shitty teams, throughout his career. I recall Brady being in there throwing deep balls when the Pats had 40 point leads. And he's a good example because nobody would consider him dumb, just heartless and an ego maniac. And a winner. And for you to dismiss Lovie's getting us to the NFC title game only one full season ago and then to 8-8 with the injury issues we had last year, starting off 7-3, speaks directly to your feelings on the man. You may not think you hate him, but you do. And that's fine, he's not the greatest coach I've ever seen either. But his track record isn't as dismal as you and all the other Lovie haters out there would have us all believe, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyBear Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 Not only that but the players love the guy, He is a players coach. He didnt leave Url out there, Url did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hochuli 3:16 Posted August 21, 2012 Report Share Posted August 21, 2012 1. belichick... a poor example on your part. in his entire tenure in new england he missed the playoffs only twice. EDIT: he actually missed the playoffs 3 time if you count his first season with the pats. 2002 - game 16 was NOT a meaningless game. at 9-7 they needed a win in week 17 and got it. they needed a loss by the jets to make the playoffs which they did NOT get. not playing brady and their starters wasn't in the equation. 2008 - game 16 was NOT a meaningless game. at 11-5 they were still in the hunt for a playoff spot but needed a loss by the dolphins or ravens to get in. so not playing brady or their starters again wasn't in the equation. 2. i don't understand what your meaning is - "don't know what your players are capable of". urlacher started all 16 games so where is lovie evaluating the talent at MLB? tillman started all 16, briggs started all 16 and cutler was already injured and not able to play so no joy there. i don't "hate" lovie. i do certainly dislike him as a coach because i don't believe he is good enough or football smart enough to be a head coach and it is even questionable in my opinion he is even good enough to be a DC. the superbowl argument is dead and has been long ago buried. he can't live on LOSING a superbowl to justify a lifetime career as chicago's head coach. his actual abilities and failures after the superbowl season have been well documented by me and other on this site for years and if you handed me a resume with the coaching decisions and personnel decisions lovie has made over the last SIX years he wouldn't even get an interview from me. as far as the NFC championship game season? are you kidding me? we got our brains beat out by the packers not once, but twice when we had the chance to put them out of contention. so that reasoning isn't valid in the least. And by brains beat out, you mean by a combined 2 TD's in the 2 times they lost to GB during that season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Amen and amen, LT2_3. And to Lucky, sorry, picking Belichick was a good example on my part. That guy has played his starters in games that were over at halftime against shitty teams, throughout his career. I recall Brady being in there throwing deep balls when the Pats had 40 point leads. And he's a good example because nobody would consider him dumb, just heartless and an ego maniac. And a winner. And for you to dismiss Lovie's getting us to the NFC title game only one full season ago and then to 8-8 with the injury issues we had last year, starting off 7-3, speaks directly to your feelings on the man. You may not think you hate him, but you do. And that's fine, he's not the greatest coach I've ever seen either. But his track record isn't as dismal as you and all the other Lovie haters out there would have us all believe, either. I think it worth noting that Lovie is the third winningest coach (74-60) after Halas (318-148-31) and Ditka (106-62). Considering the history of the team. For refernce Bill Cowher is 149-90-1 (.623 winning percentage) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 I think it worth noting that Lovie is the third winningest coach (74-60) after Halas (318-148-31) and Ditka (106-62). Considering the history of the team. For refernce Bill Cowher is 149-90-1 (.623 winning percentage) Not sure what the point is when you reference a .552 win percentage... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Not sure what the point is when you reference a .552 win percentage... Well the point is pretty simple, it has to do with Lovie being the third winningest coach behind two legendary coaches in a very established and storied franchise. It either points to his being successful and despite your pointing out the .552 winning percentage, that is a winning record. Or it says that over the course of the team's 93 year history they've never really had any other coaches that have measured up. So thinking ahead and if the team were to manage three winning seasons in a row let's say a 10-6 record at the very least. That would bring Lovie's record to (not counting post season record) 104-78. Which is a .571 winning percentage...and still a winning record. I assume you mean to compare the "winning percentage" mark and suggest that Lovie's doesn't "add up". Here's a few more to compare to: Jimmy Johnson (Cowboys Head Coach 1989-93) winning pct: .579 to include postseason and two super bowls; Bill Parcells (Dallas 2003-06) .531, Chuck Noll (Steelers 1969-91) .571 to include 4 super bowl wins and Tom Coughlin (NY Giants 2004-present) .589 with two Super Bowl wins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chitownhustla Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 Well the point is pretty simple, it has to do with Lovie being the third winningest coach behind two legendary coaches in a very established and storied franchise. It either points to his being successful and despite your pointing out the .552 winning percentage, that is a winning record. Or it says that over the course of the team's 93 year history they've never really had any other coaches that have measured up. So thinking ahead and if the team were to manage three winning seasons in a row let's say a 10-6 record at the very least. That would bring Lovie's record to (not counting post season record) 104-78. Which is a .571 winning percentage...and still a winning record. I assume you mean to compare the "winning percentage" mark and suggest that Lovie's doesn't "add up". Here's a few more to compare to: Jimmy Johnson (Cowboys Head Coach 1989-93) winning pct: .579 to include postseason and two super bowls; Bill Parcells (Dallas 2003-06) .531, Chuck Noll (Steelers 1969-91) .571 to include 4 super bowl wins and Tom Coughlin (NY Giants 2004-present) .589 with two Super Bowl wins. So has any new info come out about this? 54 said in his interview that this was first knee operation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaskan Grizzly Posted August 22, 2012 Report Share Posted August 22, 2012 So has any new info come out about this? 54 said in his interview that this was first knee operation. Thank you for the re-direct to "on topic". Other than he may/may not have gone to Europe earlier this year (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/football/bears/14653378-606/brian-urlacher-evasive-about-reported-knee-procedure-in-germany.html) ...nothing I've heard. The fact that he is being elusive makes me wonder more about his viability for this year. Could he be trying to not discuss it too much because it's a "contract year", or because it's really nothing to worry about or....he's Brian Urlacher dammit and he doesn't give a sh*% what others think? Wait, got him mixed up with the honey badger. Anyhow, I fear his career is near done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo3451 Posted August 23, 2012 Report Share Posted August 23, 2012 I assume you mean to compare the "winning percentage" mark and suggest that Lovie's doesn't "add up". Here's a few more to compare to: Jimmy Johnson (Cowboys Head Coach 1989-93) winning pct: .579 to include postseason and two super bowls; Bill Parcells (Dallas 2003-06) .531, Chuck Noll (Steelers 1969-91) .571 to include 4 super bowl wins and Tom Coughlin (NY Giants 2004-present) .589 with two Super Bowl wins. I honestly wasn't making a point. I just didn't understand what yours was. Now that you've committed, I will as well. FWIW all of the coaches mentioned above, built their teams form crap. Lovie inherited a lot of talent. That being said, I have not been a Lovie fan throughout his tenure. However, I have noticed a change in him the last couple of years that has softened my stance.(a little) This year means a lot... Since, this is an Urlacher post I won't elaborate any more on the subject. I just wanted to clarify your interpretation of my question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.