Why Emery fired Lovie

[CrackerDog]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000022...red-lovie-smith

 

It was all about Jay.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap100000022...red-lovie-smith

 

It was all about Jay.

 

I make it no secret my disdain for management letting Lovie go. And I'm still a little put off with the loss of Urlacher. But whats done is done. So who really cares why Emery fired Lovie?

 

What we might ask oursleves is why did he hire Trestman? "So he's got "a football mind"? So did Turner, so did Martz. Neither worked. I hope, more for the sake of the Franchise, that Trestman (and Cutler) succeed. But if this turns out to be a debacle then Cutler needs to go. Then Trestman should be given one last shot and he too should go. (It almost goes without saying that Emery would be excused somewhere in there).

 

Cutlers's already shown a resiliancy to the new era with his comments the other day. Is it true or just "Jay being Jay"?

[CrackerDog]

I make it no secret my disdain for management letting Lovie go.

 

I didn't think he deserved to get fired after last season either but I've moved on (as I think you have) and I'm hopeful that the new staff puts a product on the field we can be proud of. Like Lovie's style or not, I think most people thought the team represented the city well and they were proud of their Bears during Lovie's time here. He was a class guy with a few flaws. Flaws that drove some people here crazy.

 

As to "Why did they hire Trestman?" I think you don't get to that question until after they decide to fire Lovie. So that's why it's important in the scheme of things. I've liked his candor thus far, I think the team is responding to him on the practice field, he seems to have a lot of energy... Based on what I've seen so far, I'm mildly impressed. I hope the answer to your question is given on the field, with Wins. That's the only important reason to hire a coach. And as of today, we don't have anything but anecdotal evidence to go by. We'll have a little more next Friday with the real "answers" coming on opening day and thereafter.

[Stinger226]

I make it no secret my disdain for management letting Lovie go. And I'm still a little put off with the loss of Urlacher. But whats done is done. So who really cares why Emery fired Lovie?

 

What we might ask oursleves is why did he hire Trestman? "So he's got "a football mind"? So did Turner, so did Martz. Neither worked. I hope, more for the sake of the Franchise, that Trestman (and Cutler) succeed. But if this turns out to be a debacle then Cutler needs to go. Then Trestman should be given one last shot and he too should go. (It almost goes without saying that Emery would be excused somewhere in there).

 

Cutlers's already shown a resiliancy to the new era with his comments the other day. Is it true or just "Jay being Jay"?

So you are saying in defense of Lovie that making one playoff in 6 years is worth keeping around? You need to set your goals higher. I dont think Lovie was a bad coach, just he is what he is. Not being able to take us to the promise land. Hanging on to average coaches, and has been players doesnt give you a bright future. Change was needed and accept it.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I didn't think he deserved to get fired after last season either but I've moved on (as I think you have) and I'm hopeful that the new staff puts a product on the field we can be proud of. Like Lovie's style or not, I think most people thought the team represented the city well and they were proud of their Bears during Lovie's time here. He was a class guy with a few flaws. Flaws that drove some people here crazy.

 

Fair enough. And you're right, I've moved on. I hope the team does as good or better than 10-6. That's what they deserve.

 

As to "Why did they hire Trestman?" I think you don't get to that question until after they decide to fire Lovie. So that's why it's important in the scheme of things. I've liked his candor thus far, I think the team is responding to him on the practice field, he seems to have a lot of energy... Based on what I've seen so far, I'm mildly impressed. I hope the answer to your question is given on the field, with Wins. That's the only important reason to hire a coach. And as of today, we don't have anything but anecdotal evidence to go by. We'll have a little more next Friday with the real "answers" coming on opening day and thereafter.

. And again you're right again, nothing left to prove but on the field.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Sorry. DP

[Alaskan Grizzly]

So you are saying in defense of Lovie that making one playoff in 6 years is worth keeping around? You need to set your goals higher. I dont think Lovie was a bad coach, just he is what he is. Not being able to take us to the promise land. Hanging on to average coaches, and has been players doesnt give you a bright future. Change was needed and accept it.

 

Stinger, as you may have missed I have "gotten over it" enough that I'm looking forward to the new year. I do so with strongly guarded optimism though. Trestman hasn't proven anything as of yet.

 

Whether you like it or not Lovie had a winning record. His teams finished .500 or better in 6 of his 9 years as coach. Unfortunatley he wasn't so good at offense and had too many friends (that he thought he owed) where he couldn't look outside the bubble. That was his Waterloo. And just because Urlacher "hung around" doesnst necessrily mean he (Lovie) was holding onto "has been" players. Last year's Urlacher was probably better than half the LB's in the league.

[Mongo3451]

Lovie was a mediocre coach at best. His record shows that. They invested so heavily on defense, it should have been better than the 85 Bears and it wasn't close in comparison. He was fired because they chose a philosophy to neglect offense at the discretion of being great on defense. Everyone knew why he was fired before this interview, as previously stated on this board. Glad he's gone and IMO it was 3 years too late. I'm sure will be better for it.

['TD']

Lovie needed to go.

 

Emery, I am not sold on.

 

Trestman, I have high hopes for. I will be skeptical as always.

 

Urlacher, I think was a horrible decision. No way to prove what I think there, or disprove it would have been nice to have him here for the rookies. Considering how great the D was when he played last year, I think he would habve made a difference on the field to.

[madlithuanian]

Good post, Alaska. I know your persepctive well, and you've put a good summary there on your thoughts. I we've disagreed on the topic, but I you have always backed your position well.

 

 

 

 

Whether you like it or not Lovie had a winning record. His teams finished .500 or better in 6 of his 9 years as coach. Unfortunatley he wasn't so good at offense and had too many friends (that he thought he owed) where he couldn't look outside the bubble. That was his Waterloo. And just because Urlacher "hung around" doesnst necessrily mean he (Lovie) was holding onto "has been" players. Last year's Urlacher was probably better than half the LB's in the league.

 

[madlithuanian]

As much as I had my issues with Smith, I think he was better than mediocre. I think he was average. What prowess he had on D, he lacked on O. The 85 D was simply superior no matter how much the latest era invested in it. The D line was superior with 2 HoF'ers, Mongo who was pro bowl, and Fridge and a rotation that complimented those 3 wonderfully. The LB corps were better. One could argue Url was better than Samurai, but Otis and Wilber were better than Briggs and Hunter. Tillman is probably better than the CB's...and when Mike Brown was healthy, he was as good/if not better than Fencik. But Fencik was rock steady and not injury prone. And with the front 7 the 85 team had, the DB's didn't need to all be amazing...

 

I agree that he was not the right man for the job, but for a period, we owned D in the NFL...and that was because of Smith. We could have been stuck with worse.

 

Average overall, but not mediocre. Maybe it's just semantics, but I always felt mediocre is less than average.

 

Damn...never thought I'd be defending Smith!

 

Lovie was a mediocre coach at best. His record shows that. They invested so heavily on defense, it should have been better than the 85 Bears and it wasn't close in comparison. He was fired because they chose a philosophy to neglect offense at the discretion of being great on defense. Everyone knew why he was fired before this interview, as previously stated on this board. Glad he's gone and IMO it was 3 years too late. I'm sure will be better for it.

 

[CrackerDog]

As much as I had my issues with Smith, I think he was better than mediocre. I think he was average.

 

Technically he was better than average as his teams were above 500 (the average coach is 500) and his D was often in the top level of the league (points). His ST's always excelled as well although that credit may belong to others... Mediocre is an unfair word to apply to Lovie.

 

As to the O, I'm not sure how anyone can blame Smith for having run the offenses he had to run with shitty QB's, in general. I do blame him for his part in choosing the OC's we've had with Cutler at QB but I was pretty excited with the Martz hire when it happened. The lack of depth on the O Line may have been Lovie's fault if he was constantly in Angelo's ear about drafting D. I'm not sure anyone will ever know the level of influence Smith had on JA's picks. Regardless, it was JA's job to ignore Smith if he thought other areas needed attention and let's be honest, the OL was neglected for years under Angelo.

 

He wasn't a great coach on game day. That's fairly clear. But he had his teams ready at all times, they overachieved on many occasions and disappointed a few times too. He's a class guy and I wish him all the best. I thought he deserved another year as I don't recall any HC being fired for a 10-6 season, ever. But, he's gone and I don't feel too bad about it either. What does that tell you? I sure hope Trestman surpasses Lovie in every important category, especially W's. No matter what, the Bears are my team and I'm going to root for their success even if I disagree (in this case mildly) with individual decisions.

[madlithuanian]

I won't get into how average or above average he's considered, as I understand the arguments.

 

But, I think we're definitley on the same page that he was not mediocre.

 

Technically he was better than average as his teams were above 500 (the average coach is 500) and his D was often in the top level of the league (points). His ST's always excelled as well although that credit may belong to others... Mediocre is an unfair word to apply to Lovie.

 

As to the O, I'm not sure how anyone can blame Smith for having run the offenses he had to run with shitty QB's, in general. I do blame him for his part in choosing the OC's we've had with Cutler at QB but I was pretty excited with the Martz hire when it happened. The lack of depth on the O Line may have been Lovie's fault if he was constantly in Angelo's ear about drafting D. I'm not sure anyone will ever know the level of influence Smith had on JA's picks. Regardless, it was JA's job to ignore Smith if he thought other areas needed attention and let's be honest, the OL was neglected for years under Angelo.

 

He wasn't a great coach on game day. That's fairly clear. But he had his teams ready at all times, they overachieved on many occasions and disappointed a few times too. He's a class guy and I wish him all the best. I thought he deserved another year as I don't recall any HC being fired for a 10-6 season, ever. But, he's gone and I don't feel too bad about it either. What does that tell you? I sure hope Trestman surpasses Lovie in every important category, especially W's. No matter what, the Bears are my team and I'm going to root for their success even if I disagree (in this case mildly) with individual decisions.

 

[Stinger226]

Stinger, as you may have missed I have "gotten over it" enough that I'm looking forward to the new year. I do so with strongly guarded optimism though. Trestman hasn't proven anything as of yet.

 

Whether you like it or not Lovie had a winning record. His teams finished .500 or better in 6 of his 9 years as coach. Unfortunatley he wasn't so good at offense and had too many friends (that he thought he owed) where he couldn't look outside the bubble. That was his Waterloo. And just because Urlacher "hung around" doesnst necessrily mean he (Lovie) was holding onto "has been" players. Last year's Urlacher was probably better than half the LB's in the league.

has been was probably too strong, but better than 1/2 starting mlbs in league is quite a mouthful

[Bears4Ever_34]

What Lovie was doing wasn't working. Missing the playoffs 5 of the last 6 years is unacceptable. Whether Emery made the right choice with Trestman remains to be seen, but the Lovie firing was the absolute right thing to do.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

has been was probably too strong, but better than 1/2 starting mlbs in league is quite a mouthful

 

For the record I never said "starting". Just LBs.

[AZ54]

has been was probably too strong, but better than 1/2 starting mlbs in league is quite a mouthful

 

 

If true, wouldn't that mean half the teams in the NFL would want him on their roster? Or let's pare it down and say there should have been at least 8 teams that wanted him on their roster. Where was the bidding war or even the team visits? Four teams?

 

Perhaps he was only better than the bottom 1/4 of MLB; at that point teams prefer to draft a younger player who is faster and more durable, which is exactly what we did. Urlacher is not a vet-minimum-salary depth guy, he's a Hall of Fame player who wanted to be a starter. He wasn't going somewhere just to be on a roster and act as a cheerleader. I respect and understand that sentiment and so did the NFL teams by not asking him to play for less.

 

Bostic can't lead the defense like Urlacher could have, but when we see him run down one of these QB option plays everyone will notice the difference. It's already obvious in some of the training camp highlight films although they keep such tight angles on the video that it's hard to pick up.

 

..and I'm keeping my screen name AZ54 out of respect for the Hall of Fame player and what he did for our team. I'm not happy his run has ended, not even with the way it ended, but in the end it was clear his time was done and I'm happy he retired having only played for the Bears.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

If true, wouldn't that mean half the teams in the NFL would want him on their roster? Or let's pare it down and say there should have been at least 8 teams that wanted him on their roster. Where was the bidding war or even the team visits? Four teams?

 

Perhaps he was only better than the bottom 1/4 of MLB; at that point teams prefer to draft a younger player who is faster and more durable, which is exactly what we did. Urlacher is not a vet-minimum-salary depth guy, he's a Hall of Fame player who wanted to be a starter. He wasn't going somewhere just to be on a roster and act as a cheerleader. I respect and understand that sentiment and so did the NFL teams by not asking him to play for less.

 

Well for one none of us know who he was or wasnt contacted by so to assume that he wasn't would be wrong. I think it safe to say, and you somewhat alluded to it later in your post, that Urlachers pride probably got in the way of him signing with another team. We know because he was "insulted" by the offer the Bears originally gave him. And I would be willing to bet that he wanted to return to the Bears more than play anywhere else.

 

But this, to include your earlier comments, is all scepticism. And similar to you I am glad he ultimately chose to retire rather than go elsewhere to "prove a point". I think one more year is what he was owed but not necessarily at the cost he wanted. Could have been a year deal laden with incentives but as before, what's done is done. (And for the addendum to the earlier record; I never said "MLBs", just LBs. MLB would be too narrow a focus).

[Chitownhustla]

What Lovie was doing wasn't working. Missing the playoffs 5 of the last 6 years is unacceptable. Whether Emery made the right choice with Trestman remains to be seen, but the Lovie firing was the absolute right thing to do.

 

 

I agree with this. Lovie had to go. I think if you look deeper into the whole situation the blame for firing Lovie goes on Lovie for never figuring out the O and JA. You can not shit the bed on so many draft picks and sustain a franchise. Had some of JA's draft picks panned out maybe the O would not have sucked so bad.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I agree with this. Lovie had to go. I think if you look deeper into the whole situation the blame for firing Lovie goes on Lovie for never figuring out the O and JA. You can not shit the bed on so many draft picks and sustain a franchise. Had some of JA's draft picks panned out maybe the O would not have sucked so bad.

 

Before I go much further understand I was never a fan of Angelo's. However there were some picks that did "pan out", both on D and O. Matt Forte was a pick of Angelo's. As was Greg Olsen (Martz screwed that one up). Heck even Hester (although not really an offensive player) "panned out" pretty good all things considered.

 

And if not for Angelo, would we as fans be calling Cutler our QB or Julius Peppers as a member of the Chicago D?

 

 

 

 

[Chitownhustla]

Before I go much further understand I was never a fan of Angelo's. However there were some picks that did "pan out", both on D and O. Matt Forte was a pick of Angelo's. As was Greg Olsen (Martz screwed that one up). Heck even Hester (although not really an offensive player) "panned out" pretty good all things considered.

 

And if not for Angelo, would we as fans be calling Cutler our QB or Julius Peppers as a member of the Chicago D?

 

I never said he didn't do anything right, I loved the trade for Cutler and Peppers signing. I liked the Olsen(great value for a late 1st round pick). My big problem is the number of misses. Especially in the first three rounds. The misses were all to common, one example is the guy who could jump out of a pool. 3rd round pick that could have been used better. Dan Bazuin another total flop that never played a down for the Bears. Chris Williams, Mark Bradley, Michael Haynes, Rex Grossman, Marc Colombo, David Terrel Another huge area of shitting the bed was never addressing the Oline. If they could have protected Cutler better maybe the horse shit O would not have been so horse shit.

[Stinger226]

For the record I never said "starting". Just LBs.

that was a bold statement, all LBs on everybodys roster? give me a break

[Daventry]

Lovie was past his sell by date, he was never going to get us to the next level and made extremely bad decisions with the offensive side of the team. The only way anyone would want to keep him is if one was happy with being a marginal playoff team every year with an anaemic offence.

 

Urlacher's failure to play this year speaks for itself, and he didn't help himself with his crude behaviour.

 

I am hopeful that the new regimen will put us in the running for a Super Bowl and am optimistic about the future, which I would not have felt if Lovie was at the helm again this year.