A different take on Tucker

[CrackerDog]

Interesting read. I'm still all for firing him based on what I saw but there's two sides to the argument.

 

http://www.windycitygridiron.com/2014/1/9/...vie-smith-again

[Uncle Buck]

Indeed interesting, but....

 

1) Is Lovie Smith's defense so unique in its approach and player responsibilities that Tucker could not teach it on the run? What I mean is we had rookies out there that seemed to regress. So football fundamentals don't transcend Lovie's defense? Mel could not teach these to these regressing rookies? I suspect even if they switched systems and allowed Mel to run his own D last year, the rookies still would have regressed.

 

2) If there was a player "mutiny" of sorts at hand; or players brooding over Lovie's dismissal, then what good is it to let Mel have another crack at it with his own system? Has he not lost a number of the vets? I would guess that if they really wanted to be fair to Tucker then many of our FA vets should not be brought back in order to allow him to have a clean slate. Perhaps, Peppers, Melton, Briggs, & Tillman should go as I suspect they were some of the players who probably resented the change(s).

 

I appreciate a different spin on things, and this writer makes a good point, but I find it hard to believe that because Tucker had to run another's defense that he and his staff could not teach the younger players. I might even feel sorry for Tucker because he might have been sold a raw deal. How could anyone succeed with that defense? Injuries aside, Tillman, Briggs, and Peppers are all getting older, its not like there was a holdover of talent that was young and dynamic.

 

The Beard rolled the dice that if they hoped for a usual Lovie Smith Bear's defense, combined with Trestman's offense, would result in a good year. For a multitude of reasons, it failed, and a result of that is a defensive coordinator who probably has lessened credibility in the locker room; someone who probably needs to be fired.

[Mongo3451]

Straight up; the dumb ass was agreed to run Lovie's D. He obviously convinced them it would be OK. He failed. Fire him. He obviously lied in the interview process.

[scs787]

I don't see how it was a dumb thing to do, if that style ain't broke, don't fix it. It didn't work in hindsight but I have no problem with the logic.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I'm of two thoughts. First, the intention coming in was a good one. The D was no doubt the strongest piece of the team. Heck the year previous they were scoring more than some teams on offense were. So bowing to the vets of that very same defense and not "fixing what ain't broke" made sense...at the time. Perhaps Tucker was hamstrung because of that? Don't know, wasn't there when he and Emery and Trestman discussed it. Nevertheless, it was admirable. At that point the only real loss was Urlacher. Most of the pieces from the previous year were already in place and Emery acquired what and who he thought would be enough to sustain the run. Hindsight being what it is, we now know through injury the D could not keep up its ways. Which brings me to point two.

 

The rookies and new players didn't seem to get it. Is that the fault of the players or the coaches? Heck is it the fault of the vets? I think, becuse players like Bostic and Greene appeared to regress instead of improve its because of a lack of coaching. Add that a few players were added along the way (Ratlif and Anderson to name two) and they too appeared to be playing on talent alone makes me believe that they weren't coached as they should have.

 

I was personally glad that Tucker came out of the booth and coached from the sidelines. But even after he did, things didn't seem to improve. Players were out of position all too often. And desptie what was SOOO obvious to all of us fans, Conte still managed to play and eventually cost our team a win. That is piss poor playcalling/coaching and THAT is all on Tucker.

 

Bottom line, I would prefer they change direction with the DC. I don't think Tucker is the answer. Not sure who is but pretty sure he's not.

[madlithuanian]

I agree.

 

I wasn't thrilled by Tucker's lack of pedigree, but I figured the guys vetted him out and the philosophy behind it made sense. Let the vets buy-in and keep everyone happy. Turns out our old guys got old fast, and some, didn't really buy in. I think it's Briggs, but I could be wrong.

 

However, the big takeaway for the season for me isn't injuries. It's that I can't take away one positive that he's done. Not one single thing. Becasue of that, I want him gone.

 

I'm of two thoughts. First, the intention coming in was a good one. The D was no doubt the strongest piece of the team. Heck the year previous they were scoring more than some teams on offense were. So bowing to the vets of that very same defense and not "fixing what ain't broke" made sense...at the time. Perhaps Tucker was hamstrung because of that? Don't know, wasn't there when he and Emery and Trestman discussed it. Nevertheless, it was admirable. At that point the only real loss was Urlacher. Most of the pieces from the previous year were already in place and Emery acquired what and who he thought would be enough to sustain the run. Hindsight being what it is, we now know through injury the D could not keep up its ways. Which brings me to point two.

 

The rookies and new players didn't seem to get it. Is that the fault of the players or the coaches? Heck is it the fault of the vets? I think, becuse players like Bostic and Greene appeared to regress instead of improve its because of a lack of coaching. Add that a few players were added along the way (Ratlif and Anderson to name two) and they too appeared to be playing on talent alone makes me believe that they weren't coached as they should have.

 

I was personally glad that Tucker came out of the booth and coached from the sidelines. But even after he did, things didn't seem to improve. Players were out of position all too often. And desptie what was SOOO obvious to all of us fans, Conte still managed to play and eventually cost our team a win. That is piss poor playcalling/coaching and THAT is all on Tucker.

 

Bottom line, I would prefer they change direction with the DC. I don't think Tucker is the answer. Not sure who is but pretty sure he's not.

 

[AZ54]

Remember these guys?

 

Chris Harris...Defensive Quality Control Coach. Played a couple years under Lovie was well respected for his knowledge and leadership on the field.

 

Jon Hoke...Defensive Backs Coach. Coached a couple years under Lovie Smith helped bring Peanut and Jennings to their first Pro Bowls. Helped Chris Conte and Major Wright play in a serviceable manner in 2012. I like Hoke and think he got the best performance we've ever seen from Bowman this past year.

 

Mike Phair...Dline coach. Helped Henry Melton go from former RB to Pro Bowl DT. He helped Corey Wootton turn into a pretty good player at DE and then had him play acceptably out of position at DT this past season.

 

The fact these guys were still around from a very good year in 2012 to a disaster year in 2013 means we had coaches on the roster that knew the nuances of the D and had coached it successfully before. That's either more damning of Tucker for leading us down the road to disaster, or more validation that in fact the injuries to all of our DTs, Briggs, and Tillman were too much to overcome in that system with so many rookies and 2nd year players on the field...Bass, Bostic, Greene, Frey, and any rent-a-DT that showed up.

[Wesson44]

Remember these guys?

 

Chris Harris...Defensive Quality Control Coach. Played a couple years under Lovie was well respected for his knowledge and leadership on the field.

 

Jon Hoke...Defensive Backs Coach. Coached a couple years under Lovie Smith helped bring Peanut and Jennings to their first Pro Bowls. Helped Chris Conte and Major Wright play in a serviceable manner in 2012. I like Hoke and think he got the best performance we've ever seen from Bowman this past year.

 

Mike Phair...Dline coach. Helped Henry Melton go from former RB to Pro Bowl DT. He helped Corey Wootton turn into a pretty good player at DE and then had him play acceptably out of position at DT this past season.

 

The fact these guys were still around from a very good year in 2012 to a disaster year in 2013 means we had coaches on the roster that knew the nuances of the D and had coached it successfully before. That's either more damning of Tucker for leading us down the road to disaster, or more validation that in fact the injuries to all of our DTs, Briggs, and Tillman were too much to overcome in that system with so many rookies and 2nd year players on the field...Bass, Bostic, Greene, Frey, and any rent-a-DT that showed up.

It seems like our posters want to blame Tucker and our coaches for our bad defense this year....but slow down not so fast. There is a saying that coaches coach players play. Missed tackles.......blown coverages.....dropped balls........and poor angles.....and injuries are not on the coach. Having starters go down with rookies and players that are not very good as back ups will kill any defense.

[BearFan PHX]

I think we're waiting for a talented defensive assistant who is still in the playoffs

 

Any guesses who that might be?

[DABEARSDABOMB]

I think we're waiting for a talented defensive assistant who is still in the playoffs

 

Any guesses who that might be?

Who are you referring to? Is it someone in Seattle or San Francisco? I want the guy the Browns fired, Horton. Well, really I want Phillips more then anything and would just give him a blank check.

[BearFan PHX]

Who are you referring to? Is it someone in Seattle or San Francisco? I want the guy the Browns fired, Horton. Well, really I want Phillips more then anything and would just give him a blank check.

 

No I wasn't being cryptic. I don't have a guy in mind. It just seems like if they were keeping Tucker 100% at this point, they'd have said so, so it stands to reason they are still looking, even if they do end up on Tucker.

 

And if they're still looking, then it stands to reason they would have signed whoever they wanted quickly, unless he wasnt available to interview.

 

So I think there's a good chance that we're at least interested in interviewing one or more people who are still in the playoffs.

 

So I wonder who that might be. Any ideas?

[scs787]

Jim Tomsula is an interesting name that is making some head coaching noise. If he doesn't get that HC maybe he moves on up from DL coach in San Fran to a DC job here.

 

 

[BearFan PHX]

Jim Tomsula makes a lot of sense.

 

He's had leadership positions before, Head Coach of the Rhein Fire in 2006 and interim Head coach of the 49ers for one game after Singletary was fired.

 

But also, he's a line coach, and that's where we need the most help.

 

Just as Emery brought in Kromer a former OL coach to become OCoordinator, so might he bring in a DL coach to fix the Defnese, who also has the biggest woes on the D Line?

 

It's an interesting theory, thanks for the name, scs.

 

Anyone have any others?

[Mongo3451]

It seems like our posters want to blame Tucker and our coaches for our bad defense this year....but slow down not so fast. There is a saying that coaches coach players play. Missed tackles.......blown coverages.....dropped balls........and poor angles.....and injuries are not on the coach. Having starters go down with rookies and players that are not very good as back ups will kill any defense.

What if Tucker came in a little star struck and gave our guys a little too much respect? And what if they took advantage of it and didn't work as hard as they should have. What if he expected excellence, but didn't command it? Coaches coach and players play, but coaches get players ready to play. They just didn't seem ready...

[Daventry]

The article makes for an interesting read and has some good points.

 

What I would question is the fundamental decision to keep the old style defence. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but IF Tucker had something better to offer it would have been better if he had been able to put his own system in and make the players perform within this system.

 

The players should not be making decisions, either directly or indirectly, about the direction of the team, and need to remember that they play on a team and need to follow directions. If they can't, whoever that might be, they need to go.

 

I particularly feel the comments the author made about Lovie's defence are true; it was a good but not great defence and I never cared for the passive nature of it....it never suited the Bears at all IMO. We need an aggressive style defence....could we get one of Buddy's people back on board?

 

Buddy would adapt to the offences now if he were here and aggression came be formed in many ways.

 

And I am pleased to say that I believe in the coaching and management structure right now and am confident they will do the right things...and if they don't, they better BEWARE, because Bears fans are watching.

 

BEAR DOWN!

 

 

[AZ54]

I think we're waiting for a talented defensive assistant who is still in the playoffs

 

Any guesses who that might be?

 

I don't believe this is Phil Emery's style at all. We're saying he's sorta not happy with Tucker and might want to fire him IF he can get somebody but that guy is busy right now and we're not sure he'd want the Bears' job. No. Phil and Trestman will go through their process and make the determination to stay or go. Then he will put together a thorough list of candidates (likely done by Week 15 if he wanted Tucker gone) and be interviewing them without waiting for one guy who is still coaching a playoff team.

 

At this point I believe the decision has already been made to keep Tucker. Delaying that further is just disrespectful to him because it is hindering his ability to seek a new job with all these new head coaches. I don't believe Emery nor Trestman would do that to him.

 

I feel the delay in announcement is now centered around defining what direction we are going with the defense. Do we even want to announce that as it tips our hand before the draft. Of course who we go after in FA could tip our hand anyway so it likely doesn't make that much difference. In fact I won't be surprised to hear more "hybrid" tossed around just to muck it up further for everyone.

 

 

One other note. By firing Lovie the Bears made a statement to the players he was not getting the job done as HC. By keeping Lovie's D in tact including scheme and terminology and forcing a new guy to run it the Bears were telling their players that guy we just fired was a pretty good coach and ran a pretty good scheme. They sent a mixed message to the players.

 

When Bruce Arians took the Cardinals job he inherited a very good defense, and IMO a good defensive coordinator in Ray Horton. Reporters asked Arians if he would keep Horton since he was successful and for continuity. Arians flatly stated NO. While he respected the job Horton had done, keeping coaches around from the previous regime just gives players a place to go complain about the new changes. He had seen it too many times in his career. Fire them all and the players know the new sheriff is serious about making changes and improving things and if they don't like it they have but one man to come to talk to…him.

 

By keeping Lovie's scheme (and some of the previous coaches) we may have created some of that locker room drama Arians speaks of. Think about training camp. Players would see immediately the differences in Tucker and Lovie coaching the same defensive scheme. I believe though that the players still wanted to win and worked to perform well overall. It is possible as injuries mounted and left voids in on-the-field leadership players trusted the scheme less (hey we no longer have the man who built it) and began playing more as individuals just trying to make the play. Having some dissension and lack of trust in the scheme, or lack of trust in the new coach to run the old scheme properly, would not be out of the norm thus the reason for Tucker to coach from the sidelines.

 

If Tucker stays then the message has to be that we trust him. Blow up the D and let Tucker build what he wants from scratch and in so doing get rid of the ghost of Lovie in the locker room.

[Mongo3451]

I don't believe this is Phil Emery's style at all. We're saying he's sorta not happy with Tucker and might want to fire him IF he can get somebody but that guy is busy right now and we're not sure he'd want the Bears' job. No. Phil and Trestman will go through their process and make the determination to stay or go. Then he will put together a thorough list of candidates (likely done by Week 15 if he wanted Tucker gone) and be interviewing them without waiting for one guy who is still coaching a playoff team. At this point I believe the decision has already been made to keep Tucker. Delaying that further is just disrespectful to him because it is hindering his ability to seek a new job with all these new head coaches. I don't believe Emery nor Trestman would do that to him. I feel the delay in announcement is now centered around defining what direction we are going with the defense. Do we even want to announce that as it tips our hand before the draft. Of course who we go after in FA could tip our hand anyway so it likely doesn't make that much difference. In fact I won't be surprised to hear more "hybrid" tossed around just to muck it up further for everyone. One other note. By firing Lovie the Bears made a statement to the players he was not getting the job done as HC. By keeping Lovie's D in tact including scheme and terminology and forcing a new guy to run it the Bears were telling their players that guy we just fired was a pretty good coach and ran a pretty good scheme. They sent a mixed message to the players.

Agreed.

 

When Bruce Arians took the Cardinals job he inherited a very good defense, and IMO a good defensive coordinator in Ray Horton. Reporters asked Arians if he would keep Horton since he was successful and for continuity. Arians flatly stated NO. While he respected the job Horton had done, keeping coaches around from the previous regime just gives players a place to go complain about the new changes. He had seen it too many times in his career. Fire them all and the players know the new sheriff is serious about making changes and improving things and if they don't like it they have but one man to come to talk to…him.

Love, love, love, this part.

 

By keeping Lovie's scheme (and some of the previous coaches) we may have created some of that locker room drama Arians speaks of. Think about training camp. Players would see immediately the differences in Tucker and Lovie coaching the same defensive scheme. I believe though that the players still wanted to win and worked to perform well overall. It is possible as injuries mounted and left voids in on-the-field leadership players trusted the scheme less (hey we no longer have the man who built it) and began playing more as individuals just trying to make the play. Having some dissension and lack of trust in the scheme, or lack of trust in the new coach to run the old scheme properly, would not be out of the norm thus the reason for Tucker to coach from the sidelines. If Tucker stays then the message has to be that we trust him. Blow up the D and let Tucker build what he wants from scratch and in so doing get rid of the ghost of Lovie in the locker room.

I still see the star struck approach. I believe Tucker comes in and starts to work with the guys and the players say, "we did it this way". He had the opportunity to throw his dick on the table to show he had the biggest one. I don't have the facts, only a dotted line. Never know, he could have been undermined by Trestman. I doubt it. One thing I'm sure of, is that we'll never know the whole truth.

 

 

[DABEARSDABOMB]

What if Tucker came in a little star struck and gave our guys a little too much respect? And what if they took advantage of it and didn't work as hard as they should have. What if he expected excellence, but didn't command it? Coaches coach and players play, but coaches get players ready to play. They just didn't seem ready...

Exactly. Injuries aside, this team wasn't prepared more often then not and that falls on Tucker.