Kind of funny

[Chitownhustla]

The bears who have always been a Defensive Minded Team is now an Offensive minded team, which is the trend of the NFL. The team that has the Best D beats the shit out of the team with the Best O.

 

Last years SB had two Defensive Minded teams in the SB.

 

 

 

If the Bears can some how get the D fixed to be at least in the TOP 15 with a Top 10 O I will like our chances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

The bears who have always been a Defensive Minded Team is now an Offensive minded team, which is the trend of the NFL. The team that has the Best D beats the shit out of the team with the Best O.

 

Last years SB had two Defensive Minded teams in the SB.

 

 

 

If the Bears can some how get the D fixed to be at least in the TOP 15 with a Top 10 O I will like our chances.

 

 

Shoulda kept Lovie....just sayin.

[madlithuanian]

 

Shoulda kept Lovie....just sayin.

 

[adam]

The bears who have always been a Defensive Minded Team is now an Offensive minded team, which is the trend of the NFL. The team that has the Best D beats the shit out of the team with the Best O.

 

Last years SB had two Defensive Minded teams in the SB.

 

If the Bears can some how get the D fixed to be at least in the TOP 15 with a Top 10 O I will like our chances.

I know what you are saying, but the "minded" part is sometimes deceiving.

 

Baltimore won against the #3 defense (SF) last year, and their defense was ranked 17th. In 2011, both defenses were bad, the 27th ranked defense beat the 31st ranked defense. For 2010, the Steelers lost to the Packers, and the Steelers had the #2 defense. Before that, it was NO beating the 18th ranked defense of Indy. Before this year, you have to go all the way back to 2008 to find a dominant defense who won the Super Bowl (Steelers). In 2007? The Giants beat the better defense (NE #4), and we all know what happened in 2006.

 

So I agree with you that if we can get a top 15 defense, coupled with our offense, we will be very competitive.

[Chitownhustla]

Shoulda kept Lovie....just sayin.

 

I don't think Lovie would have been able to save our D this year.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stinger226]

Shoulda kept Lovie....just sayin.

You should had said something before he took the TB job, now we cant bring him back. Oh dammm We just cant get away from somebody saying something stupid.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

You should had said something before he took the TB job, now we cant bring him back. Oh dammm We just cant get away from somebody saying something stupid.

 

Just like we can't get away from someone being moronic.

 

Your wit defies intelligence or originality. Nicely done.

[Pixote]

I don't think Lovie would have been able to save our D this year.

 

I have to agree, given the same deck of cards to play with, I do not think Lovie's "D" would have been significantly better. I suspect his "O" would have been significantly worse than Trestman's. Combine the two and we would have had a top 5 pick in the draft.

[jason]

Shoulda kept Lovie....just sayin.

 

Why? So the Bears could have done worse last year? He may have made the defense slightly better, even with all the injuries, but the offense would still have been severely stunted.

 

Without a doubt, Lovie's Bears finish below .500 last year, and it would have been a much more boring ride.

[jason]

Trestman's team scored 27.8 points per game and gave up 29.9 per game.

Lovie Smith's teams averaged 20.93 points per game and gave up 19.2 points per game.

 

I'll only highlight the games that I believe would change.

WK 2 - 31-30 win over the Vikings. That's likely a loss. Lovie's teams rarely scored 31 points. 24-27 is likely, which gets the L.

WK 3 - 40-23 win over the Steelers. This is potentially a loss. 31 would be a great game. 40 was outrageous under Lovie. Maybe the Bears get 30 in this one and squeak out a win.

WK 6 - 27-21 win over the Giants. If Trestman's offense could only get 27, it's likely Lovie's would have been closer to the Giants score.

WK 9 - 27-20 win over the Packers. Same as above. Also, this is almost certainly a loss. The Packers owned Lovie over the last few years.

WK 14 - 45-28 win over the Vikings. Sorry, but 45 points is just not going to happen. It's probable still a win, but it would have been closer. Possible.

WK 15 - 38-31 win over the Browns. This would have been a loss. The Bears scored 21 in the 4th quarter. Not gonna happen under Lovie.

 

So that's 6 games. Even if you're fair about things, that's at best a 50/50 split. The Bears are likely 5-11. Maybe Lovie squeaks out one of the games I didn't mention. 6-10. At best.

[ASHKUM BEAR]

Trestman's team scored 27.8 points per game and gave up 29.9 per game. Lovie Smith's teams averaged 20.93 points per game and gave up 19.2 points per game. I'll only highlight the games that I believe would change. WK 2 - 31-30 win over the Vikings. That's likely a loss. Lovie's teams rarely scored 31 points. 24-27 is likely, which gets the L. WK 3 - 40-23 win over the Steelers. This is potentially a loss. 31 would be a great game. 40 was outrageous under Lovie. Maybe the Bears get 30 in this one and squeak out a win. WK 6 - 27-21 win over the Giants. If Trestman's offense could only get 27, it's likely Lovie's would have been closer to the Giants score. WK 9 - 27-20 win over the Packers. Same as above. Also, this is almost certainly a loss. The Packers owned Lovie over the last few years. WK 14 - 45-28 win over the Vikings. Sorry, but 45 points is just not going to happen. It's probable still a win, but it would have been closer. Possible. WK 15 - 38-31 win over the Browns. This would have been a loss. The Bears scored 21 in the 4th quarter. Not gonna happen under Lovie. So that's 6 games. Even if you're fair about things, that's at best a 50/50 split. The Bears are likely 5-11. Maybe Lovie squeaks out one of the games I didn't mention. 6-10. At best.

 

So you're saying that if we had the great defensive mind of Lovie Smith, we would have been worse? This is why I am willing to give a little slack to Trestman on his decision to keep Tucker. Because anyone can see, this defense was a train wreck before the hire was made with age/expiring contracts, then it got worse with injuries. This is the year the Bears planned on investing in the D, so lets hold tight and see which way they go.

 

 

 

 

 

[jason]

So you're saying that if we had the great defensive mind of Lovie Smith, we would have been worse? This is why I am willing to give a little slack to Trestman on his decision to keep Tucker. Because anyone can see, this defense was a train wreck before the hire was made with age/expiring contracts, then it got worse with injuries. This is the year the Bears planned on investing in the D, so lets hold tight and see which way they go.

 

That's what I believe. With Lovie, it would have been worse. He might have been able to help some on defense, but I don't believe his coaching abilities would have been able to make that big of an impact for a variety of reasons. On offense, however, I believe Lovie is leaps and bounds behind Trestman and Kromer, and that difference would have been the big key. Maybe the Bears don't give up 29.9 per game with Lovie. But there is no way in hell they score at the clip they did this year. The former is a possibility. The latter is a guarantee.

[Stinger226]

Just like we can't get away from someone being moronic.

 

Your wit defies intelligence or originality. Nicely done.

You keep using those big words,someone is mistakenly going to think your smarter than you really are.

 

You make negative comments all the time, but when you say something stupid, its like your immune to other peoples opinions.

 

There are a lot of smart people on this website and I would bet there isnt two other people that would say something that stupid.( I will give you the fact someone may agree with you)

 

Your one of the first people to throw your two cents in when someone says something stupid, but you cant take the heat when you do it, climb back in your igloo, and pray for 6 more months of winter. Alaska is a good place for you.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

That's what I believe. With Lovie, it would have been worse. He might have been able to help some on defense, but I don't believe his coaching abilities would have been able to make that big of an impact for a variety of reasons. On offense, however, I believe Lovie is leaps and bounds behind Trestman and Kromer, and that difference would have been the big key. Maybe the Bears don't give up 29.9 per game with Lovie. But there is no way in hell they score at the clip they did this year. The former is a possibility. The latter is a guarantee.

 

Jason, its times like this when I understand why Cracker gets on you so much.

 

All you're doing is speculatiing. 'Coulda' been worse, 'woulda' scored this and that.... What we do know is that the team ended up at 8-8 under Trestman's first year. Which by itself isn't all that bad but considering Lovie was fired after having a 10-6 season the year prior and this last seeason was supposed to be an improvement? In my opinion, the jury's still out on Trestman since not only is he supposed to be this 'great offensive guru' but also the Head coach. In theory, the defense should improve under his regime. So far what have we seen other than a significant plummet in defense aided by the losses not only due to injuries but also stalwart players like Urlacher and probaby Tillman this year? The head coach should have a better handle on this.

 

Before I get too far off track I'll tell you what I believe. Tampa Bay will end up doing better than Chicago next year. That's what I believe, not that's what will happen (I try to avoid making assinine guarantees like my buddy Stinger). Why is that, because I believe Lovie is the better coach than is Trestman. I cannot and will not specualte beyond that only time will tell whether I'm right or wrong.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

You keep using those big words,someone is mistakenly going to think your smarter than you really are.

 

You make negative comments all the time, but when you say something stupid, its like your immune to other peoples opinions.

 

There are a lot of smart people on this website and I would bet there isnt two other people that would say something that stupid.( I will give you the fact someone may agree with you)

 

Your one of the first people to throw your two cents in when someone says something stupid, but you cant take the heat when you do it, climb back in your igloo, and pray for 6 more months of winter. Alaska is a good place for you.

 

Hmmm..most negative comments are directed towards imbicilic people like you. Because you insert your ridiculous banter when you see fit. Censored or not.

 

Over the history of this board I have disagreed with many people for many things. Howver the majority of those people I have managed to make peace with in some fashion. You and I apparently have not. Which is totally cool. You don't challenge me in any way shape or form and despite your thinkiing otherwise, there has been no real "heat" to receieve. You really give yourself too much credit.

 

Your blind arrogance only comes to light when you make pigheaded comments like "igloos and darkness" about Alaska. Do me a favor and pick up a book someday, you might be surprised what's in it. Hell come up and visit sometime. You'd be equally surprised how great Alaska really is. I'd even encourage you to come up during the summer when its 'easier' to get around and not nearly as harsh.

[adam]

Trestman's team scored 27.8 points per game and gave up 29.9 per game.

Lovie Smith's teams averaged 20.93 points per game and gave up 19.2 points per game.

 

I'll only highlight the games that I believe would change.

WK 2 - 31-30 win over the Vikings. That's likely a loss. Lovie's teams rarely scored 31 points. 24-27 is likely, which gets the L.

WK 3 - 40-23 win over the Steelers. This is potentially a loss. 31 would be a great game. 40 was outrageous under Lovie. Maybe the Bears get 30 in this one and squeak out a win.

WK 6 - 27-21 win over the Giants. If Trestman's offense could only get 27, it's likely Lovie's would have been closer to the Giants score.

WK 9 - 27-20 win over the Packers. Same as above. Also, this is almost certainly a loss. The Packers owned Lovie over the last few years.

WK 14 - 45-28 win over the Vikings. Sorry, but 45 points is just not going to happen. It's probable still a win, but it would have been closer. Possible.

WK 15 - 38-31 win over the Browns. This would have been a loss. The Bears scored 21 in the 4th quarter. Not gonna happen under Lovie.

 

So that's 6 games. Even if you're fair about things, that's at best a 50/50 split. The Bears are likely 5-11. Maybe Lovie squeaks out one of the games I didn't mention. 6-10. At best.

We beat Dallas in Week 14.

[Stinger226]

Jason, its times like this when I understand why Cracker gets on you so much.

 

All you're doing is speculatiing. 'Coulda' been worse, 'woulda' scored this and that.... What we do know is that the team ended up at 8-8 under Trestman's first year. Which by itself isn't all that bad but considering Lovie was fired after having a 10-6 season the year prior and this last seeason was supposed to be an improvement? In my opinion, the jury's still out on Trestman since not only is he supposed to be this 'great offensive guru' but also the Head coach. In theory, the defense should improve under his regime. So far what have we seen other than a significant plummet in defense aided by the losses not only due to injuries but also stalwart players like Urlacher and probaby Tillman this year? The head coach should have a better handle on this.

 

Before I get too far off track I'll tell you what I believe. Tampa Bay will end up doing better than Chicago next year. That's what I believe, not that's what will happen (I try to avoid making assinine guarantees like my buddy Stinger). Why is that, because I believe Lovie is the better coach than is Trestman. I cannot and will not specualte beyond that only time will tell whether I'm right or wrong.

I think Lovie was a good coach, but there is only so long you can go with missing the playoffs before we needed a new injection of blood in the organization.No way in hell they have a better record than we do next year. Lovie doesnt walk on water even if the rivers of Alaska are frozen now. The defense was ready to fall no matter who was steering the ship. Between age and injuries, we were doomed defensively. Lovie went 5-11 his first year after following Jaurons 7-9 season.

I not sure you can judge a coach by his first year or we would have fired lovie after his first year.I dont know if Trestman will end up being a better coach but sure wont judge him by one year. If your going to use the word asinine, the least you can learn to spell it right, but then its you, so I shouldnt expect that much out of you. By the way I have been to Alaska and its a wonderful place.

[Stinger226]

Hmmm..most negative comments are directed towards imbicilic people like you. Because you insert your ridiculous banter when you see fit. Censored or not.

 

Over the history of this board I have disagreed with many people for many things. Howver the majority of those people I have managed to make peace with in some fashion. You and I apparently have not. Which is totally cool. You don't challenge me in any way shape or form and despite your thinkiing otherwise, there has been no real "heat" to receieve. You really give yourself too much credit.

 

Your blind arrogance only comes to light when you make pigheaded comments like "igloos and darkness" about Alaska. Do me a favor and pick up a book someday, you might be surprised what's in it. Hell come up and visit sometime. You'd be equally surprised how great Alaska really is. I'd even encourage you to come up during the summer when its 'easier' to get around and not nearly as harsh.

When you have something good to say, I gladly give you kudos, but when you say something stupid, I comment on that too, sorry, you cant keep this from being personal, I majored in Psychology when I went to college and understand your problem. If you would like to talk sometime off the website, I can help. Just let me know.

[Daventry]

I have to agree with some others about Lovie vs Trestmann, but as Alaska said, that is what I believe not a surety of what will happen...which despite the amount of statistics and theoretical ideas that can be given, is all any of us have to offer in the end, albeit some definitely know more than others.

 

And I am quite aware I know less than many others here.....which is why I love coming here and learning about football and hearing views about my beloved Bears.

 

What I really don't like is the personal attacks and vile unnecessary comments....do we have to resort to name calling when we don't agree?

 

I am just asking, for what it is worth, to keep the site free of personal attacks. I have a feeling if we were all together in the flesh, without the barriers of the net, we would likely have a great time and have a good beer or two...or 10.

 

Let's try to have it that way here!

 

Take care all! Life is too short for bad feelings.

[Stinger226]

I have to agree with some others about Lovie vs Trestmann, but as Alaska said, that is what I believe not a surety of what will happen...which despite the amount of statistics and theoretical ideas that can be given, is all any of us have to offer in the end, albeit some definitely know more than others.

 

And I am quite aware I know less than many others here.....which is why I love coming here and learning about football and hearing views about my beloved Bears.

 

What I really don't like is the personal attacks and vile unnecessary comments....do we have to resort to name calling when we don't agree?

 

I am just asking, for what it is worth, to keep the site free of personal attacks. I have a feeling if we were all together in the flesh, without the barriers of the net, we would likely have a great time and have a good beer or two...or 10.

 

Let's try to have it that way here!

 

Take care all! Life is too short for bad feelings.

Your right about all of that.

I made a comment about what I thought was stupid in saying he thought we should still have Lovie. I didnt say he was stupid. He is the one that wanted to lay out the insults. That is the only way he knows how to address criticism. I have said some lame things on here and have took heat for it. I dont have a problem with it, just part of leaving opinions. My problem is I say what I think. I praise people for good comments and smart off when I dont like something they say. Many people on here have strong opinions about stuff and that is what makes this site a well visited place. Commenting on something I disagree with is just part of all of this, I dont have malice in my comments, just comes out negative sometimes. Sorry for that.

[scs787]

I'm gonna avoid the morality talks and say that it wouldn't surprise me if Tampa is pretty good next year should the draft right.

 

People will praise Lovie for it, but in all reality, those guys actually have a pretty solid squad. Esp. if Doug Martin returns to his 2012 self.

 

Their schedule last year was just BRUTAL. 9 of their 12 loses came against 10+ win teams. Hell they forced Seattle into over time.

 

 

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I have to agree with some others about Lovie vs Trestmann, but as Alaska said, that is what I believe not a surety of what will happen...which despite the amount of statistics and theoretical ideas that can be given, is all any of us have to offer in the end, albeit some definitely know more than others.

 

And I am quite aware I know less than many others here.....which is why I love coming here and learning about football and hearing views about my beloved Bears.

 

What I really don't like is the personal attacks and vile unnecessary comments....do we have to resort to name calling when we don't agree?

 

I am just asking, for what it is worth, to keep the site free of personal attacks. I have a feeling if we were all together in the flesh, without the barriers of the net, we would likely have a great time and have a good beer or two...or 10.

 

Let's try to have it that way here!

 

Take care all! Life is too short for bad feelings.

 

Cheers to you Daventry. I agree, most in person here would probably get along pretty well. Especially when discussing American football of which the best team known is the Bears. Further I have no doubt that we'd get along even better should libations be introduced.

 

You are one of those I thought of when I said I've had disagreements with only to come out at the other end having an appreciation for each other's opinion.

 

I don't do well with the "touchy feely" stuff but do appreciate the varied opinions, despite how wrong some might be.

 

On this particular matter what started as a 'tongue in cheek' comment has started a life of its own. But as SCS must carry the burden of his infatuation for J. Webb so too must I for Lovie. LMAO

[Stinger226]

Cheers to you Daventry. I agree, most in person here would probably get along pretty well. Especially when discussing American football of which the best team known is the Bears. Further I have no doubt that we'd get along even better should libations be introduced.

 

You are one of those I thought of when I said I've had disagreements with only to come out at the other end having an appreciation for each other's opinion.

 

I don't do well with the "touchy feely" stuff but do appreciate the varied opinions, despite how wrong some might be.

 

On this particular matter what started as a 'tongue in cheek' comment has started a life of its own. But as SCS must carry the burden of his infatuation for J. Webb so too must I for Lovie. LMAO

Lets put the bashing down and just go with your original thought.

 

WHO ON HERE IS STILL WANTING LOVIE TO BE HERE?

[bear trap]

alaskan.... stop with the lovie worship already! you talk as if because of trestman the team went backwards. injuries killed the team this yr and i am with stinger on this one... with lovie i seriously doubt the team sees five wins...hmmm lets see here before lovies final season his records the last five seasons were : 8-8 ; 11-5 ; 7-9 ; 9-7 ; 7-9.... he was given numerous seasons to turn it around and we kept getting mediocre results...trestmans first season he takes a team RAVAGED with injuries and goes 8-8!!! lovies record without url in the middle was not impressive and i see no evidence that he would have kept them at 10+ wins...hell even lovies 11-5 season ended with us losing to the pack in reg season so they barely get in then we just give them the nfc championship... heres one thing that says it all about how good they eere at judging talent: lovie gave webb a little over two seasons... trestman gave him otas... nuff said he took an off that was ranked in the 20s i believe in sccoring and made them the #2 scoring off in the league in 1 season.... what were you expecting trestman to do in his first yr?? walk on water???

[jason]

Jason, its times like this when I understand why Cracker gets on you so much.

 

All you're doing is speculatiing. 'Coulda' been worse, 'woulda' scored this and that.... What we do know is that the team ended up at 8-8 under Trestman's first year. Which by itself isn't all that bad but considering Lovie was fired after having a 10-6 season the year prior and this last season was supposed to be an improvement? In my opinion, the jury's still out on Trestman since not only is he supposed to be this 'great offensive guru' but also the Head coach. In theory, the defense should improve under his regime. So far what have we seen other than a significant plummet in defense aided by the losses not only due to injuries but also stalwart players like Urlacher and probably Tillman this year? The head coach should have a better handle on this.

 

Before I get too far off track I'll tell you what I believe. Tampa Bay will end up doing better than Chicago next year. That's what I believe, not that's what will happen (I try to avoid making asinine guarantees like my buddy Stinger). Why is that, because I believe Lovie is the better coach than is Trestman. I cannot and will not specualte beyond that only time will tell whether I'm right or wrong.

 

See, that's a ridiculous take in my opinion. You're comparing apples and oranges.

 

We know Lovie's history. We have stats to support these assertions. It's not speculation when there is supporting data.

 

I agree that Lovie had a better handle on the D last year than the Bears did this past season, but with the loss of Urlacher, and injuries, and rookies, he wouldn't have been able to make that large of an impact. Let him run the 2013 defense, and he maybe saves a few points per game. Maybe. It's something we don't know because he never had to deal with a season with that many key injuries, losses, and rookies. It was the perfect storm. And to say that "in theory" the defense should have improved under Trestman is just dumb. Absolutely everyone knew the Bears would take a step back on Defense. They were hiring an offensive coach, and had turnover in the defensive coaching/players. It's just that the injuries exacerbated things.

 

On offense, however, it's absolutely not speculation that Lovie would have done a MUCH worse job than Trestman. Lovie had zero clue on offense, and it's the primary reason the Bears languished during his tenure.

 

I'll give you one thing though...if Lovie were still here, he probably wouldn't have had the problems on defense the Bears had this year. At least not to that extent. And it's just not about coaching. He would have ensured the Bears drafted more defense, and perhaps spent more in free agency on a defensive player, because that's what he always did. Of course, that leads to the same problem he had the entire time he was in Chicago, and the problem that got worse with Cutler: a bad OL. If Lovie were still in Chicago we'd be talking about the offensive line in the draft again this year, because Webb would probably still be acting as a swinging gate and Lovie would have brought in some nobody to compete at the other tackle position while Garza acted as probably the best guy on the OL (hint: based on the informal Bearstalk poll, he's fourth).