Kind of funny

[jason]

We beat Dallas in Week 14.

 

Just an honest mistake. I put it all in excel and copied rows. I must have copy/pasted wrong. The point remains the same.

[madlithuanian]

I think it might be obvious where I fall in that discussion...

 

And if not, then I am an unapologetic NO. F NO in fact.

 

 

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

 

WHO ON HERE IS STILL WANTING LOVIE TO BE HERE?

 

[madlithuanian]

Smith will do what he does.

 

Make the D very good. Get them close, but not go the distance. Hit the playoffs every 3 years and annoy the fan base and media.

 

 

 

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.

 

[Chitownhustla]

Smith will do what he does.

 

Make the D very good. Get them close, but not go the distance. Hit the playoffs every 3 years and annoy the fan base and media.

 

 

I 100% wanted Lovie gone. I wanted him gone years before they fired him. They gave him 10 years to figure out how to field a complete team. Three phases, right? Part of this blame goes on JA.

 

 

He could never get the O figured out. Shit Oline, zeros weapons and then they trade for a QB and really show how bad they were on the O side of things.

 

How many of us non experts screamed fix the Oline??????????? I blame Lovie and JA for never doing it. Wasting a good D with a shit bottom of the barrel O.

 

Look what happens when you have a good oline and and some weapons....Shit even McCown looked good with the O fielded by Trestman and Emery.

 

 

I also believe sometimes a Franchise needs a new face or direction.

 

 

Do I think Lovie is a good coach, yes. You cant stay in the NFL for as long as he did and not be a good coach. I wish him the best of luck down in Tampa. Hopefully Lovie and their Gm can get a good group of Offensive coaches to guide that side of the ball.

 

I will say that I don't think any Defensive coach would have been able to do much with our D last year. Maybe they would have gotten a little better production but nothing close to what would have been needed to make a playoff run. The losses on the D were just too great.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

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.

 

Like I said, we will never know.

 

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.

 

But perhaps he's learned from his mistakes (?) With the hiring of Jeff Tedford, it appears he's reaching out beyond his 'circle of friends' to have someone who actually knows offense give it a try. What's to say he would not have done that in Chicago? Again, speculation....more on my part.

 

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).

 

Like earlier, because of the extensive use of the word "probably" this is all speculative. And since this post started with how the strength of defense seemed to have mattered in the last few Super Bowl (I know it did in '85) that was why I made the comment. And as I pointed out...it was 'tongue in cheek'.

 

You make a logical counter and appreciate the insightful response.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I think it might be obvious where I fall in that discussion...

 

And if not, then I am an unapologetic NO. F NO in fact.

 

Gentleman's wager Mad. How 'bout it?

[Alaskan Grizzly]

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

 

WHO ON HERE IS STILL WANTING LOVIE TO BE HERE?

 

Just to clarify where all this was going. First, the comment I made was 'tongue in cheek' and said in jest. I did not say that Chicago should fire Trestman. Nor did I say the Bears should hire back Smith. The original poster posed the thought that defense seemed to have made a difference in the last few Super Bowls. I said "we should have kept Lovie" mostly because he was good a D and who knows, maybe could improved upon his 10-6 record this last year? The point is moot because like Jason's comments and many others, to include my own, are all speculative in nature. He's in Tampa now and I wish him luck.

 

Despite Bear Trap's suggestion I don't have a 'love affair' with Lovie just an appreciation of who he is and his style of coaching. I met him once while at the DFW airport. Although it was a very brief conversation he seemed to be a very personable guy and unassuming. From what I hear from players who have been coached by him they too say he's a stand up guy. Hence why I suggset he's a good "COACH". With Trestman I don't know him as well as a fan. Will he prove to be a 'keeper'? Only time will tell. I realize one year does not a career make. (I'm not part of the Cleveland Browns management for pete's sake).

 

And for what its worth I have much more need for a plumber than I do a psychologist. To you I say, good day.

[jason]

But perhaps he's learned from his mistakes (?) With the hiring of Jeff Tedford, it appears he's reaching out beyond his 'circle of friends' to have someone who actually knows offense give it a try. What's to say he would not have done that in Chicago? Again, speculation....more on my part.

 

I'd say nearly a decade in Chicago told us what we needed to know about Lovie. The only reason he reached out to Tedford is because he was likely given a reality check when he got his pink slip after a 10-6 season. Speculation, yes, but it's hard to fathom him making a significant switch since he simply didn't do it while he felt safe in Chicago. He's a smart guy. He realized some of his mistakes once he got sent packing.

 

Like earlier, because of the extensive use of the word "probably" this is all speculative. And since this post started with how the strength of defense seemed to have mattered in the last few Super Bowl (I know it did in '85) that was why I made the comment. And as I pointed out...it was 'tongue in cheek'.

 

You make a logical counter and appreciate the insightful response.

 

In regards to the draft talk of what Lovie would/wouldn't have done, of course it's always speculative because he's no longer with the team. But his draft history and lack of attention to the OL the entire time in Chicago has been chronicled numerous times on this board. It's been broken down by round, by draft trade chart value, by comparison with the offense in general, and by comparison to the DL specifically. That's enough statistical, historical, and anecdotal backing for me to feel safe saying that he would not have changed, and the offense (mostly because of the OL) would have been the same old Lovie Smith offense if he weren't fired before the season. At a certain point, enough data makes something statistically significant, and not just baseless speculation.

[madlithuanian]

Ha!

 

What exactly is the wager?

 

 

 

Gentleman's wager Mad. How 'bout it?

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

Ha!

 

What exactly is the wager?

 

I meant to respond to this post:

 

"Smith will do what he does. Make the D very good. Get them close, but not go the distance. Hit the playoffs every 3 years and annoy the fan base and media."

 

Of course my opinion is counter to yours. He "will go the distance" and "hit the playoffs" more frequently.

 

 

[madlithuanian]

OK, you're on!

 

Here's the wager...

 

Over a 9 year period in Tampa (same as he has in Chicago), I say he goes to the playoffs less than 4 times (same as in Chicago) and will not win a Super Bowl (same as in Chicago). (If he gets canned in Tampa before the 10 years are up, then I win unless he makes the playoffs more than 3 times and wins a Super Bowl)

 

But, let's make it interesting.

 

Loser donates $50 to the Walter Payton Cancer Fund. So, everyone wins.

 

http://www.payton34.com/

 

In?

 

*************

 

for fact checking

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovie_Smith

 

I meant to respond to this post:

 

"Smith will do what he does. Make the D very good. Get them close, but not go the distance. Hit the playoffs every 3 years and annoy the fan base and media."

 

Of course my opinion is counter to yours. He "will go the distance" and "hit the playoffs" more frequently.

 

[madlithuanian]

I CALL BS!

 

<_>

 

You love him and his style as much as I hate it!

 

You are simply waiting at every opportunity to throw in a positive Smith comment! I know it!!!! I try to refrain on bashing him...but you make it tough man! After a while I can't help but making a comment! You can virtually set your watch to it!

 

 

 

Just to clarify where all this was going. First, the comment I made was 'tongue in cheek' and said in jest. I did not say that Chicago should fire Trestman. Nor did I say the Bears should hire back Smith. Ashkum posed the thought that defense seemed to have made a difference in the last few Super Bowls. I said "we should have kept Lovie" mostly because he was good a D and who knows, maybe could improved upon his 10-6 record this last year? The point is moot because like Jason's comments and many others, to include my own, are all speculative in nature. He's in Tampa now and I wish him luck.

 

Despite Bear Trap's suggestion I don't have a 'love affair' with Lovie just an appreciation of who he is and his style of coaching. I met him once while at the DFW airport. Although it was a very brief conversation he seemed to be a very personable guy and unassuming. From what I hear from players who have been coached by him they too say he's a stand up guy. Hence why I suggset he's a good "COACH". With Trestman I don't know him as well as a fan. Will he prove to be a 'keeper'? Only time will tell. I realize one year does not a career make. (I'm not part of the Cleveland Browns management for pete's sake).

 

And for what its worth I have much more need for a plumber than I do a psychologist. To you I say, good day.

[DABEARSDABOMB]

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.

I'm not sure I follow this? You say lovie is going to lose all these games because the offensive score would decrease, but then you don't highlight the fact that the other teams points should have decreased by quite a bit as well.

[bowlingtwig]

OK, you're on!

 

Here's the wager...

 

Over a 9 year period in Tampa (same as he has in Chicago), I say he goes to the playoffs less than 4 times (same as in Chicago) and will not win a Super Bowl (same as in Chicago). (If he gets canned in Tampa before the 10 years are up, then I win unless he makes the playoffs more than 3 times and wins a Super Bowl)

 

But, let's make it interesting.

 

Loser donates $50 to the Walter Payton Cancer Fund. So, everyone wins.

 

http://www.payton34.com/

 

In?

 

*************

O

for fact checking

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovie_Smith

I like that kinda bet. My problem with lovie is that after the SB run he was given a ton of power and he's basically got the same power in TB which is nuts. I don't see him making it to yr 10 there

[Stinger226]

I like that kinda bet. My problem with lovie is that after the SB run he was given a ton of power and he's basically got the same power in TB which is nuts. I don't see him making it to yr 10 there

He will have an improved defense but he is a power tripper and he will always push for defense and be loyal to bad players. He was a good coach, but I want someone that can take us back to a SuperBowl, Lovie proved he couldnt do that on a regular basis, ditto, he is now some where else. I dont know if Trestman will end up getting us back to a SuperBowl and actually win one, but I do know I was more interested in what he had to offer than the same old crap Lovie kept giving us.

Poor game day decisions, treated the public like everybody was an idiot. and loyal to bad players. If he was still here our defense would have been a little better, but offense what have been more of the same.

[madlithuanian]

Agreed! Had he been reigned in after the SB loss, results may have varied. But probably not. Leopards don't change spots.

 

I like that kinda bet. My problem with lovie is that after the SB run he was given a ton of power and he's basically got the same power in TB which is nuts. I don't see him making it to yr 10 there

 

[Stinger226]

Just to clarify where all this was going. First, the comment I made was 'tongue in cheek' and said in jest. I did not say that Chicago should fire Trestman. Nor did I say the Bears should hire back Smith. Ashkum posed the thought that defense seemed to have made a difference in the last few Super Bowls. I said "we should have kept Lovie" mostly because he was good a D and who knows, maybe could improved upon his 10-6 record this last year? The point is moot because like Jason's comments and many others, to include my own, are all speculative in nature. He's in Tampa now and I wish him luck.

 

Despite Bear Trap's suggestion I don't have a 'love affair' with Lovie just an appreciation of who he is and his style of coaching. I met him once while at the DFW airport. Although it was a very brief conversation he seemed to be a very personable guy and unassuming. From what I hear from players who have been coached by him they too say he's a stand up guy. Hence why I suggset he's a good "COACH". With Trestman I don't know him as well as a fan. Will he prove to be a 'keeper'? Only time will tell. I realize one year does not a career make. (I'm not part of the Cleveland Browns management for pete's sake).

 

And for what its worth I have much more need for a plumber than I do a psychologist. To you I say, good day.

I have been plumbing for 44 years, but went to school for the other. With me you get both. Your the only person on here that mentioned Lovie, just didnt think after all the crap Lovie kept giving us, he would ever be mentioned again, but you did. The only way to take that statement is you wish Lovie was still here. Your entitled to your opinion, my point was with all the Bear fans on here, no one else feels that way.Just thought we were way past that and look for the future with optimism, instead of dragging in old memories of the past.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

DP

[Alaskan Grizzly]

OK, you're on!

 

Here's the wager...

 

Over a 9 year period in Tampa (same as he has in Chicago), I say he goes to the playoffs less than 4 times (same as in Chicago) and will not win a Super Bowl (same as in Chicago). (If he gets canned in Tampa before the 10 years are up, then I win unless he makes the playoffs more than 3 times and wins a Super Bowl)

 

But, let's make it interesting.

 

Loser donates $50 to the Walter Payton Cancer Fund. So, everyone wins.

 

http://www.payton34.com/

 

In?

 

*************

 

 

for fact checking

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovie_Smith

 

Wow in 10 years? I'll be well into my 50s then. I can barely remember what I did yesterday.....should be interesting. Stinger may have chased me off by then. HAHA. But yeah, I'll go in for that. Make sure to keep this 'exchange' for proof. I know you're near the same age as I.

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I CALL BS!

 

<_>

 

You love him and his style as much as I hate it!

 

You are simply waiting at every opportunity to throw in a positive Smith comment! I know it!!!! I try to refrain on bashing him...but you make it tough man! After a while I can't help but making a comment! You can virtually set your watch to it!

 

 

I make no secret about how unforunate (not unfair) I think it was that Lovie was let go. I do like his style, yes. But I have also realized that what's done is done. I have said so repeatedly. I thought I made that clear if not in this thread but in other postings. You shouldn't need react like this. It's not a surprise You act as though he personally attacked you or something. If you call BS to my comments (as emphatically as you did) then I would have to suggest you need to take a swig of that hooch you're always talking about.

 

And to remind you and others that think it ridiculous I dare bring up Lovie's name, would you prefer those with differnt opinions instead not comment? How many times have I seen other posters say how much they appreciate the varied opinions and views? This is one of those times. Like I said it stated as a simple off the cuff remark but wow...I'd be crazy to think otherwise.

[madlithuanian]

Not sure how else to wager it?

 

Odds are both of us will forget, especialy as I start hitting the golden years! My hope is one of the youngsters here can remind me!

 

By then $50 should be the price of a stamp with inflation looming!

 

Wow in 10 years? I'll be well into my 50s then. I can barely remember what I did yesterday.....should be interesting. Stinger may have chased me off by then. HAHA. But yeah, I'll go in for that. Make sure to keep this 'exchange' for proof. I know you're near the same age as I.

 

[selection7]

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.

Maybe "as D-coordinator", which I'm not sure was ever a possibility.

[madlithuanian]

I don't mind your love for him, I see your point of view regardelss of whether I think it's incorrect. I just think your doing yourself no favors by not being 100% honest. Your inital comment was either heart-felt or a full on troll.

 

Like I said, I kind of can't help myself once the discussion starts excalating and you make a comment that you were not serious. I just honestly don't think you were really being tongue and cheek. It'd be like me saying that Smtih sucks. "Ha just kidding fellas!" I don't feel a need to say it. Most here know my thoughts on him...I don't think making mention of it every time the opportunity presents itself makes the discussion fuller.

 

Notice I really didn't say much until you said you weren't serious?

 

I like the disagreement, I just don't think you were being jokey about your comment. If you were, then I apologize for calling BS. I don't care if we disagree...it's more fun! I just want the argument to be concrete, not based on jokiness. My calling BS was really because I feel you weren't being 100% honest with us in your support of Smith. We know you wish the best for Trestman, but we know you'd much rather have Smith. It's OK. You're allowed to be wrong.

 

And please, Lagavulin 16 year is not hooch. It's elixir of the gods...

 

 

 

I make no secret about how unforunate (not unfair) I think it was that Lovie was let go. I do like his style, yes. But I have also realized that what's done is done. I have said so repeatedly. I thought I made that clear if not in this thread but in other postings. You shouldn't need react like this. It's not a surprise You act as though he personally attacked you or something. If you call BS to my comments (as emphatically as you did) then I would have to suggest you need to take a swig of that hooch you're always talking about.

 

And to remind you and others that think it ridiculous I dare bring up Lovie's name, would you prefer those with differnt opinions instead not comment? How many times have I seen other posters say how much they appreciate the varied opinions and views? This is one of those times. Like I said it stated as a simple off the cuff remark but wow...I'd be crazy to think otherwise.

 

[Alaskan Grizzly]

I don't mind your love for him, I see your point of view regardelss of whether I think it's incorrect. I just think your doing yourself no favors by not being 100% honest. Your inital comment was either heart-felt or a full on troll.

 

Like I said, I kind of can't help myself once the discussion starts excalating and you make a comment that you were not serious. I just honestly don't think you were really being tongue and cheek. It'd be like me saying that Smtih sucks. "Ha just kidding fellas!" I don't feel a need to say it. Most here know my thoughts on him...I don't think making mention of it every time the opportunity presents itself makes the discussion fuller.

 

Notice I really didn't say much until you said you weren't serious?

 

I like the disagreement, I just don't think you were being jokey about your comment. If you were, then I apologize for calling BS. I don't care if we disagree...it's more fun! I just want the argument to be concrete, not based on jokiness. My calling BS was really because I feel you weren't being 100% honest with us in your support of Smith. We know you wish the best for Trestman, but we know you'd much rather have Smith. It's OK. You're allowed to be wrong.

 

And please, Lagavulin 16 year is not hooch. It's elixir of the gods...

 

The "tongue in cheek" was in context to the original post. Where the comment was made how much influence defense hD in each of the last few Super Bowls. Knowing Lovie is defensive minded and Trestman is not I said "should've kept Lovie" (ergo tongue in cheek). Or perhaps I misunderstand the phrase(?). I didn't think the comment would incite a near riot (sensationalism) especially with the likes of the Stingers of the world. That I honestly did not expect. I realize Lovies not coming back and Trestman is the man. Still like Lovie for what and who he is.

 

I guess the way I look at what happened was I did not intend to come across as being deceitful. Not intending to be trollish. "Just sayin".

 

But in the end and as a result of this discussion you and I have a decent wager for a great cause. I look forward to winning. Haha!

[jason]

I'm not sure I follow this? You say lovie is going to lose all these games because the offensive score would decrease, but then you don't highlight the fact that the other teams points should have decreased by quite a bit as well.

 

The point was that Lovie's presence would have lessened both the Bears' score and the opponent's score, but the former would be lessened much more, the his presence on D would have only accounted for a few points since the team would still have been ravaged by injuries, using rookies, and missing the previous season's leader. It's difficult to quantify how drastically better the offense was with Trestman, but the defense with Lovie would have been pretty much the same we're used to, only worse because of the aforementioned issues.