Lovie should be fired.

**Blue Horse-shoe** · 01-04-2012, 10:13 PM

Any new GM who balks at the thought of having to retain an experienced HC for 1 year shouldn't become the GM. It's only 1yr , big deal ( plus it might work out there's lots of talent already here ) . Really, it's like getting an extra honeymoon year anyways, which imo could actually make it more appealing.

**soulman** · 01-04-2012, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

Seriously, we dont have profound defensive schemes, and if Lovie is getting as much clout as the papers say, he could choose another shitty oc. Look at his records with assistants, we all know he's on par wih JA on draft pics. I DO like lovie, but no way in hell would i keep a lame duck who will be a bit of a threat to high talent GMs and OCs, in case the thing falters. More second rans will be interested in a job in which they are handcuffed.

We don't know that yet Henry and I sure wouln't take what's being reported about Lovie having input in the hiring of a new GM as any more than that. He's not going to be given carte blanche to select a guy and anyone who thinks he is must be reading something into those articles than I am. We already know that the difference between the truth and what the sportswriters say can be miles apart.

Ted Phillips merely said that whoever is hired must accept that Lovie will remain the coach in 2012. Nothing is promised to Lovie or the new GM beyond that. If the guys wants his coach in 2013 Lovie is gone. The other admonition is that the guy and Lovie work closely together to bridge this "talent gap" the Bears are suffering as quickly as possible. Given those initial requirements it just makes sense that the new GM should be someone who at least shares the same philosophy and has the same priorities as the HC. This hire is not Lovies to accept or queer but he will be allowed some real input in the process.

I'm certain that Ted Phillips and George McCaskey realize the same thing the rest of us do. Our defensive stars are aging and given the dire needs on the offensive side of the ball their replacements may not be right around the corner. Our defense may only have one or two more good seasons in them before we lose a lot of guys all at once or over less than three years. If the offense and certain areas of the defense aren't fixed now the Bears could very likely look like the 90's Bears again for an extended period of time.

In reality I'm far more concerned that once again we may have difficulty getting a good OC to come on board with just a two year deal which could easily turn into one year if the Bears aren't back in contention next year. We may well end up with Tice taking that roll and us hiring a QB coach and playcaller and maybe that's the way it should go.

Any potential GM candidate is coming into a pretty sweet siutation. Since he doesn't have to spend time hiring a coaching staff he can immediately go to work on re-signing, acquiring and drafting the players he needs to improve the team. Futhermore he has a pretty healthy cap surplus bankrolling him and owners who won't be shy about giving him the go ahead to spend it.

Yes he's saddled with Lovie as his coach for one year but it's not like Lovie is a poor coach. Despite his struggles over the past 5 years he's still one of the winningest active coaches in the NFL. He went 11-5 last year and if not for the injury to Cutler would most likely gone 11-5 again this year and certainly no worse than 10-6. Besides, it only for on year, not a decade, and that's a small price to pay for the GM gig with a big market franchise with the legacy of the Bears. Especially when your job is to improve player personnel and you have a big enough wallet to do it.

**yttocs** · 01-04-2012, 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by soulman

I think I made myself pretty clear on that in my post. Firing Lovie and his staff as well would truly tear it all down for a rebuild and there's still enough talent on this team that doing that would be foolish this year. It's not so much Lovie getting a pass from me as it is my believing that the common sense approach is to get a turn around done in a series of steps without trashing everything.

Whether or not Martz was Lovie's idea isn't the point. In any case Martz wasn't the first choice of anyone but rather all they were left with late in the game when a half dozen others had already turned the Bears down. I think it was pretty obvious from the get go that Martz was a bad match as far as Lovies offensive philosophy was concerned. But Martz played it up as far as his willingness to adapt. He often said the right things but never did the right things or at least not long enough or consistently enough to make a difference. It was only when Cutler revolted that we finally knew for a fact just how unpopular Martz approach was but at least for this year were stuck with him.

There was no way Martz was coming back next year. We knew that over a month ago when the rumors of his interest in college jobs surfaced. Angelo's demise had nothing to do with it. Martz was at the tail end of the NFL "three strikes and you're out rule". You don't get an unlimited amount of opportunities to succeed as a coach or a player. In Martz's case following his "Greatest Show on Turf" success in St. Louis that was followed up by abject failures in Detroit and SF. That's the primary reason he wasn't on anyones A list. The Bears turn to him in desperation and he knows full well that if he fails here his NFL career was over and that's precisely what happened.

Lovie may have hired him but I think that was more out of necessity than it was desire. I don't think Martz was the guy Lovie wanted and furthermore I think Martz deceived Lovie into believing he'd adapt when he knew damn well he wouldn't. Didn't he say that exact same thing prior to the start of this season and then go right out right off the bat and do exactly what failed last year?

Lovie gets one year reprieve, not a pass. He has two strikes against him as well and I guarantee you that if this team goes 8-8 of worse next year the Bears will have a new coach in 2013. I saw Lovie turn the corner this year in the way he handled the team. He insisted on immediate accountability from his veteran players and wasn't afraid to sit them if they didn't produce as they needed to. He also made far better use of his challenges this year compared to the past and I won't hold him responsible for poor time management this year since in almost every instance those delays and early time outs originated from offensive miscommunication.

Not a pass yttocs, just a one year do it or else mandate. He gets some input into who the new GM will be because of this but trust me, if he doesn't bring home a winner next year then new GM is no longer under any restraint to keep him around.

Not saying ITS BAD to keep Lovie for ONE year with new GM ( GM should have a choice before its said Lovie WILL be back ) Its just the news conference was put out as " ITS NOT LOVIES FAULT" type of statement. I'm on board for the one year go for it try.

**soulman** · 01-04-2012, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by motownbear

Ric I don't think people are harping on lovie the coach. I think they are worried about lovie the talent evaluator which it's been reported over and over he wanted bazuine, okwo, arch, Payne etc... I think people are worried the guy who has changed 28 assistants in 8 years is still around

If that's a real concern mo then all the more reason whoever gets the gig is a talent evaluator and player personnel guy supreme. We don't need a money guy. That's what Phillips and Stein are for. We need a guy who supplies Lovie with the players he needs and then holds him and those players accountable for playing up to expectations and winning games.

No more Roy Williams, Brandon Meriweathers, Chester Taylors and the like. It's those guys and a few more who cost Jerry Angelo his job so we need a guy whose as 180 degrees opposite of that as it comes. Just because it's been reported that Lovie was high on the guys you listed doesn't mean Angelo wasn't too. Archuleta was Lovie's mistake just as RWill was Martz's but Payne showed some promise initially and Bauzuin was an injury issue so in his case we don't know what we may have had.

More than anything we need a guy who can recognize and obtain offensive talent for the current set or needs and pickup some young prospects who can be coached to fill defensive spots that will open in another couple of years or so.

**Dagan81** · 01-04-2012, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by soulman

If that's a real concern mo then all the more reason whoever gets the gig is a talent evaluator and player personnel guy supreme. We don't need a money guy. That's what Phillips and Stein are for. We need a guy who supplies Lovie with the players he needs and then holds him and those players accountable for playing up to expectations and winning games.

No more Roy Williams, Brandon Meriweathers, Chester Taylors and the like. It's those guys and a few more who cost Jerry Angelo his job so we need a guy whose as 180 degrees opposite of that as it comes. Just because it's been reported that Lovie was high on the guys you listed doesn't mean Angelo wasn't too. Archuleta was Lovie's mistake just as RWill was Martz's but Payne showed some promise initially and Bauzuin was an injury issue so in his case we don't know what we may have had.

More than anything we need a guy who can recognize and obtain offensive talent for the current set or needs and pickup some young prospects who can be coached to fill defensive spots that will open in another couple of years or so.

My best guess is that once we address some of the offensive issues, the next draft or two will be used to deal with the defense. I would imagine we will go after linebackers, defensive ends, and corners.

**motownbear** · 01-04-2012, 11:08 PM

Would you agree soul that the oc we look at should have traits to become hc in case lovie fails? They are creating a situation where if lovie fails cutler will end up with a whole new coaching staff and another system to learn. I guess I just found another reason to hate lovie staying. He is the one who has the power with assistants. Would he go for another yuppy or a guy we can use to supplant him if things go south again

**AtomicTommy** · 01-05-2012, 11:13 AM

Originally Posted by soulman

Knowing he was last man on the list for Orton could he have made a trade offer with the Broncos that would have kept Orton off the waiver wire? Would it have made sense to have signed McNabb just as insurance against Hanie's failure? Either of those choices probably would have been enough to save a playoff season. Somebody has to take the rap for that and you can't hang that on Lovie Smith. You chalk that one up to the two guys who lost their jobs this week, that's where you put the blame for that.

Not trying to nit-pick, and I know I am focusing on the wrong thing here... but I felt the need to comment on this for some reason lol

The answer is no. Trade deadline had passed, if it hadn't, I am sure the Broncos would have pursued a trade with a number of teams, but since his trade value is low (probably a 4th or 5th pick to a desperate team? maybe less?) they just cut him rather than trade him in the offseason, so that Orton could have a chance to play somewhere else.

McNabb would not have come here unless he could compete for a starting job. That never would have been put on the table. McNabb wanted to go somewhere and be the man. Plus... the dude lost his job to Rex Grossman... another QB who has great backup potential... I'd totally dig Rex as a backup. haha

**soulman** · 01-05-2012, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by AtomicTommy

Welcome.

I am gonna have to disagree a bit tho.

Martz wants and requests a veteran backup. Angelo ignores said requests and keeps the great Caleb Hanie (who almost has as many TDs to defensive players as offensive players, including one in the most important game I can remember, maybe even more than the Superbowl). Caleb Hanie fails, again. Angelo goes hunting for veteran backup when it is too late. Not sure how that falls on Lovie, when clearly Angelo has little interest in listening to coaches requests.

Hanie's abysmal play and lack of preparation lands on Mike Martz and Shane Day. Not really on Lovie.

The NFL is a constantly changing landscape... and every year it shifts more and more towards high powered offense. Angelo can evaluate defensive talent, but when the defensive line is decent, we don't need to keep drafting DTs in high rounds when we have a pathetic O-line. He and his team just couldn't scout offense. That's why you end up spending mutliple high picks to pick up people like Jay Cutler (don't get me wrong, I liked the move, especially bc I know Angelo can't evaluate offensive talent).

Forte was a good pick. Bennett was a good pick. Olsen was a good pick (which he traded before departing). Ummm... I'm drawing a blank on other good offensive picks... Knox was pretty good?

Anyways... my point is, the NFL changed. Angelo couldn't change with it.

Agreed on all three points I've highlighted. Lovie did what he could with the hand he was dealt. The offense isn't his longsuit so he trusted Martz who admittedly was his hire but only after a half dozen others turned us down. So he righted his wrong as soon as it was humanly possible to do so and did it with Cutler's tacit approval despite the fact that he'll have another new offense to adapt to.

Phillips and McCaskey finally add up Angelo's points and they come up in minus territory. His drafting may have been better this year but his expenditures on offensive free agent is abysmal. Not one of his acquisitions over the past two offeseason contributed one iota to an offensive resurgence. In fact both RWill and Barber contributed mightily to a couple of losses.

Jerry Angelo has never been much better than a very mediocre GM despite having hit a few home runs. I don't know whether it's the game passing him by or the fact that he just never got in tune with it to begin with. His mistakes date back a long way.

**Dagan81** · 01-05-2012, 01:38 PM

Word on the street is that Eric DeCosta is interviewing/has interviewed with the Bears and seems to want the job as badly as the Bears want him. This could be a slam dunk if we get him. He could inject new life into a flailing monster with his youth and enthusiasm. He's been nothing but spot on with the Ravens.

**soulman** · 01-06-2012, 09:38 AM

On the topic of "Fire Lovie"; John Clayton pointed out on the Waddle & Silvy show that the HC supply is pretty bleak right now consisting mainly of Jeff Fisher and a lot of co-ordinator types who may or may not have what it takes. The track record of those guys hasn't been to great of late and guys like Haley, Spagnuolo, Singletary, and Sparano didn't last long.

I really don't think there's anyone out there right now who would be a better choice than Lovie and that's why he stays.

Thread: Lovie should be fired.

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Posting Permissions