Thread: If There's Any Reason At All For A Coaching Change This Is It..............

there's about a 5% chance the Bears beat the Packers, probably smaller then that since they've only done it once when Rodgers is on the field. But if they do, that is probably more w/Lovie then anything. Team does seem movitivated, didn't just hear it from BM, but from Briggs also. Team feels this is a must win, I'll assume that is coming from the coaches.

That being said, I doubt Lovie had anything to do w/Marshall looking for a spotlight.

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

there's about a 5% chance the Bears beat the Packers, probably smaller then that since they've only done it once when Rodgers is on the field. But if they do, that is probably more w/Lovie then anything. Team does seem movitivated, didn't just hear it from BM, but from Briggs also. Team feels this is a must win, I'll assume that is coming from the coaches.

That being said, I doubt Lovie had anything to do w/Marshall looking for a spotlight.

Not the answer I was expecting. Completely honest, I thought you would say that they won despite Lovie.

Getting back to Soul's excellent summary, it's easy to see where the problems are coaching wise. I think we all know Lovie's strengths and weaknesses and the pros & cons of keeping or firing him. For 2 straight years we have seen promising seasons melt down in a tailspin of November-December losses, most of which were entirely winnable if the offense had just scored a reasonable amount of points. When you're pissed and frustrated like we all are now, it's natural to scream for the HC's severed head on a stick. I've felt that way too even knowing intellectually that there are a whole lot of likely successors who won't be better and will probably be worse. Lovie is not without his positive attributes.

Cooler heads now...I can live with Lovie staying (and ownership might not want to eat his salary anyway) IF Emery cleans house on the O-coaching side and forces Lovie to relinquish control of that facet. Which he will of course as a means of saving his skin for "one more chance". That means Tice, Drake, Debord, and the OL coach (forgot his name) need to be replaced. Probably gonna have to be Bates at OC as Sould said with him and Emery choosing the subordinates. Lovie would have to become a figurehead-viceHC-for-defense so to speak and leave the O to someone who knows more (which isn't exactly a high bar to surmount). That gives one more year on Lovie's contract to put the O on solid footing and make a run.

I agree that the one year above on his contract coincides precisely with the point a major defensive rebuild would have to begin anyway. So, if the two-headed monster of Lovie-Bates fails, there's going to be a major "turn the page" moment anyway, both on the sidelines and on the field.

We can debate the "should Lovie stay or should he go" thing forever (and I'm sure we will), but I see one more years worth of WINDOW and that needs to be considered.

2011 fade was due primarally on Angelo not having a reliable backup QB, RB. You win ONE of those games we lost after Cutler went down, we get to the playoffs.

This year.... this year is different. Lovie gets some blame, Emery gets some blame, and the players get some blame. The offensive players for the most part. Dropping TDs, dropping passes, fixating on ONE WR most of the time, not keeping your QB on his feet.... all play into the Bears sucking at this present moment in time.

Had Cutler not been knocked out in the Houston game, I think we win. SF..... not sure if Cutler could have saved us..... Seattle.... how many TDs were lost do to drops? Same with the Vikings loss. These games have been winnable, and should have been wins.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

2011 fade was due primarally on Angelo not having a reliable backup QB, RB. You win ONE of those games we lost after Cutler went down, we get to the playoffs.

This year.... this year is different. Lovie gets some blame, Emery gets some blame, and the players get some blame. The offensive players for the most part. Dropping TDs, dropping passes, fixating on ONE WR most of the time, not keeping your QB on his feet.... all play into the Bears sucking at this present moment in time.

Had Cutler not been knocked out in the Houston game, I think we win. SF..... not sure if Cutler could have saved us..... Seattle.... how many TDs were lost do to drops? Same with the Vikings loss. These games have been winnable, and should have been wins.

Emery did upgrade the QB2 & RB2 positions. No one sane can dispute that Campbell & Bush are significant upgrades over Hanie & Barber. Same result though. Our "backups" didn't exactly light it up in the Houston, SF, and Minny losses either. I agree--and this is what is so frustrating--the the Vikings, Seahawks, and Texans games all would have been wins if SOMEONE on offense just makes a play. Not even a spectactular play, just a makeable semi-routine play. Don't commit that dumb penalty, get decent blocking done, call a smarter game, catch the ball, don't fall down on a route, manage the clock correctly, etc., etc.

If these professional-quality plays had been made even half the time, we are probably sitting pretty with 10-11 wins right now.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

A head coach trusts the men he hires to give him a proper evaluation of the talent they control. Tice told him the line was fine, so Lovie took him at his word, and relayed the message to his boss, Emery. Emery (like Lovie) chose to listen to and believe Mike Tice.

A cardinal rule of good management is "Trust, but verify". You must trust your management but not to the point that the car drives off the cliff. As the person with ultimate responsibilty, you should know that you can be sunk if people do not do their jobs. You must verify what you are bing told is right. Most people on this list could see that the O-Line was not right, despite what Tice was saying. Either we are smarter than Lovie or he is going the "blind trust" route. in which case, he desrves to drive off the cliff along with Tice.

They can't score an offensive TD.

Maybe they are ready, but if it's not to score then he's getting them ready for something else.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

I hear that argument all the time. Please explain to me what you mean by "he didn't have his players ready"

Originally Posted by bearsinhouston

A cardinal rule of good management is "Trust, but verify". You must trust your management but not to the point that the car drives off the cliff. Emery, As the person with ultimate responsibilty, you should know that you can be sunk if people do not do their jobs. You must verify what you are bing told is right. Most people on this list could see that the O-Line was not right, despite what Tice was saying. Either we are smarter than Lovie and Emery or he is going the "blind trust" route. in which case, he desrves to drive off the cliff along with Tice.

So... Emery is at fault then?