Thread: Lovie Smith: A Look Back at Mediocrity

thanks for this write up. Interested to see what the next HC can do against the good teams. Smiths Teams were too bad to win and too good to lose and get a Top10 pick

Stuck in the middle of no where

Incredible and very time consuming analysis Jimmors and extremely well done. I appreciate all the time and effort that went into and the conclusions are spot on.

The detail you did this with is enlightening but it shouldn't be all that surprising to those of us who've paid close attention over the years of Lovie's reign. Phil Emery talked about looking at the "body of work" that was Lovie's era as the Bears HC and I can't help but thinking the work he did was pretty similar to what Jimmors did for all of us here.

The summary below gives the cold hard and unemotional facts.

Key:
Number of games decided by 7 points or less
Record against Playoff-bound teams
Record against .500 and under teams

Lovie Smith
Overall Record: 81-63 (.562)
Playoff Record: 3-3 (.500)

Overall:
Out of 144 Games, 66 were decided by 7 points or less (45%)
20-36 Record against Playoff Bound teams (.357 Winning percentage)
61-22 Record against teams that finished 0.500 or below (.734 Winning percentage)

Lovie got off to a half way decent start for a rookie HC but for the past 5 or 6 years he has been consistently out coached and beaten by the better teams and coaches in the NFL and that was never anymore obvious than it was this year.

I made a comment in another post that I believe is accurate. The Bears record may have been 10-6 but we played most of the year more like a 6-10 team. There are a number of games we won that could just as easily have been lost had the defense not won the day and we had to depend on the offense to actually outscore someone and that trend started as early as opening day against Indy. I doubt that by game 8 we could have beaten them.

If we're being honest with ourselves and not looking at emotions based on what a nice guy Lovie was and how much he was appreciated and respected by his players then we all are more than aware of just how mediocre and "middle of the pack" the Bears have become in recent years. Like a cover girl from Vogue they didn't look so great after the makeup came off and without some of the airbrushing the softies in the media and their own PR people gave them at times.

I like what Phil Emery had to say and how he put it. At least now I feel that there is most definitely a sense of commitment on the part of the front office and ownership to win consistently and compete each year for a championship. As Bears fans we do deserve that. We were patient with Lovie and probably too patient and now it's time to move on in Chicago and let Lovie move on to where he might be more successful. He just didn't get it done here.

Yeah, after looking back at this season, i saw a pattern of beating scrub teams and losing to good teams, and i was curious if this pattern repeated itself so i decided to look up the stats and find out. And sure enough, this pattern repeats itself throughout Lovie's tenure with the Bears...beat scrub teams, lose to "good" teams. It seems that any time we faced a team that was 11-5 or better, we typically would lose, especially in the playoffs.

Yes, a win is a win. But you cant be the best until you beat the best, and we were woefully short on that count. What shocked me the most was 2006, our SB run. Hard to believe that only 3 of the 16 teams actually finished with winning records.

We need a coach who can turn this team into one of the "good" teams, a team that OTHER teams are scared to play. Sure, they may fear our defense, but most of our opponents look at our offense as a joke, and rightfully so. Lovie is a great defense-minded coach, and it shows, but in this day and age, OFFENSE is what wins you championships. Hell, if teams are looking for a DC, Lovie would be a great choice, i think he would make an excellent DC. But we have alot of talent on this team, and with the right coach and system in place, plus solid picks and FAs from Emery, theres no reason why we cant win a SB in the next few years.


And yeah, i think later on today ill go back and compare similar stats to teams that won SBs. I can almost predict that most, if not all SB winners the past few years have had winning records against Playoff-bound teams in the regular season.

Arizona is looking for a HC and down there mediocrity might be considered a great improvement. Wisenhunt can come to Chicago as an OC if we hire a DC as our HC.

Originally Posted by Riczaj01

Thanks Jimmors.

I think Lovie is an average coach, he can help take a team from a dumpster fire and turn it into a decent team that can get near the playoffs, but not win the SB or get to the playoffs consistantly. That's what he is. And that was why he needed to be removed. He did as much as he could.

That's the bottom line. He can take a team to that 2nd tier. We need to go to the top tier.

Originally Posted by Jimmors

Even though the Bears finished 10-6 this year, most of our wins came against scrub teams. Nobody is claiming that the Bears (or Lovie) actually SUCK, its just this track record of mediocrity that has been so frustrating as Bears fans. We have talent and are good enough to *almost* make the playoffs (or do a couple times), but are not bad enough to be basement dwellers with good draft positions.

So i went back and got some data on Lovie's tenure as HC of the ChicagoBears. Enjoy:

For the sake of this article, im approaching it as if it were BCS Team, noting quality wins (wins against teams that made the playoffs), our record against the playoff-bound teams, our record against .500 or less teams, and the number of games that were decided by 7 points or less

Key:
Number of games decided by 7 points or less
Record against Playoff-bound teams
Record against .500 and under teams

Lovie Smith
Overall Record: 81-63 (.562)
Playoff Record: 3-3 (.500)

Overall:
Out of 144 Games, 66 were decided by 7 points or less (45%)
20-36 Record against Playoff Bound teams (.357 Winning percentage)
61-22 Record against teams that finished 0.500 or below (.734 Winning percentage)

Interesting Facts:
-Indy (2012), NYJ (2011), Minny (2009), Indy (2008), GBx2 (2007), and Car (2005) TB (2005) are the ONLY times when the Bears have beaten a team that has gone on to win 11 or more games in the season. (I think the 2007 season is especially notable in that we beat GB twice, and accounted for 2 of 3 of their losses that year).

-Previous stat includes playoffs:
Our 3 Victories in the playoffs came against Seattle (7-9), Seattle (9-7), and New Orleans (10-6)
Our 3 Losses in the playoffs were against Carolina (11-5), Indy (12-4), GB (10-6)

-Bears under Lovie have never beaten a 14-2 or 15-1 team. With the exception of 2007 (GB), Bears have not beaten any other 13-3 teams.

-Bears under Lovie have only had a winning record against playoff teams ONCE: 2006 (3-1).
But, those 3 wins came against Sea (9-7), NYG (8-8), NYJ (10-6), and the one loss against NE (12-4). Inluding the playoffs, our record against playoff teams that year is 5-2, with the playoff teams Sea again (9-7), NO (10-6), and Indy (12-4). So again...Bears beat teams 10-6 or worse, but lost to playoff teams 11-5 or better.


Individual Year stats (year, record, 7 points or less, playoff teams record, .500 or less record):

2012: 10-6, 5, 2-6, 8-0
The season that got Lovie fired. And i believe the above stats point out why: we were 8-0 against .500 or worse teams, but were only 2-6 against teams that made the playoffs this year. This is also why people speculated that even if we HAD gotten in, we wouldnt have gone far. The 2 victories against the playoff teams were our opener against Indy, and a split with Minny (they won one, we won one). An unusual year that we played 8 games against playoff teams, but that is evident of how good our own division is that we had 2 playoff teams in it.

2011: 8-8, 8, 2-4, 6-4
A perfectly mediocre season. Losing record against playoff teams, and a winning (barely) record against .500 teams. The 2 wins against playoff teams again came from our season opener (ATL), and another split, this time with Detroit.

2010: 11-5, 10, 3-3, 8-1
Our last trip to the playoffs. With a whopping 10 out of 16 games decided by 7 points or less, one could say that luck was on our side that year. we had an acceptable 3-3 record against playoff teams, and we crushed .500 scrubs. We lost to a 7-9 Seahawks team in the regular season, only to beat them in the playoffs, so we could in turn lose to GB in the NFCC game.

2009: 7-9, 9, 1-7, 5-1
An abysmal performance against playoff teams, 1-7. Our sole win being a split with a 12-4 Vikings. (looking through the stats, this pattern repeats itself...we typically are able to split games against division opponents who make playoffs, but outside that, we typically lose to playoff teams). But, with 9 games decided by 7 points or less, this couldve just as easily been an 10-6 or 6-10 season.

2008: 9-7, 10, 3-3, 6-2
Very similar to the 2010 season, but losses to .500 teams killed our playoff chances. Lost to a 6-10 GB team and an 8-8 Houston team. If we had won those games, wouldve finished 11-5 and made the playoffs, or because 10 games were decided by 7 points or less, couldve been a third 7-9 season in as many years.

2007: 7-9, 7, 2-5, 5-4
This year not only did we get beat by the playoff teams, but we struggled against fellow scrub teams. Surprised we even managed to get 7 wins.

2006: 13-3, 5, 3-1, 11-2
Ah yes, our SB run. Just looking at these numbers, a couple things pop out:
1.With only 5 games decided by 7 points or less, we won most of our games handedly.
2.Yes, we were 3-1 against playoff teams (5-2 including playoffs), But none of our wins against playoff teams came against teams that won 11 or more games. We lost to the two teams who did win more then 11.
and 3.An 11-2 record against .500 teams means that ONLY 3 TEAMS WE PLAYED THIS YEAR FINISHED WITH WINNING RECORDS. Thats right, hate to shatter our dreams of 2006, but 13 of the 16 teams we played finished 8-8 or worse. Think about that for a second.

2005: 11-5, 6, 2-3, 8-1
Not a bad season for us, beat some 11-win teams (Car, TB), and all of our 5 losses came from 9-7 or better teams save Cleveland (6-10), Browns were also our only loss against the scrub teams as well. Shame we were one and done in the playoffs.

2004: 5-11, 6, 2-4, 4-7
Lovie's first year, not much to say, even got killed by scrubs, which made us ultrascrubs. But, being first year, he gets a pass.


Conclusion:

If you read all of this, then allow me to say thanks. Put alot of work into it. For those who just skipped to the bottom to read this, then you are lazy slackers...scroll up and read my article dangit. I put time in researching and writing it, least you could do is read it. Sheesh.

Anywho...in conclusion, the myth of Lovie Smith is one of mediocrity. Whenever he is discussed in the future, that is the word that should be used. NO, he DOESNT "suck" and he wasnt a "bad coach" either. He had his moments. Unfortunately they were counter balanced by other moments that were pretty damn bad.

Lovie made a habit of beating up on weak opponents while losing to GOOD ones. If you got the sense of that this season, and felt that it was the same story, just a different year, then you were right...the Bears have ALWAYS struggled against tough opponents under Lovie Smith, and have typically steamrolled through cupcakes. And as i pointed out, even his greatest triumph: the 2006 SB season, was not all that great. We got there through one of the easiest schedules in the league, combined with easy playoff opponents (even then we barely won them).

If you are willing to settle for mediocrity, then Lovie is your guy. If you want more though, then its time for a change.

Whilst I do not doubt (and appreciate) the effort used in the creation of your thread, I have one question. How does a (not BAD) HC, in his ninth season no less, allow for the fact that the Bears could not get their offensive plays in to the huddle in a timely fashion...??? His win\loss record is predicated upon the rosters provided by Jerry Angelo, so, it is somewhat misleading. However, is there an arguement to say that Lovie SUCKED in regards to the intangibles: clock management, play-calling, half-time adjustments, etc...

3nagurski