How is a .560 winning percentage and playoff appearances 3 times in 9 years, going 3-3, "above average?" He was a good defensive coach and a f***ing horrendous offensive coach. That's indisputable. How can you just ignore half of his job?

 

Lovie did not do a good job picking offensive coordinators but please list the good offenses in the NFL that have had QBs the caliber of Orton or Grossman or an offensive line as bad as the Bears have had the last few years. I think you will fine that with few exceptions, they don't exist.

 

By those standards the offensive line is coddled by the fans too.

Show me where people put the blame on Cutler. If the offense sucks, it's not Cutler's fault, it's Lovie's fault. If Cutler throws a red zone INT, it's because the line sucks. Ultimately, nothing is ever his fault.

Show me where people put the blame on Cutler. If the offense sucks, it's not Cutler's fault, it's Lovie's fault. If Cutler throws a red zone INT, it's because the line sucks. Ultimately, nothing is ever his fault.

 

Man, you need to look no further than this thread during games for the past 4 years.

Show me where people put the blame on Cutler. If the offense sucks, it's not Cutler's fault, it's Lovie's fault. If Cutler throws a red zone INT, it's because the line sucks. Ultimately, nothing is ever his fault.

 

you are the same guy who used meatheads yelling at a Bears game as evidence right? Cutler gets slayed all over the place. Talk radio, message boards etc.

Show me where people put the blame on Cutler. If the offense sucks, it's not Cutler's fault, it's Lovie's fault. If Cutler throws a red zone INT, it's because the line sucks. Ultimately, nothing is ever his fault.

 

When was the last time Cutler threw a red zone INT? 2009? You act like we're dealing with 2009 Cutler. We're not.

When was the last time Cutler threw a red zone INT? 2009? You act like we're dealing with 2009 Cutler. We're not.

 

They curiously declined after Johnny Knox went away.

And I would like to know how you can discredit his entire defense as being lucky and based on flukes.

 

Reread what I posted - I've said 10-15 of his victories have come from lucky defensive plays or special teams plays. Not sure how anyone can really dispute that. This year against the Panthers - is Newton throwing a pick 6 in the closing minutes good coaching? Or a fluke?

 

I've credited Lovie for bringing in his defensive scheme and coaching up the defense. I refuse to consider him "above average," however, for being good at half of the game of football.

 

Reread what I posted - I've said 10-15 of his victories have come from lucky defensive plays or special teams plays. Not sure how anyone can really dispute that. This year against the Panthers - is Newton throwing a pick 6 in the closing minutes good coaching? Or a fluke?

 

I've credited Lovie for bringing in his defensive scheme and coaching up the defense. I refuse to consider him "above average," however, for being good at half of the game of football.

 

An event that repeats itself often for nine years, can't be considered a fluke.

How is a .560 winning percentage and playoff appearances 3 times in 9 years, going 3-3, "above average?" He was a good defensive coach and a f***ing horrendous offensive coach. That's indisputable. How can you just ignore half of his job?

Really? A .560 winning percentage is well above average. This is a league of parody. The dude is well above .500 in a league where it is difficult to be much more then a couple games over .500 typically.

Lovie did not do a good job picking offensive coordinators but please list the good offenses in the NFL that have had QBs the caliber of Orton or Grossman or an offensive line as bad as the Bears have had the last few years. I think you will fine that with few exceptions, they don't exist.

 

This makes total sense, unfortunately it's still Lovie's fault for advising Angelo or failing to advice Angelo that he needed offensive players and not defensive players. And from all indications, Lovie was involved in personnel decisions, even if the ultimate decision was the GM's.

Reread what I posted - I've said 10-15 of his victories have come from lucky defensive plays or special teams plays. Not sure how anyone can really dispute that. This year against the Panthers - is Newton throwing a pick 6 in the closing minutes good coaching? Or a fluke?

 

I've credited Lovie for bringing in his defensive scheme and coaching up the defense. I refuse to consider him "above average," however, for being good at half of the game of football.

 

Good coaches win games through "lucky defensive plays or special teams plays", that is how it is done. You dont just minus out those victories from a coaches record because of the way it was done. By your definition every interception that ever happened could be considered a fluke or lucky.

 

The offense consistently sucked in Lovies tenure, there is no getting around it. But there isnt just offense and defense. there is offense, defense and special teams, and Lovies teams consistently performed above average in 2 out of those 3 facets of the game.

 

Its not worth arguing with you about because you dont like Lovie and I am glad he is gone and looking forward to the next era.

 

 

 

 

Really? A .560 winning percentage is well above average. This is a league of parody. The dude is well above .500 in a league where it is difficult to be much more then a couple games over .500 typically.

 

Mike Martz had a .624 winning percentage. Above average!

Mike Martz had a .624 winning percentage. Above average!

 

He was. He also had one of the greatest offenses ever assembled and was an incredible offensive mind.

He was. He also had one of the greatest offenses ever assembled and was an incredible offensive mind.

 

And, Lovie Smiths defense.

Good coaches win games through "lucky defensive plays or special teams plays", that is how it is done. You dont just minus out those victories from a coaches record because of the way it was done. By your definition every interception that ever happened could be considered a fluke or lucky.

 

The offense consistently sucked in Lovies tenure, there is no getting around it. But there isnt just offense and defense. there is offense, defense and special teams, and Lovies teams consistently performed above average in 2 out of those 3 facets of the game.

 

Its not worth arguing with you about because you dont like Lovie and I am glad he is gone and looking forward to the next era.

 

No, it's when those interceptions literally win the game for you that it becomes a fluke. I mean seriously, when you watched that season when Mike Brown and the defense won 2-3 games in a row in the last 5-6 minutes, that's normal? That's not fluky? No one ever stepped back and thought "s***, this team is not nearly as good as their record, we got bailed out by those lucky plays?" Devin Hester returning kicks against Arizona - no one else though that was lucky the Bears came back and escaped with a win?

 

At some point yeah, you chalk it up to good players making good plays in a good defensive scheme. But everyone that paid attention to those games knew the team wasn't as good as the record indicated. And the reason is that everyone knew those wins should not have been wins because of those lucky plays.

 

Edit: and that final point is basically where we've been under Lovie Smith his entire tenure - you KNEW the team wasn't as good as the record because you KNEW how incredibly flawed the team was.

Edited January 4, 201313 yr by Jenksismybitch

He was. He also had one of the greatest offenses ever assembled and was an incredible offensive mind.

 

With a particular set of hall of fame players, yes. In Detroit, San Fran and Chicago he sucked.

No, it's when those interceptions literally win the game for you that it becomes a fluke. I mean seriously, when you watched that season when Mike Brown and the defense won 2-3 games in a row in the last 5-6 minutes, that's normal? That's not fluky? No one ever stepped back and thought "s***, this team is not nearly as good as their record, we got bailed out by those lucky plays?" Devin Hester returning kicks against Arizona - no one else though that was lucky the Bears came back and escaped with a win?

 

At some point yeah, you chalk it up to good players making good plays in a good defensive scheme. But everyone that paid attention to those games knew the team wasn't as good as the record indicated. And the reason is that everyone knew those wins should not have been wins because of those lucky plays.

 

You mean when it was Dick Jauron coaching, and not Lovie Smith?

No, it's when those interceptions literally win the game for you that it becomes a fluke. I mean seriously, when you watched that season when Mike Brown and the defense won 2-3 games in a row in the last 5-6 minutes, that's normal? That's not fluky? No one ever stepped back and thought "s***, this team is not nearly as good as their record, we got bailed out by those lucky plays?" Devin Hester returning kicks against Arizona - no one else though that was lucky the Bears came back and escaped with a win?

 

At some point yeah, you chalk it up to good players making good plays in a good defensive scheme. But everyone that paid attention to those games knew the team wasn't as good as the record indicated. And the reason is that everyone knew those wins should not have been wins because of those lucky plays.

 

Edit: and that final point is basically where we've been under Lovie Smith his entire tenure - you KNEW the team wasn't as good as the record because you KNEW how incredibly flawed the team was.

 

How many "flukes" does it take to make a trend?

With a particular set of hall of fame players, yes. In Detroit, San Fran and Chicago he sucked.

 

And yet you are indicting Lovie Smith for a .560 winning percentage when his QBs were Grossman, Orton, and Cutler and, until this last year, his receivers were Berrian, Muhammad, Knox, and Bennett (among several other terribly mediocre options).

You mean when it was Dick Jauron coaching, and not Lovie Smith?

I don't get it...if you ask any NFL coach what are the largest determining factors in who wins or loses a football game, each and every one of them would list "turnovers."

 

Lovie's teams led the NFL in takeaways over his nine year tenure in Chicago.

 

Say what you want about Lovie's game management skills or his offenses, but the man is one of the best defensive coaches in recent NFL history, IMHO.

You mean when it was Dick Jauron coaching, and not Lovie Smith?

 

I thought that was 04-05?

I don't get it...if you ask any NFL coach what are the largest determining factors in who wins or loses a football game, each and every one of them would list "turnovers."

 

Lovie's teams led the NFL in takeaways over his nine year tenure in Chicago.

 

Say what you want about Lovie's game management skills or his offenses, but the man is one of the best defensive coaches in recent NFL history, IMHO.

 

Actually, I imagine it would be points scored, specifically scoring more than the other team

I don't get it...if you ask any NFL coach what are the largest determining factors in who wins or loses a football game, each and every one of them would list "turnovers."

 

Lovie's teams led the NFL in takeaways over his nine year tenure in Chicago.

 

Say what you want about Lovie's game management skills or his offenses, but the man is one of the best defensive coaches in recent NFL history, IMHO.

 

No arguments here. Whatever he does, he does it well. Peanut was a good defender before Lovie came in(I still remember that INT against Minnesota where he basically beasted on Moss and just took it away), but he became something else entirely within lovies system.

Actually, I imagine it would be points scored, specifically scoring more than the other team

Don't make me come to Bismarck...

 

 

No arguments here. Whatever he does, he does it well. Peanut was a good defender before Lovie came in(I still remember that INT against Minnesota where he basically beasted on Moss and just took it away), but he became something else entirely within lovies system.

Well, if you watch a lot of college or NFL football...you realize why so many defensive backs are defensive backs and not receivers...they can't seem to catch for s***...the Bears seem to draft or coach up their defenders in a way that other teams have not, which includes not only the ability to strip the ball, but also the ability to actually catch balls and recover fumbles.

 

I do not go the Bears' practices, but those who do claim that the Bears' defense practices these skills very specifically.

 

It appears as though it worked.