Jump to content

2012-2013 NFL Thread


Recommended Posts

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/tag/_/na...ack-monday-2012

 

 

Arizona - GM Graves HC Whisenhunt

 

Buffalo - HC Gailey

 

Chicago - HC Smith

 

NY Jets - GM Tannenbaum

 

San Diego - GM Smith HC Turner

 

KC - HC Crennel

 

Cleveland - GM Heckert HC Shurmur

 

Philadelphia - HC Reid

 

Jacksonville - GM Smith

 

Any confirmation on Rivera?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 8.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 01:22 PM)
If the Bears go 10-6 next year and don't make the playoffs, will that mean the new coach is as stupid as Lovie?

 

who said Lovie is stupid

 

Also, season expectations always change the perspective of the end result of the season

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 01:23 PM)
that's just silly to me. The D still has it in them, and if they upgrade the OL there should be no reason why they win "a lot less" than 10 games.

 

I have a feeling this is only the beginning in terms of changes. At minimum, I bet we don't see Urlacher or Hester back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 01:25 PM)
Spend a game at Soldier Field. Any time a Bear screws up you will hear an F--- you Lovie, you suck. Every. Single. Time.

 

I saw them play Minnesota this season. Didnt hear it once

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The part that makes no sense is that the Bears are basically giving Emery the keys to the castle when he has much less experience than Lovie. If anything I would have thought the Bears should have given Lovie more power (after getting rid of Angelo) and seeing if that actually made a difference. Instead they got a new GM, said he cant fire Lovie for 1 year and you have a clusterf*** from the start.

 

That is the ultimate problem for the Bears. They have no clue what they are doing in the front office. Lovie had to be the longest tenured coach with the least amount of power. I cant imagine that Lovie wanted McClellan in the 1st.

 

The Bears need 1 person to steer the ship and everyone else to follow directions. 2 generals with equal power does not work, the Romans found this out at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Yet almost 2000 years later the Bears are still mucking it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 01:27 PM)
The part that makes no sense is that the Bears are basically giving Emery the keys to the castle when he has much less experience than Lovie. If anything I would have thought the Bears should have given Lovie more power (after getting rid of Angelo) and seeing if that actually made a difference. Instead they got a new GM, said he cant fire Lovie for 1 year and you have a clusterf*** from the start.

 

That is the ultimate problem for the Bears. They have no clue what they are doing in the front office. Lovie had to be the longest tenured coach with the least amount of power. I cant imagine that Lovie wanted McClellan in the 1st.

 

The Bears need 1 person to steer the ship and everyone else to follow directions. 2 generals with equal power does not work, the Romans found this out at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Yet almost 2000 years later the Bears are still mucking it up.

 

Normally I dont always agree with you but think you are pretty rational. This is ludicrous, why would you hire a new GM and immediately chops his balls off like that? If you set the power structure like that after a new hire, your clusterf*** is coming no matter what

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been away from the computer all day so far, so just getting around to this Lovie stuff... But if we're going the OC route, my #1 target would be McCoy from Denver. After that, Arians and maybe Darrell Bevell would be good to look at. And then going further down the OC list, Jay Gruden could be an option. But those are really the only OC's who have had successful offenses and don't work for an offensive-minded head coach (Fox, Pagano, Carroll, Lewis).

 

I'd love to take a shot at Chip Kelly, but I don't think the McCaskey's would do it. Oh, and Gruden would be good. But again, I don't think he's the type of guy the Bears would hire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 08:27 PM)
The part that makes no sense is that the Bears are basically giving Emery the keys to the castle when he has much less experience than Lovie. If anything I would have thought the Bears should have given Lovie more power (after getting rid of Angelo) and seeing if that actually made a difference. Instead they got a new GM, said he cant fire Lovie for 1 year and you have a clusterf*** from the start.

 

That is the ultimate problem for the Bears. They have no clue what they are doing in the front office. Lovie had to be the longest tenured coach with the least amount of power. I cant imagine that Lovie wanted McClellan in the 1st.

 

The Bears need 1 person to steer the ship and everyone else to follow directions. 2 generals with equal power does not work, the Romans found this out at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Yet almost 2000 years later the Bears are still mucking it up.

 

Giving coaches personnel power just rarely works out. Lovie never seemed very adept at scouting. Phil Emery was hired to put together the best team possible, but had to keep the coach from previous regime. It should be no surprise what happened.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 01:30 PM)
Ok. Those people are stupids

I've gone to a ton of Bears games over the years, and we all know that nearly everyone is going to get the "suck" treatment from fans. People are drunk, frustrated, and they all know everything.

 

It means very little.

 

I get what DA is getting at, and he could prove to be right, but the bottom line is the offense has shown absolutely no real progress over the course of his tenure here, regardless of the addition of some new and legitimate weapons. Lovie's defenses took us as far as they could, but ultimately it was never enough.

 

It's time to try something new.

 

The goal isn't to win 10 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 01:03 PM)
In the end, the teams execution is the head coaches responsibility. He hired the offensive coordinators. They failed. That's on him. The bears saw numerous players look inept on their offensive unit, only to appear much better on other teams. They were not good at developing the talent they were given, and they were not good executing with the talent given. That's the head coaches job.

 

Yes, the players looked inept on offense. THE PLAYERS. I can't think of any players off the top of my head who looked better offensively elsewhere, but also before you spew a list, look which ones had an offensive line and a qb who could throw them the ball. The Bears couldn't develop offensive talent, because there was none there. That offensive line if putrid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 01:33 PM)
I've gone to a ton of Bears games over the years, and we all know that nearly everyone is going to get the "suck" treatment from fans. People are drunk, frustrated, and they all know everything.

 

It means very little.

 

I get what DA is getting at, and he could prove to be right, but the bottom line is the offense has shown absolutely no real progress over the course of his tenure here, regardless of the addition of some new and legitimate weapons. Lovie's defenses took us as far as they could, but ultimately it was never enough.

 

It's time to try something new.

 

The goal isn't to win 10 games.

 

yes and yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 01:27 PM)
The part that makes no sense is that the Bears are basically giving Emery the keys to the castle when he has much less experience than Lovie. If anything I would have thought the Bears should have given Lovie more power (after getting rid of Angelo) and seeing if that actually made a difference. Instead they got a new GM, said he cant fire Lovie for 1 year and you have a clusterf*** from the start.

 

That is the ultimate problem for the Bears. They have no clue what they are doing in the front office. Lovie had to be the longest tenured coach with the least amount of power. I cant imagine that Lovie wanted McClellan in the 1st.

 

The Bears need 1 person to steer the ship and everyone else to follow directions. 2 generals with equal power does not work, the Romans found this out at the Battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Yet almost 2000 years later the Bears are still mucking it up.

 

There is recent history for this as well. Remember when Dunder-Mifflin tried to have both Michael and Jim run the Scranton branch? Pure chaos and disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 01:31 PM)
Giving coaches personnel power just rarely works out. Lovie never seemed very adept at scouting. Phil Emery was hired to put together the best team possible, but had to keep the coach from previous regime. It should be no surprise what happened.

 

Based on the 2012 draft why do you feel comfortable with Emery putting together a good team?

 

Or is it based on how great KC is, the team he was director of scouting for?

 

Because with the Bears all he did was draft Jeffrey, the rest of the picks so far are pretty brutal.

 

We will never know whether Lovie could have handled player personnel, what we do know is that the Bears are now being run by a guy who put together the talent for KC, and I am not holding my breathe that they will make the playoffs anytime soon.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 02:28 PM)
Pioli is the shocker to me. This guy has been pretty bad for a while. It must be nice to write off you constant mistakes on others.

I don't necessarily agree. He built a pretty talented roster. The QB spot is what's holding that team back. Granted, he's the guy who spent big money on Cassell, but if he can get that fixed, then I think the Chiefs could be pretty good. They had 5 guys make the Pro Bowl this year. The talent is there. The coaching and the QB was not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Dec 31, 2012 -> 02:38 PM)
I don't necessarily agree. He built a pretty talented roster. The QB spot is what's holding that team back. Granted, he's the guy who spent big money on Cassell, but if he can get that fixed, then I think the Chiefs could be pretty good. They had 5 guys make the Pro Bowl this year. The talent is there. The coaching and the QB was not.

I agree...I think the Chiefs are closer than people think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...