nfoligno

I could see the point, except that he didn't play bump and run prior to the injury. Frankly, I have rarely seen any of our CBs play on the LOS since Lovie came to Chicago. Often, you see the CBs start out near the LOS, only to see them drop back 10 yards prior to the snap. It it were just Tillman, or just post-injury, that would be one thing, but since Lovie arrived, all of our CBs play off the ball, thus I think it is far more coaching/system than it is players.

For me, this is easy. NO! One. While Jason likes to talk about how we should not avoid players who have issues, I would argue that while we do not need to only look at angels, we at the same time do not need to look at the worst of the worst either. For years, Wrs were the prima donas of the league. Any good WR also seemed to be a jerk too. So you had no choice but to take the good w/ the bad. But IMHO, more and more good character Wrs have stepped up, and I no longer would agree you have to take the crap character if you want talent. Consider the top WRs in the league: Andre Johnson - Very high character, which is really unusual as he came out of Thug U (Miami). Fitzgerald - He wanted his money, but is considered a high character guy. Steve Smith - He has his red flags. I am not sure he is among the lowest character guys, but far from the best. Roddy White - I have never read any knocks on his character. Calvin Johnson - High character. G Jennings - Solid character B Marshal - Charcter is about as bad as you will find. Bryant - Low character Welker - Super high character Wayne - High character There's your top 10 WRs in the league. Of the group, you have one serious bad boy (Marshall) and two weak character guys (Smith/Bryant). But you also have 7 WRs w/ solid character. I think the idea that if you want quality at WR, you have to deal w/ poor charcter is no longer valid. Two. To me, TO is worse than many other low character guys. None of us like guys who have run-ins w/ the law, but I think (as a fan) that is not nearly as bad as what you get w/ TO. TO simply destroys teams w/ his negative character. Take this year. Even when the team was doing well on offense, TO was vocal in the press about not "getting his". He tore apart the team by complaining how Romo was not throwing to him enough, and was getting the ball to Witten, one of the league's elite TEs, instead. Here in Dallas, you couldn't go a day w/o hearing TO complain. But two things resulted. One, tons of stats were shown that showed how few of the times pass attempts went to TO that resulted in completions. The reality is, his drops, combined w/ his lesser ability to get open, hurt his numbers more than the QB not throwing to him 20 times a game. Also, there was a point in the season (happened last year too) when he pressured Romo to force the ball to him. The results were not good, at least not for the team. The simple reality of it is, TO was not getting open, and Romo forcing the ball to TO was not best for the team. But TO didn't/doesn't care. Three. If it was just w/ one team, that would be one thing, but he has not destroyed 3 locker rooms. What makes ANYONE think we have the players/staff in place to prevent this from happening again. In SF, Phily and Dallas, he has more established coaching staffs and QBs, and yet that didn't stop TO from being destructive. Who really believe Lovie and/or Orton will have the ability to keep TO in check? I'm sorry. I want to upgrade our WR position badly, but I simply see far more negative coming out of this than positive. We simply do not have the QB or coaching staff to even hope it would work. It is well and good to point to how Moss changed his ways in NE, but we have neither a QB like Brady, nor a HC like Billichek.

Huh? I am on record saying I think Cassel has seen success due to what surrounds him. In NE, he has one of, if not the, top coaching staff's in the league. He has two of the best Wrs in the league to throw too. He has a solid OL. I think Cassel may be a solid player, but there is simply far too much which is unknown. If we brought him in, w/o SERIOUSLY upgrading the rest of the offense, I think he would flop. I would consider a 2nd round pick for him. A 2nd rounder is nothing to throw away, but I would argue worth it for a "potential" franchise QB. Further, if we gave up a 2nd and not a 1st, we would still have the ability to upgrade the offense he would work in. But for the most part, no, I would pass. If we could get him for a 2nd, and I knew Angelo was also going to make upgrading the OL and WR corp a priority, then I would "consider" it, but as I see both elements unlikely, I simply do not think it is worth it.

I have been in favor or re-signing Brown all along, so long as we are only looking at him as a SS. IMHO, this year we saw that Brown can simply no longer play FS. He was never fast, but made up for the lack of speed w/ smarts, but I think he has slowed to the point that smarts and quick breaks can no longer compensate. However, once he started playing SS and in the box more, I felt his play improved greatly, as did our defense. I was a fan of Paynes, but simply not much of one now. While he can lay the wood, he doesn't wrap up, which drives me nuts. Not often I saw him trying to spear a guy, only to be knocked to the side, as the RB broke the tackle. That was because he doesn't wrap up. I think Brown is easily our best SS. His is injury prone, but w/ Payne and Steltz in depth, I think we should be fine w/ a more injury prone SS. The biggest key for me though is leadership. While I believe our D does have a significant amount of talent (still believe coaching hurt this group more than pure talent) I do not see leaders on our D. Players like Briggs, Urlacher, Tillman, Brown, Harris, etc have talent, but none are vocal leaders. They may be leaders by example type, but are not the sort of leaders that fire up their units. Brown is. Brown is the only player I have seen get into another plays face after a bad play. I know many will say it is the job of a coach, but too many former players have talked about the need for emotional leaders, and w/o Brown, I just don't see it.

It would be interesting to know how much of this was mandated or pushed for by JA but I suspect getting Marinelli was the key piece of the equation. Agreed. We will most likely never know the answer, but I too wonder how much was Lovie and how much was Angelo. After reading that interview from Sapp it seems that Lovie is going to draw up game plans with more help from Marinelli than Babich, hence the assistant head coach title. That's work on Mon/Tue by Wed Marinelli wants to be back on the field working hand in hand with the Dline, which is fine by me. Babich and Lovie can worry about coordinating the practice schedule and what not while Marinelli does what he does best. To me, I think the biggest key is who runs the D on game day. IMHO, Lovie was very much part of drawing up game plans last year. I recall several comments from his saying he was involved. It was on Sundays it seemed Lovie took a back seat, allowing Babich to handle everything. The score, I think, said that our D (and offense for the matter) were actually quit good in the 1st quarter of games, but it was after that point the team faded. That tells me opponents made adjustments and we did not. The hope is that Lovie is better calling games than Babich. While I question Lovie's defensive genius, even to me, there is little question he is an improvement over Babich, and thus, I think our D should significantly improve.

A Sun Times article discusses Lovie taking over on D, and goes on to talk about Lovie being "excited" about potential personnel changes, referring to players and not coaches. This led Briggs to wonder if we might not have our sights set on some of the big names in FA on the defensive side of the ball. Now, I know many here want to add the CB from Oakland, but I personally do not believe he would even be considered. We run a scheme that relies on the pass rush, while cover two corners are not usually considered shut down caliber. So while many would like to add a stud CB, I don't see that in the plans. If we are going to make a change to the personnel that would excite Lovie, I have to believe (as did Briggs) that we would be looking at the DL. Briggs threw out there 3 names who are very well known. Haynesworth - Haynes is a freaking stud DT. He shuts down the run, and is a very good pass rusher as well. The idea of his pairing w/ Harris would make any Bear fan salivate. However, I want no part of him. Haynesworth is a player who has always been questioned in terms of motivation. He has always been good, but this year was a freak. I think it has to be asked, how much of his elevated play was due to being in a contract year? Many have speculated he will get fat and lazy (again) as soon as he signs his mega-deal, and make no mistake, it will be a mega-deal. On a team loaded w/ players who seemed to lose some of their motivation when they got paid, can we afford to sign another who most expect the same of? Peppers - He is coming off a 14.5 sack season, and is excellent against the run as well. Some would say his resurgance was due to being in a contract year also, but I would argue he is very different from Albert. Peppers was dominant since entering the league. In his first 5 seasons, only once did he finish under double digit sacks, and even that year, he had more than any of our guys. He then had an awful 2007, riddled w/ injury, and then was back to form this past year. Maybe the contract year added to the motivation, but I would point out he played at a very high level well prior to that contract season. Peppers is a stud, and replacing Wale w/ Peppers would go a LONG way toward improving our pass rush. But many teams are going to feel the same way, and Peppers will get a sick contract. Suggs - Suggs is a great pass rusher. The only question w/ Suggs might be, how well does he fit as a pure DE, as I believe he plays a LB/DE hybrid in Baltimore. No question he is going to get major interest in FA, particularly from 3-4 defenses. The question I think is whether his value in a cover two is equal to his value in a 3-4. If we were to even consider the elite group listed above, to me, Peppers is the only one that makes sense. We made a hard push for Kearse some years ago, offering as much as around $20m signing bonus. To me, Peppers is a similar player to Kearse in that he was an elite pass rusher, while also being very solid against the run. Anyway, if we are looking to add one of the elite defensive players (and for the record, I would still prefer to go offense) Peppers is the only one I would say is a good fit/addition. Again, and before Jason goes nuts, I want OL and WR. But reading Lovie's comments lead to the impression we might be looking to add to our DL first, and such this post.

although i have tried to erase this era completely from memory, there is no getting around the fact that shea was a BAD offensive coordinator. someone that made what little talent we had even worse. if memory serves me right, and it might not, shea's passing game called for a lot of 4 and 5 step drops and hitting medium/deep routes... 1. the routes were more complex than the receivers experience and/or talent dictated. 2. our qb's that year had an amazing *66 sacks and 20 fumbles to go along with 16 INT's. this means we are not getting rid of the ball quick enough to compensate for our OL's poor performance. 3. i don't believe? our qb's were not allowed to change plays at the LOS no matter how the defense lined up against them. this led to our OL unable to compensate for blitzes and stunts. there also seemed to be no gametime adjustments at all. One, I agree Shea was an awful OC. At the same time, I disagree w/ some other thoughts. Two, he did have a more complicated system coming in, though it wasn't Crowton complicated. If you want to understand his system, just look at KC games from a few years ago. That was the system he brought to town. W/ that said, I would argue he did in fact alter the system w/ changes at QB, and think our rookie QB stats is evidence. W/ Rex at the helm, there were more (as you say) deep drops and complicated routes. Also, we passed more heavily. When Krenzel, a rookie, came in, we changed our offense. It was more quick read, quick release passes, and more "outs". Also, we ran the ball a lot more. As I already showed, Krenzel simply didn't have close to the same number of pass attempts, and that is pretty solid evidence, IMHO, that we did alter our game plan for a different QB. Three, I don't recall about the LOS changes, but would say (a) how much do you want a rookie QB, Hutchinson or Quinn calling plays and ( this was something other OCs didn't allow too. This was one of the most maddenly things (for me) about shoop, in that he didnt' allow Miller (far from a rookie) to change the play at the LOS. Look, I am NOT saying Shea was good. I didn't like him, and was thrilled when we let him go. At the same time, I do think we tried to alter the game plan with the revolving door of QBs that season. Simply put, the different game plans didnt' work. Ironically, the best we did was w/ our rookie QB, who I believe was 3-2. i just used this as an example. i stated in the previous post a first or even second year coach gets 'some' slack until he gets up to speed. even so, lovie surely should have had some input on this bad of an offense. But how do we know he didn't. As said, Shea did change the game plan for different QBs. How do we not know it wasn't Lovie telling him, for example, "We have a rookie QB coming in. I want to run the ball more to compensate".

to me this is a perfect example of when a head coach should step in. in shea's instance he kept expecting these qb's to perform according to his gameplans that simply were unrealistic considering the talent. yet we saw the same mistakes over and over with no real expectations that they would get better. that is when a HC needs to sit his offensive coaches down and come up with a solution or a different method of attack. And we simply disagree. I am not sure I would agree w/ the statement or idea that Shea made no changes for the different QBs. For example, when Krenzel took over, I recall our offense being very much simplified. Also, in those 5 starts for the rookie, we only threw the ball 19, 25, 21, 28 and 24 times, compared to a much more pass happy attack prior to that. This was in the middle of the season, for the record. So the OC was making adjustments for his different QBs, but it simply did not matter. We just did not have a good team that year, and no level of coaching was going to change that. Look, few have attacked Lovie as much as I, yet I just can't go along w/ this one. He was in his first year as our HC, coming from a defensive coaching background. We had a bad offense going in, w/ our starting QB going down in game 3. We had a 1st year OC who tried to adjust to the 4 different starting QBs, but the reality is, nothing was going to make things better. I think you are expecting WAY too much to think Lovie should have taken a greater control of the offense that year. The experience just was not there for him. He would have been slapping his 1st your OC in the fact. And frankly, it just didn't matter much w/ that offense. i think you could say this was a problem not only with lovie but jauron as well. jauron never reined in crowton and within 2 years he was gone and our win loss record showed it. the same could be said of shoop's 3 yards and a cloud of dust offensive schemes. it cost jauron his coaching job. I think the problem w/ Jauron was more about Jauron than Shoop to be honest. While Shoop could never be mistaken for Crowton, I think a big reason we were as conservative as we were on offense was Jauron. I remember heading into 2001, it was Jauron was came out and talked about how we were going to be a ball control offense, and rely on field position and defense to win. That is what the HC wanted. Further, it worked in 2001, and thus I think Jauron felt emboldened by this system. I have no problem bashing Shoop and Jauron for not making changes and adjustments, but I think the situation was a bit different from the one you are compared it to w/ Lovie. a final example, and maybe more minor than the other two, would be turner's insistence of mckie punching the ball in up the middle on the goal line when it had failed a number of times in the past. it simply did not work because we not only didn't have an offensive line good enough to get the goal line push but teams were ready and waiting for it. yet turner continued to waste redzone downs trying to change the results. Now is this an area I can agree. We are not talking about playcalling so much as the HC telling the OC he doesn't like a play, doesn't feel it has a high chance of success, and wants to taken out of the playbook. I have no problem w/ expecting such of the HC, and think you are spot on w/ this one. I agree Lovie could have and should have done more. As a defensive backgrounded coach, he should have been able to provide more insight on aspects of the offense. That doesn't mean taking over playcalling, but simply having a greater role in game plans and scheme. But to be fair, we do not know how hands on he was in this regard. By and large, we agree in the general concept Lovie should have been more hands on, and much sooner, both on offense and defense. We disagree on how much he should have stepped in on offense in 2004, but I think otherwise agree.

How about putting Payne in the mix?

I agree, but at the same time, I think it is also worth pointing out that in 2004, we had the following QBs: Hutchinson (5 starts), Krenzel (5 starts), Quinn (3 starts) Rex (3 starts). I would make the point that it is pretty hard to make significant adjustments to the scheme or system when you are inserting a new QB seemingly every week. I just don't think there was a whole heck of a lot Lovie could have done to help the offense in 2004, and give him credit for making a quick move to replace Shea after that season. I understand your point, but believe personnel on offense make changes difficult. Further, in the greater picture, I simply believe Lovie not stepping in sooner on Defense, his defense, is a FAR greater issue than not stepping in on offense in 2004.

Few points. Lovie took over in 2001, and there is no question Stl did jump in the standings, but I would still argue a large part of that was due to the offense. Stl was the top ranked offense in 2001, which allowed the D to do a lot of things that I simply question how they would work in Chicago. That year, Stl put a ton of points on the board, which allowed the D to be far more aggressive. Also, due to the offense, the D was often in a position where opponents were one dimensional, giving up on the run game early, and thus allowing the D to pin their ears back and just attack the passer. They could take far greater risks, because if they gave up a TD, no big deal. They scored 30 or better in 11 of 16 games, including several over 40. But the D went downhill after 2001. The following year, the offense was only average, and the D tanked in turn, falling from 3rd to 23rd. Without the offense lighting up the score board, the defense was simply exposed. D improved some the following year, but was still mediocre. I am biased. I am simply not a fan of the scheme, and have never been. It relies so heavingly on creating turnovers, which is simply more difficult w/o an offense that lights up the score board. When you have the offense, his scheme can look pretty darn good. But when you have an average offense, his defense simply doesn't seem as effective. Look, all this aside, while I may not consider Lovie the defensive genius some do, I agree w/o question he is a major upgrade to Babich, and would also prefer him to Marinelli, who I like as our DL coach, but he too has zero playcalling experience, and thus Lovie is a better option for him as well.

Not sure we are on the same page here. I would agree any HC, regardless of background, should be capable of bringing something to the table on either side. In Lovie's case, for example, he is a defensive backgrounded coach, but in that capacity, he must also have a fair understanding of offenses as he has been game planning against them. So I would agree that HC could/should have input for aspects of the offense when it comes to game plans and such. Where I disagree, and maybe we are simply not communicating well, is in the idea of Lovie taking over the offense. Having general knowledge of the offense, or whatever level you want to place it, is not enough to take over the playcalling duties. Heck, I would think our position coaches on offense are likely better capable of that duty than our defensive backgrounded HC, and I think that would be true for any team. It is one thing to provide input and direction when talking about scheme and higher level aspects of the offense, but another thing all together when talking about playcalling duties.

Just for the record, I think Sapp actually has very strong ties to Lovie. Sapp is on the Score all the time now, and has spoken of Lovie in such a way, well, I just think they are fairly close. Sapp would blast much of the team, but he always bit his tongue when it came to Lovie. He simply would not say jack critical of him, and I think a key reason is they have a friendship. I agree this is an overdue move, yet at the same time, believe it is a great move. This is similar to when we had Dent working w/ the OL. As to why Sapp would only work w/ Harris, I would make two points. One, while Harris was mentioned, it is possible others will work w/ Sapp too, but the media simply see's Harris as the main aspect of the story, since he is the most similar to Sapp. Two, As I said at the end of the previous point, Harris is supposed to be the Warren Sapp of our defense, so it makes sense he would most work w/ Harris. At the same time, I would also add that Harrison and the rest could really benefit from being part of that little coaching clinic.

on to lovie... just what does lovie actually do as HC? just designate his coordinators complete control and sit back on cruise control until the season is over? I believe the term is daydreaming. starting out with shay as our OC it seemed shay was in over his head with play calling. yet lovie did nothing to change the offensive foremat and as a matter of fact seemed unable to even get on the same page as shay with changes lovie said needed to occur. to say shay was out of control is an understatement. is turner now in complete charge of this teams offense without any input, changes, direction or goals set by lovie? it seems quite obvious that lovie has absolutely nothing to contribute on this side of the ball other than mouthing "we need to get off the bus running" when appropriate. on defense we see the same modus operandi. babich is in over his head and yet lovie verbally throws in his complete support without action. truth be known, is lovie's understanding of defense so shallow that he really doesn't have a clue how to fix it and is relying on babich to come up with game plans and game adjustments? at season's end lovie leads us to believe this next season will change/be different because he will now provide input as to how our defense is run? On offense, I would actually give Lovie a bit of a pass. Lovie does not know offense, and there simply was not a lot Lovie could do. If we had on our staff a very well thought of position coach, I guess we could have cut bait w/ Shea midseason and promoted that position coach, but I don't think any of our other coaches were thought off well enough. Lovie was quick to let Shea go though, and frankly, he deserves credit for that. I would not have expected too much more. On the defensive side of the ball though, well, that is another matter. Not only is Lovie a defensive backgrounded coach, but we are running HIS DEFENSIVE SYSTEM. We were in the 2nd year of Babich, and if you look at the Shea example, there was enough reason to fire him after one. But we were in year two, and our D stunk. There is simply no reason, other than not wanting to show up your BFF, that Lovie should not have stepped in sooner. Crackerpuppy will try to argue Lovie may have and we don't know. I think Lovie may have stepped in some for game prep, but I do not believe he did jack in terms of in-game playcalling. Frankly, that is simply not too hard to figure out. When the defense is on the field, what is Lovie doing? If Lovie were talking to the staff/players more on a play by play basis, you might argue he is calling the D, but Lovie was just standing there like a statue, as usual. Unless Lovie has been studying to be a ventriliquist on the side, I don't see how it can be argued he took over the playcalling this past year.

I would argue it more being, no matter what this staff is willing to do..... Just throwing this out there. Lovie preached accountability. He then fired the top 3 position coaches, but he kept Babich. Yea, he has now sort of demoted him, but is the accountability really there? You say, no matter what this staff does, but I just disagree. The staff was in a position to walk the walk, but friendship got in the way. Further, I think many would like to see changed to the defense greater than simply altering some name plates. In hiring Marinelli, moving Babich to LB and Lovie taking over the D, we have coaching changes, but the system is still in place, and it is a system many fans question. So I disagree there is nothing the staff could have done, short of firing Lovie, but would argue it is more a matter of there is nothing the staff is willing to do.

I really hope we sign Oshiomogho Atogwe, who I think would provide our secondary a nice boost. While he played for a bad defense, he was one of the few bright spots. He is a legit FS, something we have not had in years.

1.) They hired a solid DL coach who ought to get a lot more out of the substantial talent we have there. Agree. I don't like that he is Lovie's BFF, but that isn't his fault. He should get more out of our DL than did Brick, though that isn't saying much. 2.) They've effectively demoted an ineffective DC and replaced him with Lovie Smith, a guy who clearly had a tad bit of success running the Cover 2 in his previous life clearly had a tad bit of success running the cover 2? Frankly, this has ALWAYS made me laugh. Go back and check out what he did while DC for StL. They never had a good defense. Their defenses were average at best. They gave up both yards and points, but they won thanks to "the greatest show on turf". The one thing his defenses did well was create turnovers, but how much of that was due to having an offense as they did, forcing teams to be one dimensional, and knowing that if your aggressive play allowed a score, it wasn't a probelm. Sorry, but I would argue Lovie was never that good of a DC. And say what you will, but this is an in-season move. Not an off-season move. This is the sort of thing teams consider a fall back plan. How often do teams head into the season w/ their fall back plan? If Babich is not good enough to be the DC, then he loses the title and you find a competent DC. That is what pretty much every team in the league does, but friendship is just too important to Lovie, so we head into the season w/ a fall back plan. But you have no problem w/ this? 3.) The GM has made it known that QB play on this team (which I actually had little issue with this year given all else) wasn't up to snuff and he intends to bring the heat to that position. Something, if you'd all get your heads out of your asses, that ought to excite you! One, as you said, QB was not as great of an issue this year as it has been in the past, so why now is it all about the QB? You don't find it frustrating that in all those years w/ Rex, and unproven QB, we avoided competition like the plague, but in a year we get decent QB and offensive production, QB is suddenly the biggest thing there is. I have no problem w/ the idea of competition, but I do have an issue w/ the timing. Two, your right that this should excite me, but looking at the options available, I find it hard to get too excited. 4.) The O this season was pretty darned productive with NO wide receivers. NONE. If we can address that, step up the QB play either via free agency or just threatening Orton with a challenge to the position, we ought to see a nice improvement from the O! But this is part of the problem. Did you not read/hear ALL of Angelo's comments? He specifically said it is not all about the WR. It is not all about the OL. He made out like we have good enough WRs and OL, and only our QB holds us back. I agree it was impressive that our offense did as well as it did w/ so little, but listening to Angelo, I just question why you would be so optimistic we will see big upgrades at either WR or OL. Angelo, based on his comments, is more likely to sign Warner and believe that will solve everything. Sign Warner with this surrounding cast, and well, I just hope we provide the players w/ an awesome health care plan. 5.) Forte is the shit. We're good there for a decade if he stays healthy. What does this have to do w/ our offseason? Hey, I agree. Forte was "the shit" and especially when you consider our OL. But if you want to keep him healthy, you better build around him, and I question why you have such an expectation. 6.) We still need to improve the O Line depth and basically start replacing some of the old guys. Center is my biggest concern now as Olin is a fossil. A few choice picks here and there in the draft will clearly focus here. I agree our OL is a huge need, though I think RT is #1 w/ OG as close 2nd. But again, remember, it isn't about the OL but the QB. Take a look at how little Angelo has drafted OL since he has arrived, and tell me why you expect him to change? The sky isn't falling girls. We went 9-7 this season which is dead on for where this team was projected by the optimistic among us. With a few key changes and better production out of the talent we already have, they can revamp quickly and be right back in the swing next season. I'm not saying they will, but damn dudes... Let the actual off season moves take place before you sign the death warrant for 2009. Please! That's what I love about you and your exaggeration. No one is saying the sky is falling. No one is saying we are going to be next years Detroit Lions. I guess you just want to read the rosie stuff. There are bitter fans who are watching NFL playoff football, and not feeling satisified, all the while listening/watching our team do things that some of us feel are questionable, and thus we are critical. But in your world, that means we feel the sky is falling. Yea, who is chicken little. Says poster #1, "You know, I am not sure Olin Kreutz is a playing at a pro bowl caliber anymore" Says chickendog, "Oh my God. The sky isn't falling. Everything is Great. Everything we are doing is great. We are going to be great again next year. How dare you question the Gods, er, I mean, the coaches and GM. PS. I do/did think the Babich dual role was ridiculous until I found out that Lovie was going to step into a more active role there. I agree with those that say Lovie should've gotten off his ass faster during the season. But that's an opinion based on nothing but a guess that he didn't. Nobody here knows if he was a lot more involved in the late season game plans for the D. NOBODY. And we had a pretty good run at the end of the year until the last game... After Brown was hurt. One, I said during the season I felt Lovie was likely inserting himself more in terms of game planning, but I would argue he did not insert himself into the role of game day playcalling, which is the point. That is where most fans feel Babich really failed. Two, yea, our D picked it up later in the year, but many would point to replacing Dusty w/ Scott as being a key element of that. While not a great player, that move seemed to trigger improved play by both Urlacher and Harris.

No offense dude, but you're nitpicking right now. I don't like Lovie or the way this organization has been run the past couple years anymore then you do, but you are just looking for things to bitch about. Huh? This defense has been on a very fast decline over the last two years. I don't have to "look for things" to bitch about. They are freaking slapping us in the face. Wow, when you going to cut Marinelli some slack for being practically sabotaged in Detroit? Look at the lack of success of all the Lions coaches the past 10 years... I don't blame Marinelli at all for the Detroit situation, as it's just a product of an absolutely horrible front office. In fact, while most coaches would have had likely stepped down, Marinelli stuck with it and never gave up. I give him all the credit in the world for that. Also, I think you're forgetting how he coached the most successful DLine during his time as Tampa Bay Dline coach for 10 years. Couple things. One, as you say, "when are you going to cut Marinelli some slack" you must have read other posts of mine about him. I have said I am fine w/ the signing, and so long as he is our DL coach only, believe it is a good one. I do however feel bitter sweet about the hiring, because I am not as sold on him as you. I do not like that we are only continuing the buddy system. And while I fully understand he is not 100% responsibile for Detroit, I like the idea of hiring winners. Instead of looking at coaches who have been recently successful, we are hiring a bunch of guys who have recently failed. But that is more about PR and "feelings". In general, I have said I like hiring him as our DL coach. Two, I do have to say though, I think you are too quick to dismiss his share of the blame for the Det debacle. Are you telling me that Det is really that bad? I look around the league, and see other teams equally as bad, and yet they all managed to win a game. While there is no question other factors prevented him from being a successful coach in Detroit, I do think you have to look at him (and the staff HE assembled) to note just how bad they were. But I get it. He is a failed HC, and we have hired him to be our DL coach, an area he has proven himself in the past. Much of my bitterness is due to the lack of actual change on our defense, which is not his fault. At the same time, he has just entered the picture on the problem (defense/Lovie) side of things. As for Babich going back the linebackers coach, last time I checked the linebackers played good under his coaching, and helped the development of Briggs, Hillenmeyer, and Williams. In fact, it was when he took over as DC that the linebackers play dropped off. Maybe that's due in part because our DLine play started to suck and he sucked as a DC. But he has yet to show he's a bad linebackers coach. Great. He gets to keep his title, and yet be demoted. Sorry, but he is going to continue to get blasted by me. The buddy system garbage is incredible. Maybe he works out better back as a LB coach (as Ayenbadejo said he was good at) but it still irks the hell out of me that we have to show such favoratism. His losing DC duties should have happened during the season. Not now. This is when we should have been searching for a new DC. Not hearing about how he will keep the DC title, but our HC will take over those duties. Sorry, but that is something you hear a team doing in-season. That is not a move you hear teams do in the offseason. We are going into the next season already in Plan B mode. And I actually like the Hoke hiring. The Texans secondary has been pretty decent for the immense amount of talent they are lacking. Also, Hoke was able to keep his job as DB coach even when Houston changed coaches. Not to mention Spurrier must have thought pretty highly of him to have had made him the DC and assistant HC at Florida when he was there. Sorry, but I live in Texas. I lived in Houston for a long time, and my parents still live there. In fact, my dad is a bigger Texans fan than Bears fan at this point in his life. I hear more about the Texans than I do the Bears, though the Cowgirls still ranks way higher. The Texans secondary has stunk. Players have under-performed, and just in general, they have never looked good. They invested picks, including a top 10 pick (Dunta Robinson) as well as signed FAs, and yet the common trend has been a lack of development and falling below expectations. Now, I realize that is not all the secondarys fault, as the secondary relies heavily on the DL, but the simple fact of it is, he has been in charge of a unit that has simply not been good. Heck, Hoke was basically demoted a year ago when the team hired an assistant DB coach, who took over the safety position. Oh, and for the record, that DB assistant was among the VERY few to not lose his job this year.

And before we get the Landry responses, I would just like to add something I have said for a while. I personally do not believe you have to have a head coach that is all fire, but I do think if you have a calmer demeanor HC, you need fired up assistants. I have made the military analogy before. It is fine to have a captain w/ a calmer way, but you need that drill sergant fired up. If everyone of the military leaders has that calm demeanor, how can the men get fired up? When you watch our sidelines, what coaches ever look fired up? There is only one coach I have seen who seems to get animated, and that is Toub. Ever notice Toub after a good or bad thing happens on special teams. When there is a good thing, toub is halfway onto the field giving high fives and patting backs. When something bad happens, I have numerous times seen toub get in the face of the player. Not to the level of Ditka, but its there. Besides Lovie, Turner and Babich just seem very low key, and I just have never felt that was an effective combo. One of the other needs to have the fire.

Is this a joke? The secondary has been considered Houston's greatest weakness for some time. They have struggled to develop CBs or safeties, and have never looked good in the secondary. So just to understand. We fired our 3 key position coaches, and replaced them w/: DL - head coach of the leagues first ever 0-16 team. LB - our very own failed DC will take over LB coaching duties. DB - We get the recently fired DB coach from one of the few defenses that has been worse than ours. I realize it isn't as bad as I make it out, but wow. We really do love to fill positions w/ failures.

i have to ask... with our defense crumbling before our very eyes, why didn't lovie get "more involved" last season? This is about as big of a head scratcher as any question out there. I really thought Lovie would have been more hands on w/ HIS defense that was failing so miserably last year, but nope. And for those who believed Lovie was more involved, all I have to say is watch film which shows him continuing to do nothing on the sideline. If he were more involved in defensive playcalls, you would at least see him move his dang lips. But back to the point, I agree that it is just baffling that Lovie didn't step in sooner. Then again, why should we be surprised. This group always seems a step behind. In a game, they are incapable of making adjustments, and even after the game, they have to watch film to understand what happened. I know it is considered a big joke on this board, but seriously, why does it seem like we scream for/about things on this board a year before we see those exact changes made in real life. I remember screaming for us to make the 2 TE formation a major part of our offense in 2006, but could rarely see it. We finally saw it this year. Many also screamed for Olsen to be moved around more in 2006, but it wasn't until 2007 we saw it. We called for the shotgun before we saw it happen. We called for our QB to roll out more to buy time and better see the field long before it was installed. We called for many changes on defense as well. And we screamed for Lovie to take over the playcalling on defense long ago, and yet only now does Lovie get it. As bad as this all is, it is nothing compared to our GM who is just now realizing that, "It all starts w/ the QB".

You all are too quick to sweep this under the rug. First, let me ask this. Were the things Ayen said so out there? Are they things that just shock us, or are they things that many have believed for some time? If it were something that was just "out there", then maybe I would more easily question it. If the circumstances were different in his departure, then maybe, but I don't recall his signing w/ Baltimore being a huge slap in the face. Further, while he does seem to question Lovie a bit, he also goes further. Even when a player does have a bit of ill will toward an organization for cutting or just not signing him, it isn't often he says something negative about the players due to that. The focus has been on what he said about Lovie, but there was more from the interview. ''We had a great team when I was in Chicago,'' he said. ''I loved, loved, loved my teammates in Chicago, but something was missing. Maybe we were a bit too cool in Chicago. Or we just didn't give it our hearts and soul. Whereas here, with [middle linebacker] Ray Lewis being that emotional leader and as spiritual as he is, it takes us over the top with that emotional advantage we have over every other team on Sundays.'' As I said before, this is not something you usually hear a player say when he is just upset w/ the team or GM. Further, he is not JUST praising Ray Lewis, but also slighting his former teamates. Further, is that not something we as fans have seen/felt for some time. I have said many times that Urlacher is not a leader. Frankly, at no time was he ever more than a leader by example type. I have said for a long time that the only legit "leader" on our defense has been Mike Brown, but even Brown spoke a few years ago about how he didn't feel as though he could push a leadership role as much due to his lack of playing time. We have a lot of talent on D, but we have simply not had the leaders most successful defenses have. We don't seem to have that guy that fires up the D, or gets in their face when the mess up. Combine that w/ our not having a coach who fills this role, and I can easily see why our team so often seems lackluster. Carol Sleeze points this criticism directly at Urlacher, but I would ask why it has to be him? Why not Briggs, who most believe has passed Urlacher in terms of top defender. Why not one of our veterans on the DL, whether that be Brown, Wale or Harris. To me, it is more than Urlacher not being Ray Lewis, but our defense simply not having anyone who fills that emotional leadership role. Harbaugh ''is a lot more hands-on than Lovie'' and that his coaching style ''is more personal and a lot different than Lovie.'' This is the comment that got all the talk on this board, any many want to dismiss it, but again, is it really that different from what we have seen? Lovie stands there and never gets emotional. When we blow it, nothing. When we do well, nothing. Combine a coach who shows no emotion w/ a team that lacks an emotional leader, and is there any wonder? IMHO, this is also a slight in that we run Lovie's scheme, and thus I would argue a greater level of being hands on, particularly when things don't go well, should be expected. On Babich, that he ''especially loved him as a linebackers coach.'' Ouch. Ayen also questions moving Hester to WR. I understand the comments, especially from a special teams specialist, but also disagree. If Hester does develop as a WR, I would argue he would provide more for the team than simply as a returner, regardless if he is the best returner in the league. Overall though, I think we can and should consider his comments more than most are doing. I just don't see why he should be written off, and further, as his comments by and large reflect opinions many fans already have, I would argue he simply gives credence to those previous beliefs.

For the record, I do think our current group of WRs suck. Could they be better for us than they have thus far shown? Sure. But i do not see a #1 WR on the roster, and believe that if we added one, that would go a long way toward getting more out of the current group of Wrs.

I'd say it is both. One, while WRs leave here and do better than they did w/ us, it isn't like we are talking about letting Reggie Wayne go. Some have done better than they did here, but how many WRs who left the bears went on to the pro bowl. They are better elsewhere, but not great. Two, trust me, I will get to coaching, but part of the issue IMHO is talent, not just WR, but overall. It is well known how much we invest in defense, so it is any surprise our offense is not great? Our QB situation has been average to bad to very bad for years. Our OL is rarely a high point. Run game is on and off. So I think overall talent is a factor. Three. coaching is absolutely an issue. I don't think we develop WRs very well. I also think we pigeon hole players. We are very controlling in how we use players (X or Y or whatever) but after they leave, they often are put into a different role, and simply look better. I think most would agree coaching is a factor, which is why most question why Drake is still on the staff. Four. At the same time, while some of the WRs we have had on the roster have looked better elsewhere, we regardless have not had that great WR talent. It is one thing to have some decent or good players, but another to have an upper tier WR. Having that upper tier WR simply makes life for everyone else easier. I think we have had many #2, #3 and #4 WRs, but have simply not found that #1, which I believe we really need.

When he and I start to go at it, my suggestion is to simply avoid our posts. Unless it is late, your tired and finding it difficult to fall asleep. Then, by all means, read away