nfoligno

Honestly, Martz has numerous flaws. I am sure Jason will like the idea of Martz as he would be one of the more exciting OCs we have had since the razzle dazzle Crowton, who I know he loved. But like you, I just feel Martz would be a really poor fit. Martz had incredible success w/ StL. Greatest show on turf. Since then, he has failed w/ SF and Det. You can talk about talent, but I think a big part of the problem is Martz has a very particular system, and tries to force players into it. Sound familiar? In StL, he didn't have a QB w/ the biggest arm, but in Warner, he had a QB who could make very, very quick reads and very accurate throws. He also had exceptional route running WRs. Holt and Bruce were not running a ton of go routes. They were running loads of slants, both short and deep. And they were very difficult to contain. As Warner would do a great job of not only hitting the WR, but hitting them in stride, there would be significant YAC as well. Now throw in Marshall Faulk, as dangerous as a runner as a receiver. Oh yea, and they had a superior OL that protected Warner. He tried to run a similar system in Det and SF, but it didn't work. I have a hard time seeing how we matchup with this system either. Cutler and Warner are very different QBs, and (a) I am not sure Cutler could run such a system and ( frankly, it would almost seem a waste of his talent. Our WRs have not proven to be exceptional route runners, and that would be a death nail for this system. Also, in Stl, to say the least, the QB and WRs always seemed on the same page. Miscommunication issues we have had would only be further exposed in a Martz system. We don't have the OL to run it. Forte is about the only good fit, and Forte could end up being a fantasy favorite in such a system as he would have so dang many catches and space to run in. Overall though, I just do not see Martz' system fitting our personnel, and question how much Martz would alter his system as opposed to trying to force our players into it.

Nicely put, and far more concise than I normally offer Yea, my intention is not to say that HCs are not important. And I agree 100% that a strong HC has far greater importance. But we have a weak HC and thus the importance of the assistance is very high. My key point though has always been that if you have a very strong group of assistants, even under a weak HC, you can still have success. Regarding the scheme, we run the cover two (reportedly) only about 30-40% of the time. IMHO it is not so much that we run the cover two plays, but when we do. The Sun Times had a GREAT article pointing out how often (most of the time) we ran the cover two when in 3rd and long situations, and pointed to that as a direct reason we were among the worst teams in the NFL defending 3rd and long. To me, it isn't simply saying "cover two". The problem is not that we run it a 1/3 or however much of the time. Indy, Carolina and others run it with success. Two big differences though are: (a) other teams seem to run the cover two at more appropriate times, where as we always run it in the same situations, become predictable and thus easier to attack and ( other teams do more to alter/shift/adapt their cover two. Indy is a great example, and an article points out all the things they have done to "tweak" their cover two, while we are still by and large running it the same way TB did years ago. The league has adjusted to the cover two TB made so popular. Other defenses that like the cover two have adjusted to those adjustments. Lovie has not, and still believes the original way should work.

Briggs was here before babich came in. he came in in 2003 as a 3rd round pick. But he didn't start until the following year, I believe, when Babich was here. player after player? you mean every one developed under him like... okwo, leon joe, marcus freeman, rodriques wilson, joey larocque? No team in the NFL, and no coach in the NFL, develops every player added to the team. But I would simply argue we have seen a solid level of development at LB, especially if compared against ANY other position on the team. or was it jamar williams who was sitting on the bench for 4 years? Yea, its Williams, or Babich's fault there. Williams was drafted when we though Briggs could depart, but then Briggs stayed. Williams though has developed, and played well in the few chances he has gotten. or do you mean like nick roach who beat out the amazing hunter hillenmier at strongside backer for a while after pisa a NEW free agent last season went down or the one who was demoted from middle linebacker and replaced by hunter hillenmier? Yes, Roach, a draft after-thought came in and played well. When you have undrafted rookie FAs, or late round picks, there is little expectation for them to even make the team, much less contribute, much less actually start. Roach is not a great player, but has developed into a better player than any expected on draft day. I would argue the same for Hunter as well. I am not saying any of these players are great. But my point is, they are players who came w/ little hype and who developed into pretty nice players. if we traded both of these backers together in one package could we get a 2nd round pick for both? a 3rd? these are decent utility/special team guys with the possible exception of roach who has been around only 3 years and may develope or not. if not then not only is lovie an idiot for playing inferior players but so is babich. I still think Hunter is a pretty good player. Roach isn't bad, and as you said, developing still. Williams looks like a pretty solid player, but stuck behind Briggs, a pro bowler. I would argue both Hunter and Roach have developed and played at a much higher level than any would have expected when they were in the draft. At the end of the day, I would say this. You look at our team, and we have suffered our fair share of injuries. At most any other position, unit, the loss of a single player seems to destory the unit as a whole. At LB though, we suffered more injuries than any other unit, and yet I don't feel they were so much the reason for the losses. plug in who? what were you seeing that our backers (beside briggs) looked like we will be starting ANY of them next season? was linebacker a real strength this season? which games? how are they ranked in the rest of the nfl? do you believe we should get rid of an average LB in pisa then next season and pencil in roach or williams? we don't need any backers in free agency then if we cut pisa? it would save us some cash starting roach or williams so how bout it? say the word. Man are you missing the point. Roach is a backup worthy player. I actually like Hunter, but few consider him to be much of a starter. Williams isn't a starter either. I am not saying we should want any of them to start, but the point is they played well enough when forced into starting roles. Whether you admit it or not, that means something. It doesn't mean you plan for that player to be your future starter, but when a player who (according to you) is little more than a special teams/utility player, and he steps in and plays decent to well as a starter, you have to credit the coach.

onward: what you are failing to see is that the people under him are usually HIS choice in the first place and it is HIS job to govern what they are doing not only on the field game day but in training camp, practice etc. etc. throughout the entire season. now, not a single defensive coach was fired, not even ONE and... what does he say about running the defense as well as being HC? well gee... it was a bit more work doing both jobs than i thought it would be so we better hire one because it's too much work? hmmmm. wasn't this idiot a defensive coordinator BEFORE he became our head coach? hasn't he been a head coach for over SIX YEARS??? and now it's a surprise how hard the dual job is? what has he been doing over the last 10_+ years??? One, we basically fired everyone last year. This year, the only one replaced is Lovie, at least as the DC. Two, no reason to argue how stupid it was for Lovie to initially take the DC role, nor for him to now say it was harder than expected. I said then it was a bad idea. Again, I think you forget, I never thought much of Lovie as a DC, prior to his joining the Bears. in fact isn't baboonich still our DC? i never heard of his demotion have you? if this monkey on a stick wasn't good enough to be DC and lovie had to take over his job THIS year what does that say about lovies decision of keeping him for TWO years?????? any and ALL problems with this defense is soley on lovies shoulders, period. it's his baby and at least 50% of our offensive problems SHOULD also be on his shoulders!! One, if you go back, I blasted Lovie when he promoted Babich. Two, I blasted Lovie for taking so long to make a change. Three, I have blasted Lovie and said most of the issues on defense are on him. Not sure of your reason to this argument. My point is going back to when Rivera was here as evidence that, even w/ Lovie as the HC, our defense can still do very well. As for offense, no, I just do not put that nearly as much on Lovie. I would say it was far more about (a) initially the lack of a QB and ( Turner. After getting a QB, and our offense still struggling, our OC was dumped, and justly so. To be discussed further below, but I think HCs are less involved w/ the side of the ball that is not their forte than you make out. and... isn't it the freaking HC's job to make changes on gameday EVEN if whatever coordinator of his choosing (or not) is running the show and is failing? or does a HC just sit back on game day listening to new kids on the block in his headset and hope everything turns out great in the end and make his decisions/evaluations on TUESDAY watching game film??????????? Using us as the example, I ripped Lovie for not stepping in sooner w/ Babich. On offense, no, I do not fault him nearly as much. I fault our OC. all i can say is if you had been in charge during the 40's we would all be speaking japanese. And if you were in charge, we would see a mutiny. Oh, the fun w/ these analogies the importance of game planning AND especially practice is just that... planning to play your opponents and planning for contingencies when things change during the week and at gametime. it's what you learn in pop warner for X's sake. if x team does this, we do that. if x player gets hot we do this. it's plain common sense and strategic planning anyone worth jack $%!& knows and does playing/coaching football. you don't wait until halftime or the day after to figure it out or you just lost the battle. THAT is the job of the head coach on gameday to bring this learned practical information and practice to bear NOW through his coordinators and players. I would argue the HC is more involved on a higher level than the details. I do not believe it is the norm for a HC to be involved such to the extent that if you see a team in X alignment, he says we need to shift to X set. And then go through every possible alignment. I would argue that is far more the job of the OC and DC. Why the hell do we even have an OC and DC if, according to you, the HC decides every formation and playcall anyway? where do you keep coming up with this stuff? most head coaches in the nfl let their coordinators do anything they want with no input or final say? a GIANT whatever!!! You always seem to enjoy taking it to extremes. I never said the HC doesn't have any involvement what-so-ever. But at the same time, I think the involvement of a defensive background HC is limited in the running of the offense. do you think if wade phillips saw garrett running a WR midget up the middle against the williams budahs in minny for no gain for half a dozen 3 and out series he would have no say in the matter? does wade then call jerry and ask for permission to change the type of plays coming in from garrett on tuesday after the game? if so the dallas org is nuttier than i ever dreamed possible. Funny you bring up such an example, as there was a bit of a funny situation this year. Early on, Dallas was racking up like 200 yards on the ground a game. They have a huge OL, and a trio of RBs no one seemed able to stop. For some reason, Garrett went absolutely pass happy. There was a game when Dallas got to the 1 yard line, and then Garrett called for 4 passing plays in a row (going for it on 4th down) and they turned it over on downs. They did this even though their RBs were averaging like 7 or 8 yards a carry. Wade did nothing to step in, and when reporters questioned why the offense got away from the run, not just in that game but in others, Wade basically had no answer. He didn't even say it was a problem. Jerry then stepped in and said they needed to run the ball more and especially needed to get Felix Jones more carries. So in the next game, Garrett went overboard, and kept running his backs into stonewalls. Most felt it was as if he was making a point. Mentioning this (a) to point out that in fact not all HCs get involved w/ the other side of the ball, ( it isn't always best for a non-offense oriented guy (jerry in this case) getting involved and © yes, in fact, Dallas is just that messes up. you now throw out jauron... that imbecile let his OC get him fired for running garbage gameplans and again not knowing enough (sound familiar) to do anything constructive about it or even understand the offensive player talent on his own roster. What I personally think you fail to recall though is, that conservative offense we ran was one in which the HC, Jauron, wanted. but just to be sure i get you.... you are saying that a HC whose forte' is not offense (or visa-versa) should just let his coordinators do anything they want to right? that when his team FAILS to outscore/stop it's opponents year in and year out we should just fire the coordinators because it's their job on gameday??? like, "it's not my job man, you figure it out". Again you go to extremes and saying "do anything they want". No, if Turner sent Wolfe up the gut against Minny play in and play out, I would expect even Lovie to step in and ask Turner what the hell he is doing. But otherwise, you get what I am saying. Sticking w/ the Bears, I do not want Lovie getting overly involved and telling our OC what plays to call, or how to run the offense. It is simply not what Lovie knows, and if he doesn't trust his OC enough to get the job done, or if our offense is not getting the job done, then I think a change needs to be made. Prior to this year, I thought the problem on offense was more about talent, as I was never a fan of Rex, and then we had all those years w/ the likes of Krenzel, Hutchinson, Shea, etc. But this year showed me that even if talent was a key problem, so was the OC. I think if you went around the league, you would find few D background HCs nearly as involved in the offense as you would make out. I think the HC relies on the OC to get it done, and if that doesn't happen, a change is made. the point is if we HAD good coordinators lovie wouldn't NEED to stick his nose into their affairs. Hmm, seems like this is exactly what I said. didn't you just tell me in another post how good a job baboonich did as our linebackers coach? yikes!! Yes, I did. Babich knows little in terms of scheme beyond the cover two, but that doesn't mean he can teach and develop his players (as a LB coach). if you believe what you say then i see absolutely no reason for you to want to get rid of lovie. just hire better coordinators. in fact there is no reason to ever hire good head coaches. just good assistants. Once again, you misunderstand. I am not saying our situation, even if we hire a bunch of great assistants, is ideal. My point is not that is what you want, but simply that you can win w/ that situation. If you have a weak leader, you can still win if you have great support, but the room for error is slim. I would much rather get rid of Lovie. Because we have a weak HC, we need not just good, but damn good assistants. If we had a better HC, that may not be the case. But my point is simply that we can win w/ Lovie as the HC, depending on how good our assistants are. Evidence of that is when we had Rivera running the D. You argue theory, but offer nothing to contradict this. We went to the SB w/ freaking Rex Grossman. Lovie was our HC, and yet we had an elite defense. Hell, and we went to the SB w/ a weak OC too. Point is, our team did have success w/ Lovie as head coach, but we had a much better DC. After we replaced Rivera, our defense tanked, but if we again add a quality DC, it could be good again. I don't think it can be elite like it was as I don't think we have the talent we did then, but I also think our offense could be much better than it was w/ Cutler at QB and a better OC. finally........... and all this time i just misunderstood dave wannstedt and dick jauron and lovie smith. if only we could have dave and dick back with better coordinators. Again, it isn't that I would want them back, or even that I want Lovie. Only saying that you can have a lesser HC if you have better assistants. It isn't that should be the goal, or that it is the ideal, but only that it is possible.

This won't mean crap to you today, but I think the way things are lining up, they are basically putting EVERYONE into the same wagon, and giving them one more year. If the team does well, then we should all be happy. If not, then I think we will see the utter house cleaning, from Teddie down to the water boy.

Honestly, I am not sure this is as much the norm as you think. If teams regularly got 4 starters from each draft, you wouldn't see much activity in FA. There are a few rare teams that may find such success common, but I don't think this would be nearly the norm you think. I think 4 starters would be considered a very good draft for any team. If you put a franchise LT and RB in that mix, that grade jumps way up. If Bowman doesn't just start, but becomes a truly good starting CB, the grade soars. But again, for me, it really is all about Williams. Finding a good RB is great. Finding a good possession WR is nice. Getting a quality CB is great. But none of those come close to finding a franchise LT. Any year you find yourself a franchise player, it pretty much makes there draft, but there are a few positions that are simply higher IMHO. QB, LT, Pass rusher (DE or DT) and CB. For the record, I am not declaring Williams to be a franchise LT. Only saying that he looked pretty damn good when finally moved to LT.

Someone reported yesterday he was going to be fired, and gave the impression it would happen yesterday, but it didn't. He may still be fired, but as of today, it has not come to pass yet.

One, I think Babich has to get credit for developing our LBs. Not Urlacher, but every other one developed under him, and that includes Briggs. When have seen so many problems w/ player development, but at LB, we have been able to turn out player after player. Two, I don't think you give enough credit to being able to replace starters. Whether you are talking about the DL, secondary, or where ever, we have struggled over the years to replace starters. Yet at LB this year, we suffered injury after injury, but were able to continually plug in players w/o crippling the team. Yes, there was a dropoff from Urlacher, but the same would be true for any team that loses one of its best players. Three, yes, I did see us do some things different based on who was in there. For example, the area in which our MLB would be responsible for seemed greater when the more athletic Roach was in there as opposed to when Hunter was. When Roach was in, he seemed to draw more coverage assignments, as opposed to when Hunter was in, as we would more often keep him in the box and us a safety in coverage. When Briggs went down, I don't think we did much of anything different, but again, I think the way Williams developed has to be credited to Babich. Player development is a big issue on this team, and I think Babich has done a good job developing LB talent. Babich was an utter failure as a DC, but that doesn't mean he isn't a good LB coach.

If that draft class turns out, as it appears it might: Franchise LT Franchise RB Starting WR (or even solid slot, possession WR) Staring CB ...it would make for a damn good class. Even w/ Harrison as a bust, getting 4 starters, especially if two are franchise caliber guys at premier positions, would make for a damn good class. Then throw in a potential starting SS and solid TE depth guy w/ later pick, and I think it is a pretty dang good looking class. Williams will continue to be the greatest key. If he continues to develop and mans our left side for years, that would make the draft nearly by itself, as LT is simply of such a premier position.

Yeah, a lot of defensive coaches like Mangini haven't looked as good when they weren't working with Belichick. But Belichick's offensive guys, like McDaniels, have more autonomy. And while there wasn't a big dropoff in the Pats' offense after Weis left, you can also look at what Weis did when he wasn't working under Belichick, and the results are pretty good. Weis' Jets were the #4 offense in 1998, when Belichick was only coaching the defense. They went 12-4 in the regular season and went all the way to the AFC championship. Still not totally sold. Maybe, as a ND fan, I am biased as he didn't live up to the hype in S.Bend. I think he could be a quality OC, but am simply not 100%. While I realize Bilicheck is a defensive guy, at the same time, that offense didn't seem to lose a beat when he left, which has to put into question how much of that teams offense was due to his coaching. Through what, 3 OCs, that team's offense continues to shine, which just makes me question how much any one OC should get high praise. Understand, it isn't that I am against the idea of Weis. I am simply not totally sold on it. If Bates was calling plays in Denver, that'd be pretty good. I'd also want to know why he didn't land somewhere in the NFL, but it could just be that no one was looking for a QBs coach when Shanahan and his staff got canned. I don't know. When Shanny and his staff was let go, I think that year MANY other teams also let their staff go. There were openings, both as QB coach and OC, but he didn't get any. Even this year, have you heard of any team other than us, talking about Bates? Heck, if it wasn't for Cutler, would we be talking about him? It isn't that I have a problem adding a coach who has a relationship w/ Cutler, but more that that relationship seems to be the only reason he would even be considered.

Steelers have not fired their OC yet, and if they do, he would leap to the top of my list. I can't understand for the life of me why he is the potential scape goat for that team. Pitt's offense was pretty damn good this year. Rothlisberger was breaking franchise records for passing, and their young RB who had shown more signs of being a bust than not developed into a very strong player. And they did all this with a weak OL. I think Pitt fans don't like that their run oriented identity was messed with, but I would have no problem adding an OC that could make our passing attack similar to Pitt's.

one... did i SAY we fired fewell? did i IMPLY we fired fewell? uhhhhh.... no. I misunderstood when you said, if we bring in fewell are we not bring in an extension of 2 coaches we want to/did fire I thought the two coaches you were talking about were Fewell and Jauron, now realizing the 2nd coach you imply the team wants to fire is Lovie. two... who do you think they would have put in to replace dicky? bill cowher? their special teams coach LOL? they put in who was handy or the least bad common denominator or else tell me why HE was fired and hasn't gotten any consideration as a HC in the league or was even kept as DC in buffalo. I think what would be most common would be to promote a guy who has the label "assistant head coach". whether he could be a good DC i don't know but people better think about what he brings with him before they anoint him our savior let alone the best choice. NO ONE is making him out to be a savior. Even in the category of "best choice" that is a questionable label. Most are saying he looks good, and from some of the thus far mentioned options, doesn't look like a bad choice. So far, I think Zimmer is getting more "best choice" talk, but his team is still in the playoffs, and he may get some HC interviews as well, not to mention Cincy would like to retain him after the season. I Fewell, I think there is a bit of realism in fans comments too. I do not think anyone expects us to go out and get some 3-4 guy, or someone Lovie would still scream about our hiring. Fewell is someone who has ties to Smith and thus not someone Smith would likely fight over the hiring of. And yet in Fewell, you have a coach w/ experience beyond just the cover two, and who has seen some success. Buffalo has not had a great defense, but at the same time, I personally have felt they have been a unit that has played above their talent. That is a credit to the coaching.

who in most instances works with the gm in finding the assistants or flat out wants this control himself? who moves the team forward and emphasizes which aspects need to be changed or improved upon in all aspects of the game? who holds these assistants accountable (or should)? who dictates the TYPE of offense and/or defense that the team is going to run simply based upon the HC's strengths and knowledge and his ability to judge not only subordinate coaching talent but player talent on his team and how to get the most out of that talent? who makes the final decisions on how to attack opponents on gameday (or should)? And how does the work on gameday. I am not saying, and repeated this, that a HC is not important. I am saying the importance of those under him is equally important. You mention, for example, who holds the assistants accountable? Well, if you have quality assistants doing a good job, you don't so often have to worry about such. You need to hold assistants responsible when they are not getting it done. You talk about scheme and game plan, and yes, that is the HC. But on game day, playcalling and adjustements are bigger. Our defense, w/ Lovie as the HC, was dominant with Rivera calling plays. Lovie still devised the game plan and scheme, but Rivera called the plays and could better adapt when needed. this is like saying the first mate or the guy swabbing the deck is more important than the freaking captain of your ship. Okay, have your HC (captain), DC (first mate) OC (navigator) and lets throw in the special teams coach to get all three phases (Sargeant at arms). Captain says where to go, but the navigator gets you there. Captain tells the first mate what he wants, but the 1st mate works w/ the crew to get it done. Captain wants to defend his ship, or attack another, but its the sargeant at arms in charge of the marines that makes sure it gets done. Okay, maybe a hokey analogy, but you started it Seriously though, while not saying the HC isn't important, at the same time, I do think there the staff below are of equal import. You can game plan and practice all you want, but on game days, those plans so often have to be thrown out the window. It is on game days teams win or lose, not in the planning leading up to games. And on game days, it is more the staff below the HC than the HC himself that carries the day. and this has been a major problem in my opinion WITH lovie smith!! i don't expect HC's to be D and O geniuses but i DO expect them to be knowledgeable enough to understand what works and what doesn't work and convey/impliment this TO his coordinators!!!! lovie smith just doesn't know enough about offense to even have any constructive input to make a difference. he basically just mouths some buzz words in press conferences and lets his offensive coordinator have full control. hell even shea got no input from lovie OR didn't listen to him anyway and he was a complete idiot. how do you explain that??? Honestly, I just don't know how different that is from most places. Here in Dallas, you have Wade Phillips as the HC, but Jason Garrett pretty much has full control over the offense. We have done it your way before though. Jauron liked the very conservative offenses, and thus often made sure kept everything close to the vest. That's what you want? Sorry, but even if the HC has "some" knowledge of the other side of the ball, who do you want making decisions? The HC w/ "some" knowledge or the OC who is supposed to have loads of it. IMHO, your opinion here is more based on Turner than Lovie. If we had a good/great OC, I just don't think you would be so upset we didn't have a HC sticking his nose into the offenses affairs. this brings me to lovie's failings even on the defensive side of the ball. in my opinion he is so limited in knowledge that as a one trick pony he doesn't have the brains to even realize it doesn't work or if he does, the ability to change it. it's called arrogance and stupidity if you don't want to listen to someone who knows more than you do or has a better way to impliment it to make a poor product better. Absolutely no argument here, and is actually what I have been saying for years. Go back to when we hired Lovie. Said then I didn't like him or his defense. When we hired Rivera, I wasn't thrilled because of his former ties to the bears. I was thrilled because, while he was not experienced as a DC, he was experienced in numerous different defensive schemes. He played in several, including the 46. And his time w/ Jimmy Johnson was huge. I even felt his learning the cover two would be a good thing too as he would create a bit of a mix of schemes. In many ways, that is what I think we got. We all talk about the cover two, but really don't run it more than 40% (or less) of the time. Anyway, when a team would attack our cover two, Rivera better knew how to adapt and change. Babich and Lovie have never known other than the cover two, and thus just don't have the knowledge to adapt. That has always been a criticism of mine. But my point is that if you have a better, more well rounded DC, he could work within the general idea of the cover two Lovie wants, while still being able to make the defense as a whole effective. seriously... in another post you said "please don't put me in a situation of defending him". well just what is it if you are doing if not defending him? if you want to defend him for whatever reasons i have no problem with that but at least say you are and stand by it. just don't give us both sides and the middle. You are misunderstanding my point entirely. I do not like Lovie Smith. I have never cared for him, do not today. But if asked whether we can win w/ Lovie Smith, my answer is yes. I would say we need a strong group of assistants, but we can absolutely make that happen. Frankly, I think Lovie's 2nd and 3rd seasons basically proves my point. Even w/ Lovie and his cover two, Rivera (and can I throw in Brick Haley) ran a defense that was considered elite. Further, we had Toub running an elite special teams. Not much by way of offense, but we have a chance now to improve that area as well. So you say I am on the fence. I am not. I don't like Lovie, and I would much rather he were fired. But, yes there is a but, if asked whether I believe we can win with Lovie, my answer would be yes, so long as the assistants under him are good enough.

One. Fewell was never a coach we wanted to, or did, fire. He was a DB coach for one year under Lovie, and left to be the DC (promotion) in Buffalo. Two. While he, and the entire staff, was fired in Buffalo, I think it worth pointing out that when Jauron was fired, it was Fewell who Buffalo thought enough of to promote. And article pointed out that their special teams coach, who is considered on par w/ Toub, was in fact the assistant head coach, and yet the ownership choose to ignore that and promoted Fewell instead. Part of the reason (speculation) is that Fewell is a fire and brimstone sort of coach who raises hell, and they felt the team needed that more.

Chicken and egg. I still think a huge problem has been our coaches ability to evaluate talent. Too many players jumping around so much they can never develop at any one area. Is DM a CB? FS? SS? Nickel? Changes every game. Williams a LT? RT? No, LT? There are players Angelo has drafted that I think coaching decisions really put everything into question. Lets just look at this year. From all accounts, Lovie made a big push to sign Pace, and then move Williams to RT. You can blame Angelo for Omiyale, but doesn't Lovie get blame for continuing to start him rather than Beekman? Bennett looked pretty good this year. Maybe he should have been looked at last year. Will Iglesias go the same route? DA finished the season w/ a bang. Is it Angelo's fault Turner and Co would not give him a chance, despite our QB begging for him? How about Cutler. I am not taking blame off Cutler, but every "expert" out there seemed dumbfounded as to why we waited until the final two games to move Cutler outside the pocket, as that was an area he excelled at in Denver. I am not saying we had the most talented offense, but I do think coaching was a greater reason for their failure than simply pure talent. Even on the OL. If we started the year w/ Williams - Beekman - Kreutz - Garza - Schaffer/Omiyale, do you not think we would have been better off? The coaches choose who started and where. How might our offense looked if DA started all year? On the other side, I to this day don't understand our handling of Graham. He does well last year at CB, so his reward is to be burried on the depth chart so deep that McBride (who didn't even make the roster) gets starting reps over him in camp. DM continues to move all over, never developing at any one position. Steltz looked pretty strong when finally given a chance, but why didn't he get a chance sooner. How about Williams for that matter. And speaking of LBs, why does our MLB have to call plays, regardless who our MLB is? Man, we can go on forever. I have been a long time Angelo basher, but if you ask me which has been the greater downside, talent or coaching, I would say coaching. If Pioli, or name your favorite GM, were adding players, but coaches were incapable of (a) developing and ( knowing how to utilize that talent, that favorite GM of yours won't look so good. Angelo is far from my favorite, and plenty of his moves I have blasted, and I continue to do so. At the same time, I also think there have been numerous examples that make me question how much of the problem is him and how much is player development.

I do reference Smith, since the buck stops at him. I'm also referencing the entire defensive staff from Marinelli to Babitch, et al. Marinelli is the only assistant I think didn't do well. Hoke gets a bit of a pass. He was screwed. He didn't have much to work with in the beginning, but injuries and lack of pass rush pretty much sealed his fate. I do think Bowman showed some development this year. I think Steltz and Afalava also both showed promise. But there was only so much we should have expected in our secondary. Hate to say it, but I think Babich deserves loads of credit. We lost Urlacher early, and at times Hunter and even Briggs were missing. Not to mention Roach also hurt at one point. But for the most part, I thought we had pretty solid play from whatever LB was in there. There was an obvious dropoff from Urlacher, but I don't think we often lost due to our LB position, and yet we suffered the worst injuries there. I could easily switch my thoughts with the right DC hired and OC hired. But JA and LS have not shown me anything that they'll hire the right guys other than someone who can have a tea party with Smith. Well, technically, Angelo hired Rivera. Yes, Lovie made the power play and pushed Ron out, but (a) still have to credit Angelo with the hire and ( I just don't think Lovie has that power today. I don't care what his contract says, or what they say to the public. I do not believe the decision of our new staff is all Lovie. In fact, I think it will be far more Ted and Angelo. My only real hope is that we see improvement on O and D, and one of the coordinators hired is so good, that despite a losing record, they are kept or possibly promoted. That's my one quasi realistic hope for the year. Not my hope. I hope we either find a better chemistry and make huge strides forward, or we miss the playoffs in embarassing fashion again and everyone down to the fast water boy is gone. I just fear the Fontes-ian barely making playoffs and keeping this regime around for far too long... We are slowly becoming Detroit I fear. As soone as our Barry Sanders gets too old (Cutler), we're screwed for a decade. And I fear Smith and JA may last long enough to squelch Cutler. We don't have a Barry Sanders. We don't have a single player so good he can carry and entire team devoid of talent. Cutler showed this year he can't do it w/o better coaching and OL. Forte? Nope. Briggs? Not a chance. There is no one. I don't think we are anything close to Det, either years ago as a middle of the road team that couldn't get to the next level or a total bottom feeder.

Actually, Al Saunders is my top choice from the Trib's group, and I am not sure its even close. I thought he was awesome in KC. Hasn't found the same success since, but when you consider the issues in Wash and St.L, is there really any wonder? Weis really worries the hell out of me. Weis made his name in NE, as did numerous coaches, but I just wonder how much of that success was Weis and how much was Bilichek and his system. Since Charlie left, another NE OC made it to a HC job, and it wasn't like there was some big dropoff in NE after Weis left. Also, like you said, how well does Weis fit Cutler, especially immediatly. There is a question of Bates experience, as someone else said he called plays (despite not having the OC title) the final year in Denever. I would like to find a bit of proof of that. If possible, it goes a long way. I am curious though why, if he was the playcaller for a pretty high power offense, why was a QB coach in the college ranks the best he could find after Denver. Crap, John Freaking Shoop was able to stay in the NFL. I would think he could have gotten a QB coach job in the NFL, or an OC job in college, if he was held in such high regard. His release from Denver doesn't both me so much, but just how far he fell does a bit.

One of the top names I like mentioned for offense is Al Saunders. I don't know if he is really on the Bears radar, but was on the Tribs list of OC posibilities. He was the OC in KC when their offense was considered a high powered attack. He was a guy numerous teams liked, but KC wouldn't allow him out of his deal. Heck, you could say we liked him some years ago. Since we could not get him, we took his QB coach (Shea). No, that didn't workout, but that isn't due to Saunders. Shea had gained a rep off Saunder's coat tails. He has since not seen equal success, but few could w/ Wash and St.L of late. This year he joined Baltimore as an offensive coordinator, and that offense has looked much better, and I read he was part of that. On defense, I haven't had a lot of time to look so far. Fewell looks pretty solid. Zimmer looks very good, but might to difficult to get. Key for me is getting someone who has experience (a) calling plays and ( outside the cover two. That doesn't mean he can't have worked w/ the cover two, like Fewell, but simply that his base of knowledge is greater than just that one scheme.

NOOOOOOOOO! If that isn't clear enough, HELL NO! I ripped Smith back when he was the HC of a team going to the SB. Hell, go back to when we hired him, and I blasted the move then. I always thought he was over-rated, and his defense was average at best in St.L, and lived off turnovers due more to the greatest show on turf forcing teams to become one dimensional by halftime. My argument is far more than those under the HC are as important, and likely more so, than the HC himself. Our HC has virtually nothing to do w/ the offense. Everyone points this out. The OC has near autonomy. We have one of the best special teams coaches in the game, and I think he too is given a lot of freedom. Thus the HC really has little to do w/ this area either. The HC has a defensive background, and has forced his cover two scheme onto the team. At the same time, when we had Rivera calling the plays within Lovie's scheme, our defense was considered elite. So as much as I dislike the scheme, I think the playcalling within the scheme, as well as when to use what, are more a factor than Lovie mentioning the cover two. Often I saw our D look good on 1st and 2nd down, but the playcall on 3rd down was a joke and we would give up big 3rd down completions. Babich couldn't call a game to save his life, and Lovie didn't fair much better. Improve our DC and I think it can have a greater effect on the defense than many believe. How often did it seem like an offense called just the right play to beat our defense? You can turn that around and simply say our defensive call was simply wrong on that play. That isn't the HC. That's the DC. Okay, how about player development. Is it the HC who usually gets credit for developing young players, or does that go to the assistants? I am not saying the HC isn't important, but I am saying his supporting coaches are as important and likely more than simply the HC himself. I actually like Hoke as the DB coach, Babich as the LB coach and Marinelli as the DL coach. If we upgrade the guy who actually calls defensive plays, I think our defense can improve. On offense, we basically fired everyone, and have a chance to see big improvements there. Lovie has nothing to do w/ that. So no, I do not believe Lovie is the right man for the job. At the same time, I believe you can have a boss who isn't great, but if you have numerous solid managers below him, your business can still run very well.

I'm glad your glass is half full, because mine isn't even half empty. It's only got drops in it... That may change once the new coordinators are actually hired. But until then, I have zero faith that this inept regime will do the correct thing. Its not that my glass is half full. I am just waiting at this point to see who we bring in. Not just the DC and OC, but all the assistants. Angelo also mentioned that our pro and college personnel guys, as well as scouts, may not be safe. I am just waiting for this to play out a bit first. You mention in his 2nd year we went to the playoffs. I say la di da. Jauron got us in and so did Wanny. And really, how long ago was that? What exactly makes you think that something will change? The only thing I think that could happen is that Urlacher puts his finger in the damn to improve the D slightly and that Cutler could have the light turn on and rock it. That could happen. But nothing that this staff would do would make that happen. It would solely be on the players. So, maybe they were right all along. It's all on the players. The coaches are complete utter buffoons, so it's up to the players to coach themsleves. Jauron took us to one playoff game (and lost) in his 5 seasons. Wanny took us to one playoff in 6 seasons. Look, I am not trying to make Lovie out to be more than he is, and please don't put me in a situation of defending him. But you say we can't reach the higher levels, and yet we have already done that under Lovie. No, we didn't win the SB that year, but I think an improved offense could do it. You say the coaches are all buffoons, and it going to have to be all on the players. What coaches are you talking about? Lovie, obviously, but most all the rest of the buffoons are gone. Before I write off our coaching staff, I want to see what our coaching staff is made of.

Lovie is only a Lame Duck coach is he, and the team, fail. Similar can be said of many coaches (most) in the NFL. Lovie may be more on the hotseat, but a good season and the lame duck talk is null and void. Here in Dallas, not long ago, he was believed there was zero chance of Wade Phillips being w/ the team after this season. Well, Dallas finished strong and has made the playoffs (won the division in fact) and Jerry has already said they are picking up the 2010 option for Wade. Wade was more of a lame duck than Lovie due to Jason Garrett, yet the teams does well and all that talk fades. Contractually, Lovie may well have the final say, but I just find it hard to believe he could do whatever he wants right now. He just doesn't have that sort of capital at this point.

On Lovie and our structure, I generally agree. While few are fans of Lovie, Angie and Teddy (much less any w/ the last name McCaskey), this team did win the division (twice) and go to the SB when Lovie was first hired. No, I don't think Lovie was the biggest key in that equation, but at the same time, it does prove it possible. What I think those early years does show is the staff under Lovie are as important (or more) than Lovie himself. On Bates, I have a very mixed attitude. I agree his ties w/ Cutler is a positive. Some talk about catering to your QB, but this franchise has put pretty much all their chips forward and bet on Cutler. If Cutler fails, this org will not even reach the level of mediocrity for a long time, and will likely be more like Detroit. So yes, when you bet big, it is logical to support that bet. My problem w/ Bates however is his lack of experience actually running an offense. If we were talking about bringing him in as a QB coach, freaking fantastic. But while he was part of the offense in Denver, and is part of the offense at USC, he has never called the plays at either. What has been among out top complaints about Turner? Playcalling. Often fans say it can't get worse, but if we replace Turner with an OC who has never called plays before, it very well could get worse. As I said, we put our bet on Cutler and need to support that bet, but I think we are doing a better job of support by adding an OC who has experience running an offense. On the field, many talked about Bennett's relationship w/ Cutler. That was great and all, and it may well have helped Bennett's development, but did Bennett, or that relationship, really help Cutler? I think DA seemed to help Cutler far more, and those two had no relationship prior to Cutler joining the team.

When Lovie came to the bears, he was a newly promoted coach w/o prior HC experience. He had little power to force things too much. He then wanted Babich to be his DC. Angelo (and I think Phillips) said no, and hired Rivera instead. Rivera and Lovie, per the reports, often clashed, but at the end of the day, the results were pretty solid (defense). Rivera ran a version of Lovie's scheme, but also used tweaks and adapted when needed. Then we make it to the SB. While we lose, Lovie is regardless seen on a very high level. We were a franchise still living off the glory of the 80s, with little positive since. In Lovie's 2nd season, we won the division and in his 3rd, we went to the SB. Impressive stuff for a resume, and he was rewarded. Besides more money, he had more power, both in contract and status. Thus he forced out Rivera (as well as Brick Haley, our DL coach) and promoted his BFF. Well, since then it has gone down the crapper. His BFF was a failure, and Lovie himself couldn't do any better taking over the D. Other moves that he was believed to have pushed, like Archuleta and Pace, were Babich level failures. This brings us to today. I believe Lovie, regardless of his contract, simply doesn't anymore have the power. Per his contract, Lovie could probably again promote Babich if he wanted, but he just doesn't have the power to do that anymore in terms of respect and trust. I think, more like when he was first hired, Lovie will be pushed back into a lesser role. He is still the HC, but will not be able to dictate the way he did after the SB. Thus, I have hope that we seen a DC come in who has more authority. Like when we had Rivera, Lovie will happily say we still deploy the cover two, but what we see on the field will not look like what we saw w/ Babich and Lovie. I could be totally off here, but I just think that while Lovie retained his job, he lost much of the power he had, and that will carry over to Sundays.

The Steelers are good on D (hurt this year by losing Polamalu to the Madden curse) Actually, the Steelers were not that good on D this year. You mention the loss of Polamalu, but didn't we lose our defensive leader to start the season too? If the loss of one player is an acceptible excuse for Pitt, why not us? Frankly, Pitt is a good example of how fluid things are. Besides the D which wasn't so good this year, Pitt was also always known to be an OL machine, but the last two years their OL has been pretty bad. Not Chicago bad, but bad just the same. The Colts are good on O (Manning, et al) Um, Indy has a QB who could go down as the best ever. Yea, they are going to be pretty consistent on O. The Pats are solid (on O w/ Brady and on D with always a decent D) Pats are an all around good team, and have in Bilichek a guy who is more likely than not to keep them there. Philly are solid on O and more than solid on D Phily was actually a very average defense this year. I get what you are saying, and I am not going to disagree. I too want an identity. The bears had been known for D and running the ball. Even in our bad years, it was often the passing offense that was believed to be our downfall. Things are likely changing, but that doesn't mean we can't establish a new identity. You say I am "settling" and these moves are no more than a bandaid. Maybe. But I honestly think they could be more than just a bandaid. We fired the entire offense, and while it remains to be seen who we hire, I like some of what I have read so far. On defense, we are not settling for promoting one of our current guys, and are looking outside. That honestly means something. You say we are not going anywhere lofty. Why? Under Smith, in his 2nd year, we won the division. We then went to the SB the following season. Since then we have utterly collapsed, but (a) that we did achieve that level defies the statement it can't happen and ( I think the current moves could move further toward those early years and further from more recent. After the SB, Lovie got the big head and power, and moves away from what worked and toward what didn't. I believe that his recent failures after "trust me" are pushing us back to the situation of before, where we could see a defense that doesn't just conform to Lovie. Further, I would argue we could have a vastly superiour offense than we did then. Look, I was a Lovie basher when most still sung his praises. But at the same time, if we have better captains under him, yes, I think we can achieve those high levels.

Just curious, but why do you think he would be a yes man? He has more coaching experience than Rivera had, and has gotten that outside of the cover two. In Fewell, I think we would have a situation far more similar to what we had w/ Rivera. Here is a big thing for me which I have talked about in the past. When we had Rivera, we had a coach who was experienced in multiple schemes having played under Buddy Ryan (among others), then coaching w/ Jimmy Johnson in Phily, than w/ Lovie and the cover two. Point is, while the cover two was our most talked about scheme, we had a DC who enough knowledge to adapt when the cover two was not working. When Rivera left, we had Babich, and then Lovie. In those two coaches, we were limited in knowledge to only the cover two. Think about where both Babich and Lovie received their coaching experience (TB/St.L) All those two know is the cover two. If it isn't working, they really didn't have the knowledge to adapt. In Fewell, we again could have a DC w/ knowledge beyond the cover two, and thus have a DC capable of adapting. He may still be under Lovie, but like Rivera, would be better suited to adapt and tweak the defense as needed. No question it all starts with the DL, but consider this. Buffalo didn't have elite DL talent, nor some great pass rush, and yet Buffalo had the #2 passing defense in the NFL. Yes, they also stunk against the run, but again, look at their talent. I would also point out that, under Fewell, Buffalo did a better job of developing young players than we have.