Expectations

[nfoligno]

I've said this before, but IMHO, you can have a mild mannered coach, but you need an assist w/ fire, just as a hot head coach needs a calmer assistant. I think you need such a contrast.

 

When we had Rivera, we had that contrast. Lovie was the mild leader, but he has an assistant that could do the dirty work. I have not seen similar from Babich.

 

I have used the analogy of the army. You can have a captain who is calm in the presence of danger, but at the same time, you need a sargent who can light a fire under the soldiers arces. We have a calm captain, but also a mild mannered sargent, which I just don't think makes for a good mix.

 

Ironically, or maybe not, one of the coaches who I have seen coach w/ fire is Toub. I have seen film of his running practices, and he seems to be in players faces when they mess up. Coincidently or not, that is also one of the few areas we are consistently good at.

 

Pix, I think the list is longer in the other direction... Bottom line, not everyone has to have a complete meltdown tirade, but they express some serious emotion and dislike to what's going on... I don't see it in the least from Lovie, and as a Bears fan, it's disappointing to say the least.

[madlithuanian]

You are really onto something there with Toub...

 

I've said this before, but IMHO, you can have a mild mannered coach, but you need an assist w/ fire, just as a hot head coach needs a calmer assistant. I think you need such a contrast.

 

When we had Rivera, we had that contrast. Lovie was the mild leader, but he has an assistant that could do the dirty work. I have not seen similar from Babich.

 

I have used the analogy of the army. You can have a captain who is calm in the presence of danger, but at the same time, you need a sargent who can light a fire under the soldiers arces. We have a calm captain, but also a mild mannered sargent, which I just don't think makes for a good mix.

 

Ironically, or maybe not, one of the coaches who I have seen coach w/ fire is Toub. I have seen film of his running practices, and he seems to be in players faces when they mess up. Coincidently or not, that is also one of the few areas we are consistently good at.

[Connorbear]

Pix, I think the list is longer in the other direction... Bottom line, not everyone has to have a complete meltdown tirade, but they express some serious emotion and dislike to what's going on... I don't see it in the least from Lovie, and as a Bears fan, it's disappointing to say the least.

So if Lovie was upset and showing his emotions about the current play, you would be fine with the losing or you just wouldn't be disappointed as much??? For me, I want us to win, bottom line. I could care less about the reaction I see and hear from the head coach.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

Connor, when have I ever stated I'm OK and just hunky dory with losing? Would I be disaapointed less with a more energetic reaction? A bit. At least I would feel like he's at least ackowledging a problem and doing something that I as a paying customer can see... I'm supposed to trust him that he'll repremand his players later? The same Zombie Smith that holds camps that are considered a "country club" atmosphere? The same Zombie Smith who told us to trust him when he let Chico go and brought in the great Bob Babitch? Sorry, my trust is gone...

 

I think we all want to win bottom line. And if we win, the reaction could be complete stocism or insanity. But when we lose, and do so in the same fashion 2 weeks in a row and you still get stoicism...I, for one, am not satisfied by the (lack of) reaction.

 

 

 

So if Lovie was upset and showing his emotions about the current play, you would be fine with the losing or you just wouldn't be disappointed as much??? For me, I want us to win, bottom line. I could care less about the reaction I see and hear from the head coach.

 

Peace

[Connorbear]

Connor, when have I ever stated I'm OK and just hunky dory with losing? Would I be disaapointed less with a more energetic reaction? A bit.

 

I think we all want to win bottom line. And if we win, the reaction could be complete stocism or insanity. But when we lose, and do so in the same fashion 2 weeks in a row and you still get stoicism...I, for one, am not satisfied by the (lack of) reaction.

Why would you be less disappointed? His reaction does not change the outcome of the game.

 

Do you think that Lovie doesn't understand there is an issue and it needs to be addressed? If you do, then let him address it in the manner he chooses. If not, then I understand why you are upset.

 

I agree that we all want to win - I was simply being sarcastic. Ultimately, Lovie is who is he is. He is not going to change to satisfy your need for him to show the fire and the passion. All things being equal, you prefer a coach who shows the fire and the passion. All things being equal, I could care less. We smply disagree and I have no issues with that.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

It's easy... because if we get more of the same (no reaction), I expect more of the same (bone-head actions). The outcome doesn't change. That's not hte issue. The issue is what this HC is doing to try to prevent what has happened in the past from happening in the future. If you do nothing, you tend to see the same problems, like we have over the poast 2 weeks.

 

As much as I may joke about it, Smith is not an idiot. I'm sure he knows there's an issue. However, I'm not sure he's capable of knowing what to do about it. The team has let Smith do it as he pleases for the past few years. While successful 2 years ago, that same philosophy does not appear to working any more. Again, if successful, leway is given. If not, then less leway is given.

 

In a nutshell, I'm upset in the manner he has treated fans over the years. He takes us for complete idiots. He knows better than that. He threw us all a bone when hired wanting to beat Green Bay... Now all of a sudden, it's somehwat asked of him to show some emotion, and he can't? I'd love nothing more than for him at his conference to really go off on how absolutely disappointed he his. Not give his usual, "well, if not for a few errors, we're 3-0. We're working on it and will look at game film." I am simply frustrated with this coaching staff... I have been now for a while. I'm tired of losing. I'm tired of the Bears being the laughing stock of the league. This is a proud storied franchise, and we are a freaking joke right now. We are chokers extrodinaire. That's the MO now...

 

Sorry, I'm venting because I care and I'm freaking disappointed to the nth degree...

 

 

 

Why would you be less disappointed? His reaction does not change the outcome of the game.

 

Do you think that Lovie doesn't understand there is an issue and it needs to be addressed? If you do, then let him address it in the manner he chooses. If not, then I understand why you are upset.

 

I agree that we all want to win - I was simply being sarcastic. Ultimately, Lovie is who is he is. He is not going to change to satisfy your need for him to show the fire and the passion. All things being equal, you prefer a coach who shows the fire and the passion. All things being equal, I could care less. We smply disagree and I have no issues with that.

 

Peace

[Connorbear]

It's easy... because if we get more of the same (no reaction), I expect more of the same (bone-head actions). The outcome doesn't change. That's not hte issue. The issue is what this HC is doing to try to prevent what has happened in the past from happening in the future. If you do nothing, you tend to see the same problems, like we have over the poast 2 weeks.

 

As much as I may joke about it, Smith is not an idiot. I'm sure he knows there's an issue. However, I'm not sure he's capable of knowing what to do about it. The team has let Smith do it as he pleases for the past few years. While successful 2 years ago, that same philosophy does not appear to working any more. Again, if successful, leway is given. If not, then less leway is given.

 

In a nutshell, I'm upset in the manner he has treated fans over the years. He takes us for complete idiots. He knows better than that. He threw us all a bone when hired wanting to beat Green Bay... Now all of a sudden, it's somehwat asked of him to show some emotion, and he can't? I'd love nothing more than for him at his conference to really go off on how absolutely disappointed he his. Not give his usual, "well, if not for a few errors, we're 3-0. We're working on it and will look at game film." I am simply frustrated with this coaching staff... I have been now for a while. I'm tired of losing. I'm tired of the Bears being the laughing stock of the league. This is a proud storied franchise, and we are a freaking joke right now. We are chokers extrodinaire. That's the MO now...

 

Sorry, I'm venting because I care and I'm freaking disappointed to the nth degree...

I am simply not going to ask Lovie to change who he is and I would be offended if someone asked me to do the same. Ultimately, if the team doesn't win he should be fired.

 

I can agree with where you are coming from but I disagree we are the laughing stock of the league. I would say the following teams have been much worse than the Bears in the recent past:

 

- Detroit

- Kansas City

- Atlanta (I don't care if they are 2-1, they beat Detroit and KC)

- Oakland (Davis should be forced to sell)

- Arizona (they have been to the playoffs once since the 80s)

- St Louis (they are now a train wreck)

- San Fransisco (maybe they are turning it around this yr but the past 5 yrs are a joke)

- Cleveland (how does Romeo still have a job with all that talent and the record he has put up)

- Cincy (talk about a coach who has lost complete control of a team)

 

We should be 3-0 but instead are 1-2. If we tank the rest of the way this season, I could see Lovie's job being on the line. It is now up to the team to see how we move forward.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

Fair enough! Agreed, if we have yet another losing season, he should be canned.

 

We are a laughing stock by virtue of our past. Other than Oakland ad SF, none of those teams had any real history of greatness. Maybe a little for KC early in the 60's. And Oakland is chock full of talent awaiting a new coach and SF seems to have found yet another QB somehow... It's just more of how the mighty have fallen in our case. Especially so soon after a good run up until the SB. People generally assume all those teams will be bad, and they're starting to assume the Bears can be lumped in there too...

 

We should be 1-2. That's how we played. That's what it is. That's what this team deserves. I eagerly await the rest of the season... As I mentioned in another post, I hope for the best, but I am now preparing for the worst. And part of that is still seeing Smith on staff even if we do tank the season.

 

Go Forte!

Go Bears!

 

 

I am simply not going to ask Lovie to change who he is and I would be offended if someone asked me to do the same. Ultimately, if the team doesn't win he should be fired.

 

I can agree with where you are coming from but I disagree we are the laughing stock of the league. I would say the following teams have been much worse than the Bears in the recent past:

 

- Detroit

- Kansas City

- Atlanta (I don't care if they are 2-1, they beat Detroit and KC)

- Oakland (Davis should be forced to sell)

- Arizona (they have been to the playoffs once since the 80s)

- St Louis (they are now a train wreck)

- San Fransisco (maybe they are turning it around this yr but the past 5 yrs are a joke)

- Cleveland (how does Romeo still have a job with all that talent and the record he has put up)

- Cincy (talk about a coach who has lost complete control of a team)

 

We should be 3-0 but instead are 1-2. If we tank the rest of the way this season, I could see Lovie's job being on the line. It is now up to the team to see how we move forward.

 

Peace

[Connorbear]

Fair enough! Agreed, if we have yet another losing season, he should be canned.

 

We are a laughing stock by virtue of our past. Other than Oakland ad SF, none of those teams had any real history of greatness. Maybe a little for KC early in the 60's. And Oakland is chock full of talent awaiting a new coach and SF seems to have found yet another QB somehow... It's just more of how the mighty have fallen in our case. Especially so soon after a good run up until the SB. People generally assume all those teams will be bad, and they're starting to assume the Bears can be lumped in there too...

 

We should be 1-2. That's how we played. That's what it is. That's what this team deserves. I eagerly await the rest of the season... As I mentioned in another post, I hope for the best, but I am now preparing for the worst. And part of that is still seeing Smith on staff even if we do tank the season.

 

Go Forte!

Go Bears!

My version of tank the season is different than yours. If we finish 7-9 he should stay. 6-10 or worse, he should be under serious evaluation for termination. However, you and I both know that won't happen because the McCaskey's are not going to eat 15 million in salary.

 

We were in the Superbowl less than 2 yrs ago. We have won the division 3 times in this decade. I would say we were definately a laughing stock in the 90s but we are hardly that now. Oakland was in the SB 6 yrs ago and has the worst winning % since that time. That is a laughing stock.

 

Peace

[madlithuanian]

I think anything shy of a playoff appearance should dictate his departure...but I could understand keeping him at 7-9. And I fully agree that mgmt won't let happen regardless.

 

Fair enough... But people only remember what you did last. Not 2 years ago...and most non-Bears fans just point me to the Cards game and say you did go with smoke & mirrors after losing to the Colts in the SB. They don't bother to go back to the 2 prior years,etc... It's all perception. And while the Raiders are indeed far worse...we are only a few years of 6-10's away... I hope we steer far clear of that.

 

My version of tank the season is different than yours. If we finish 7-9 he should stay. 6-10 or worse, he should be under serious evaluation for termination. However, you and I both know that won't happen because the McCaskey's are not going to eat 15 million in salary.

 

We were in the Superbowl less than 2 yrs ago. We have won the division 3 times in this decade. I would say we were definately a laughing stock in the 90s but we are hardly that now. Oakland was in the SB 6 yrs ago and has the worst winning % since that time. That is a laughing stock.

 

Peace

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

You bet Iam, No way a first rounder spent on a QB, We need O line then Safety and LB, QB is last on the list. Pick one up in FA. If not then keep what we have. According to 88 we already God at QB on the Bench.

Why not? It's not like there's a history of QBs being busts in the first round (well, obviously there have been some, but it's not as noticeable as say...OT). But yeah, I forgot we have Grossman- Brett Favre in the making- so forget Stafford, Bradford, or Sanchez.

 

We didn't draft a safety this year- why would we draft one in 2009? However, I wouldn't mind Chung in the 3rd, as he's an absolute stud. I think DE is a need more then people here think- Anderson isn't very good and Ogunleye is getting up there in age.

 

LB? We have Williams waiting in the wings.

 

I'd rather we picked up Goff or Tauscher in FA'y, went QB in the 1st, OG in the 2nd, DE in the 3rd, WR in the 4th, and so on.

[madlithuanian]

Didn't we draft Steltz at safety?

 

Why not? It's not like there's a history of QBs being busts in the first round (well, obviously there have been some, but it's not as noticeable as say...OT). But yeah, I forgot we have Grossman- Brett Favre in the making- so forget Stafford, Bradford, or Sanchez.

 

We didn't draft a safety this year- why would we draft one in 2009? However, I wouldn't mind Chung in the 3rd, as he's an absolute stud. I think DE is a need more then people here think- Anderson isn't very good and Ogunleye is getting up there in age.

 

LB? We have Williams waiting in the wings.

 

I'd rather we picked up Goff or Tauscher in FA'y, went QB in the 1st, OG in the 2nd, DE in the 3rd, WR in the 4th, and so on.

[Ed Hochuli 3:16]

Didn't we draft Steltz at safety?

Yeah, but in the 4th round. Before the draft, Lovie kept saying how they felt satisfied at the position. I think Steltz is just insurance to an already deep position for us- I don't see us drafting one this year in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd unless some stud falls to us (Chung, etc).

[madlithuanian]

We'll probalby be drafting another TE...I'm sure JA knows of one from a small school that's already injured...

 

Yeah, but in the 4th round. Before the draft, Lovie kept saying how they felt satisfied at the position. I think Steltz is just insurance to an already deep position for us- I don't see us drafting one this year in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd unless some stud falls to us (Chung, etc).