They likely played a part, but unlike an 8 to 10 player baskeball team, the Bears should have had enough depth maybe to win one or two of these games. That said though, I'm not blaming Lovie for that, and I thnk he's a good enough coach to stay around, if for no other reason that there would not be anyone better around anyway. And Lovie did get us to the Super Bowl once, so hopefully wth some shoring up of the offensive line, we can get back there again within the next couple of years.
-
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question For T and Da Coach
- Thread starter BU30
- Start date
They likely played a part, but unlike an 8 to 10 player baskeball team, the Bears should have had enough depth maybe to win one or two of these games. That said though, I'm not blaming Lovie for that, and I thnk he's a good enough coach to stay around, if for no other reason that there would not be anyone better around anyway. And Lovie did get us to the Super Bowl once, so hopefully wth some shoring up of the offensive line, we can get back there again within the next couple of years.
If The Bears had an average offensive line they would be contending for a top seed in the playoffs. It was no secret last year that the O line was terrible. If it was Lovie's responsibility to spend some cash for a better line then I'd can him. Some how I'd have to believe that management did not want to spend enough and thought they could get by with what they had. After all they spent plenty on other positions. The blame has to go to the front office IMO.
I disagree - and in case anyone's completely new to this board - this entire thread was bait to try to get me and Da Coach to say something that could be used to claim we are inconsistent by supporting the BU head coach for no better than 4th...
but... I have always been consistent
I think most everyone knows it was a bait thread but we chose to ignore that part and have a good discussion about the Bears.
Last edited:
If The Bears had an average offensive line they would be contending for a top seed in the playoffs. It was no secret last year that the O line was terrible. If it was Lovie's responsibility to spend some cash for a better line then I'd can him. Some how I'd have to believe that management did not want to spend enough and thought they could get by with what they had. After all they spent plenty on other positions. The blame has to go to the front office IMO.
I won't put the blame on our first year general manager. But the Bears will only go as far as the McCaskey's will allow them.
Who did the Bears lose to that they should have beaten record wise?
Seattle, worse loss of the season.
Seattle, worse loss of the season.
They got beat by a team playing as well as anybody. I would imagine Carolina would consider their loss to the Bears as a bad loss the way they lost it.
FlyingSpaghettiMonster
New member
I have always been consistent
There's a quote about foolish consistency by Emerson.
The parallels to BU are a stretch at best.
The major reason to fire Lovie IMO is the poor choices at offensive coordinator. He's not as good of a coach as some people here making him sound. Just look at his challenge record. LS also isn't nearly as bad as people make him seem. He's certainly an above-average coach, but I highly doubt the Bears will win a Super Bowl with Lovie and Cutty. If the Bears miss the playoffs this year, then I think Lovie should be fired. They will probably make the playoffs and get destroyed by SF, however. Lovie will then be brought back for at least 2013 (and likely extended).
As far as who you replace him with, I'm less concerned with that. Often in the NFL teams have to get much worse before they get better. In a similar scenario many people wouldn't have replaced Alex Smith. I don't think the 49ers can win with Smith, and they don't seem to believe he can win either.
Emery's moves thus far don't look great. Mashall was a steal, but the rest of the draft and FA crop is disappointing.
Gary the Gargoyle
New member
The question depends on if you think Lovie is the right person to coach the Bears over the next several years. There is a slim chance that Lovie comes back on his current contract next year. He either has to be extended or fired.
I agree. The debate shouldn't be about who could/would have done better over the past 9 years. The debate should be whether or not Lovie Smith's system and style gives the Bears a better chance of winning a championship in the next 5 years than whoever Phil Emery came to town with on his short list. So basically, it's Lovie Smith against the field. The field being unknown; I choose the field.
Emery's moves thus far don't look great. Mashall was a steal, but the rest of the draft and FA crop is disappointing.
I am not sure about that. The draft has looked solid on the top and inconclusive in the middle. The end of the draft was a flop, but that happens more often than not.
McClellin and Jeffery look like they could be very good NFL players thus far. Both have suffered injuries that kept them out for a few games. Brandon Hardin was on IR this entire season, but should provide safety depth next year.
Marshall was probably the move of the offseason. Acquiring one of the top 3 receivers in the NFL for a couple of third rounders is a steal.
There wasn't a lot of activity in the free agent market. Michael Bush was ho hum. His biggest mistake thus far was probably signing Forte to a big deal. He has proven to be a mid level back and not a game changer of any sort.