Question For T and Da Coach

[tornado]

Not necessariy disagreeing with you T but I don't know if all those guys would have jumped at the chance

none of them had an NFL head coaching job at the time - so they'd have turned it down?

[lefty]

none of them had an NFL head coaching job at the time - so they'd have turned it down?

some might have and others not....many times those guys have places they think would be a better fit for them....so I'm not sure that all assistants will jump at any HC job.....but I understand what you are saying..

Being a Packer fan we have had our share of injuries as well, Matthews,Woodson, Nelson, and several on the offensive line too...

I think the Bears early success was more due to their schedule than anything else. The first 8 games the only team they beat that was decent was Indy and that was the first game of the season....I don't know if they would beat them now.....their schedule got much tougher after game 8

[tornado]

I agree - but four of the Bears' losses were quite winnable and the injuries likely played a part

[Chico]

Now now T, you know you can't blame injuries.

[tornado]

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

[Bravesfan]

I agree - but four of the Bears' losses were quite winnable and the injuries likely played a part

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.

[SFP]

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.

[Chico]

Who did the Bears lose to that they should have beaten record wise?

[lefty]

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.

[Bravesfan]

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.

[real fan]

Who did the Bears lose to that they should have beaten record wise?

Seattle, worse loss of the season.

[Chico]

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]

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.

[JMM28]

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.

[Gary the Gargoyle]

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.