NightLink: How to fix the Bears

by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Nov 10, 2009 4:00 PM CST in NightLink Comment 44 comments

Today in his Monday Morning QB-Tuesday edition, Peter King of Sports Illustrated took an email question from Joseph of Chicago that started out like this:

If you're the Chicago Bears' management, who are you more inclined to fire, Lovie Smith or Ron Turner?

He goes on to get more in detail with his question, bashing both Turner and Smith, even bashing Lovie for being an ineffective drafter, a point King immediately corrects.

First, Smith is not the drafter. Jerry Angelo is. Is it a teamwork thing in Chicago, and does Smith have a major say? Yes. But don't lay the draft failures at the feet of Smith. Lay the failures on defense on Smith. Lay some of the disciplinary failures (Tommie Harris acting up, and subsequently being only a shell of the player he once was) on Smith.

I like to see Lovie called out on his "disciplinary failures". I wonder if Mike Singletary would have these same issues? You have to love what he's done with the career of Vernon Davis, after his rocky start with Samurai Mike, he's now a captain in San Fran.

King goes on to say;

I knew there'd be trouble when Brian Urlacherwent out for the year, because the Bears were going to use Urlacher as a pivot for everything they did on D, and he had come back healthy and in the best shape he'd been in since the Super Bowl season.

I haven't seen to much written about the loss of Urlacher, since it came so early I think it's kind of lost in the shuffle of other stories surrounding the Bears, but I believe a healthy Urlacher would have made a bit of difference.

He notices the same problems the rest of us see;

When I watch the Bears, I think the offensive line is a major problem. The running lanes for Matt Forte aren't there, and the pocket too often collapses around Cutler.

And I do agree with his final assessment;

What I'd do is see if Smith can get the team playing more competitively. If not, I'd consider firing him and the staff and starting over in January.

They may consider it, but does anyone really see the penny pinching Bears eating any salary?

0 recs | Comment 44 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Direct Answer

Absolutely not.

If money were no object, I think he’d be gone yesterday.

But firing Lovie doesn’t solve everything wrong with the Bears. It changes the defensive scheme, possibly (depending on new HC), but there’s still personnel issues on the O-Line and, arguably, the D-Line.

Lovie should go… but Ron Turner and Jerry Angelo should be right in lockstep behind him. Then (as I think has been a complaint for a few years) the O-Line needs to get younger (and better). Otherwise, your offensive personnel are there. Defensive might need a little more work.

by SJS_illini on Nov 10, 2009 4:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

penny pinching is right

and no, i dont see them eating any salary to get a diff HC. Chicago will just have to grin and bear it. The football team we all enjoy will need a rebuilding period, and it may take a while before we see a competitve team that will be a true contender.

Eat. Sleep. Pray. Watch chicago play.

P.S.

You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a shit about what you think.

by chi_till_eye_die on Nov 10, 2009 4:14 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

haha grin and bear it

by GtM on Nov 10, 2009 6:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm no contract lawyer...

but if Lovie and Angelo get fired (Turner too), then the Bears would owe them the rest of their contracted salary. However, if a team (maybe Redskins) came in a scooped up Lovie, then wouldn’t the Bears be off the hook? If the Browns picked up Angelo, wouldn’t the Bears be off the hook for his salary?

by MuleTrain on Nov 10, 2009 4:20 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Okay, so two years ago everybody was calling the Bears penny-pinchers for NOT EXTENDING Lovie...

Then they do give him the extension, essentially committing to him as the head coach, and now everybody’s blaming the Bears for being too cheap to fire him. The stupidity of Bears fans astounds me sometimes. You can’t have it both ways…

by Poloplaya14 on Nov 10, 2009 4:24 PM CST reply actions 1 recs

The Bears giving Lovie an extension

after he lost the Super Bowl was a mistake.

In the 40+ year history of the NFL, only four head coaches (Hank Stram, Tom Landry, Don Shula and Bill Cowher) won the Super Bowl with the same team after they had first lost with that team.

And Lovie is no Stram, Landry, Shula or even Cowher).

Virtually every head coach that loses the Super Bowl never comes back to win it with that same team.

by axthelm on Nov 10, 2009 5:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

How many coaches that have won a superbowl have won again with a different team?

by Syndor on Nov 10, 2009 8:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Nobody has won it with two teams

by axthelm on Nov 10, 2009 8:52 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Stats like that are meaningless because

A) Ridiculously small sample size

B) Every circumstance is incredibly unique, and comparing one to another is ludicrous. How are Lovie Smith’s chances of winning a Super Bowl even remotely related to, let’s say, Bill Belichick’s chances of winning a Super Bowl with the Patriots?

by Poloplaya14 on Nov 10, 2009 10:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

40 years is a small sample size?

Only 4 HC’s lost their first SB (like Lovie did in 2006) and went on to win it with that same team.

That’s not a small sample size.

Bill Belichick doesn’t apply here, as he won his first SB.

by axthelm on Nov 10, 2009 11:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There are 32 teams in the NFL...

That means, all things being equal, a team will win a Super Bowl once every 32 years, on average. That being the case, 40 years is worthless as a sample size, when you’re looking at super bowl results. Anybody statistician will tell you that.

by Poloplaya14 on Nov 11, 2009 1:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And now that I think about it....

Any coach in any given year has, on average, a 1 out of 32 chance of winning the Super Bowl.
Now 43 coaches have lost a Super Bowl (yes I’m ignoring the fact that some have lost more than once, since Im too lazy to look that up).
Now 4 of them did go on to win a Super Bowl.
Now 4/43>1/32, which would imply that a coach who lost a Super Bowl has a better chance of winning a Super Bowl with his current team than an average coach.
But of course, this is all meaningless anyways, since the sample size is way too small.

by Poloplaya14 on Nov 11, 2009 1:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's your mistake

all things aren’t being equal.

Quality of players and quality of coaching means everything.

by axthelm on Nov 11, 2009 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Obviously, but that has nothing to do with the the sample size.

Look, I’m not gonna argue this anymore. You obviously don’t know a damn thing about statistics, so you shouldn’t either.

by Poloplaya14 on Nov 11, 2009 5:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're funny

You said this:

That means, all things being equal, a team will win a Super Bowl once every 32 years, on average

That kind of statistical logic is good for tossing coins, not for teams (or more specifically their coaches) winning the SB.

Here are the facts:

There have been 43 SB’s.
26 headcoaches have won the SB.
Of the last 18 to win in the past 30 years, 17 (94%) have won it by their 5th season (average: 4 seasons).
Only 4 headcoaches (Stram, Landry, Shula, Cowher)have won the SB with the same team that they previously lost with.

It’s just that simple.

Since Lovie is now in his sixth season statistically speaking, he has about a 6% chance of winning it with the Chicago Bears.

Also, since he has already lost with the Bears, if he eventually wins it with them he would (statistically speaking) become only the 5th headcoach in NFL history to do so.

by axthelm on Nov 11, 2009 7:54 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, small sample size

The point I was trying to make is that , ON AVERAGE, a given team in the NFL has a 1 out of 32 chance of winning the super bowl. It’s obviously significantly higher for some teams and significantly lower for some teams, but that’s irrelevant to this argument.
All I can say is that in a scenario where the AVERAGE winrate is 1/32, and the variance is ridiculously high (it’s a game of inches, according to Al Pacino), 43 trials is just way too small of a sample size. If you believe that statement is incorrect, you’re just flat-out wrong.

by Poloplaya14 on Nov 11, 2009 11:00 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lovie timed it right when he cashed in

Just like Nate Vasher and Tommy Harris…

"Yes, risk taking is inherently failure-prone. Otherwise, it would be called sure-thing-taking." - Jim McMahon

by JimmyMack on Nov 10, 2009 9:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Urlacher

I don’t even think that if Urlacher and Pisa were healthy our defense would be any good. We would still be having the same problems as we are now.

Except for Pisa it’s essentially the same D as last year. Couldn’t stop anyone last year, can’t stop anyone this year.

by boondock_saint812 on Nov 10, 2009 4:42 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

i don't think we need a massive overhaul

the cover 2, as much as i hate it, can work well if you have good DBs, especially at FS, and (most importantly) pressure from the front 4. wale is gone after this year, and hopefully rod can turn adams into rice 2.0. harris either gets back to good, or he’s cut. sign a really good DT, a really good corner or FS (i think manning might still work out – let’s see how he does the rest of the year). sign a mauling guard, put williams at LT and omiyale at RT, and get a creative play caller (bye bye turner), and the offense is much improved. but if all these steps aren’t taken, it won’t be pretty.

by guy incognito on Nov 10, 2009 5:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Some what agree

The Bears do not need to overhaul the entire team. The offense is much closer to battling with some of the good offensive teams in the NFL. With tweats on the OL and a #1 WR.

But the defensive scheme is dead. We don’t have the right personnel to run it anymore and teams have figured it out. Another scheme and recycle a few players and bring in the right free agency and the Bears can be competitive in a short time.

by Soloistic on Nov 11, 2009 11:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes I could see the Bears firing the coaching staff.

You just brought in Jay Cutler and the window is only open for so many years. Get it right now and build around your franchise QB.

by SoulEater7 on Nov 10, 2009 5:05 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

On the bright side

Your team is still better than my fave team (Packers) where everything has been horrible the last two weeks.

by tkiller314 on Nov 10, 2009 5:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Everything’s been horrible here the last three weeks, including a struggling win over the Browns. That’s the Browns.

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
"F*** everybody outside of Halas Hall. BEARDOWN" - WavyGravy

by Spongie on Nov 11, 2009 1:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Problems are varied

I said earlier on that lack of emotional and literal leadership on defense was glaring—we might still be 4-4, but I can guarnatee blow-outs like ARZ & CIN wouldn’t happen with Urlacher/Brown.
Lovie sure as heel isn’t inspiring/motivating/firing up this team anymore—it has to come from veteran leadership among the players.

Re Urlacher—We definitely miss that range/athleticism in the soft spot behind the line, and teams respect that area FAR less.
Other big issues:
—poor o-line
—no run game
—weak secondary, absence of play-makers…

But make no mistake, poor drafting and personnel blunders and lousy coaching (lack of preparation, inspiration, and creativity, as well as the failure /inability to adjust and adapt), have gotten us to where we are now—that is, BAD.

Now, maybe a shortterm answer quick fix for the Bears might be this—have an opposing player call out the entire D-line.

(If motivation won’t come from within, maybe we can get it without, right?)

by Amishbear on Nov 10, 2009 7:15 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

totally agree

How can Bears management allow Lovie to return when he’s drawing up game plans and calling plays for the defense? The players obviously are not responding to his methods and/or believing in his message. Even with the all world, over hyped, Marenelli, the Bears defensive players can’t turn it around. To bring Lovie back next year is like believing Marenelli can have some effect on this defense. What other tricks could this coaching staff and management use to convince the fans and themselves, they have a plan that’ll return this team to the playoffs next year? Bring in a boatload of free agents and make sure one of those guy are Brian Dawkins like to fire up this defense, because coaches can’t? Tell us Urlacher will make a difference in 2010? The Front Office, if they are committed to winning, consider funny math that suggest that $1.35 million or so over and his 22 million over 4 years even out, do to have him on the cheap for his first few years and a SB. Then, hire some proven football minds with offense and defense credentials to fix this team. No more games with the fan base. They have to fire this staff.

by Soloistic on Nov 11, 2009 11:53 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Welcome All

to the dark side, I have called this guy out from day one when we hired him. Lovie hasn’t done shit here. The SB year is saving his ass.
Ask yourself this, how many games did we win that year because of last minute defensive or SP plays? and Would we really have made the SB without home field advantage?

Dear Ron Rivera,
I apologize for the stupidity of the the Bears organization and we need a new coach, so I was thinking…

by stumpo on Nov 10, 2009 7:38 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

You really think Ron Rivera is the answer?

His defense doesn’t look all that great in San Diego.

Ditka Avenger and Original WCG Power Poster!!!!
Why are you here? We didn’t even play you today, so why come and troll? Nevermind, that was a rhetorical question, I don’t want a response…
-HoneyBear in response to a Viqueen Troll.
*This tagline is copyrighted by smudgers, inc. for the private use of the WCG audience. Any use of this tagline or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts without smudgers, inc. consent is prohibited.

by Ditkavsworld on Nov 10, 2009 8:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No

I’d rather have Shannahan or Cower, I just think it’s funny how no announcers bring up the fact that we lost Rivera after the SB and lovie’s D has ranked at the bottom of the league since then.

by stumpo on Nov 10, 2009 8:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

There's a reason

why Rivera has interviewed mulitple times with multiple teams, yet is still on a DC…

Plus, San Diego’s defense has exactly been a model of dominance or consistency (in fact, they’ve been very underwhelming to mediocre), and they have a helluva lot of talent on that side of the ball, too.

I’m not sure who the answer is, but I’m pretty sure it’s NOT Rivera.
(one of my friends was talking about Klye Shanahan (?)—the O coordinator for the Texans, I think…?

People give Rivera a lot of credit—but that’s more of that “grass is always greener” syndrome that we Chicago fans seem especially susceptible to…

The truth of the 06 team is that during September, Rex was on fire, then our defensive backbone (Harris, Urlacher, Brown) was at its apex, as was Hester. THOSE were the factors that led to our success that year, not Rivera’s cheme or personality or whatever.

The fall of the defense after that came b/c of injuries to Harris and Brown. You can pinpoint the EXACT moment the defense pivoted from outstanding to average—when Brown got hurt against Tampa bay (?). After that, (and since), it’s been all downhill.

by Amishbear on Nov 11, 2009 1:09 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

STOP WITH THE OLD BEARS CRAP TO COME SAVE THIS TEAM....

Get proven winners on the offensive and defensive side of the ball who have worked and improve quality players in this league. Someone who knows how to Draft, evalute, and motivate consistently. No more roll of the dice with coordinators who are one year wonders.

by Soloistic on Nov 11, 2009 11:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're reply is to stumpo

I didn’t say RR is going to save the team. The only former Bear that could save us would be Sweetness and we all know that can’t happen.

by Ditkavsworld on Nov 11, 2009 12:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Unless he could play OL

I’m afraid even #34 wouldn’t be able to save us…

You are all gentlemen (and ladies) and good judges of cheap whiskey.

by Dane Noble on Nov 11, 2009 12:10 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He could probably play OL. He's that good.

by Ditkavsworld on Nov 11, 2009 2:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

To Sweetness!

You are all gentlemen (and ladies) and good judges of cheap whiskey.

by Dane Noble on Nov 11, 2009 2:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

He wasn’t afraid to block, that’s for sure (Da Coach has something to say about his block at 0:54 here).

"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
"F*** everybody outside of Halas Hall. BEARDOWN" - WavyGravy

by Spongie on Nov 11, 2009 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Mike Holmegren

by Ryan21 on Nov 10, 2009 9:38 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs

our problems are simple

Our O-line is one of the worst in the league and our corners maybe just as bad if not worse. Other than that we would be a very good team. We knew that coming into the season. O line and coverage were our needs we didnt address them and so you get waht we have here. Unless the bears decide to go crazy during free agency our problems will be the same next year too.

by cutlersbutler on Nov 10, 2009 9:41 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

But

are there any decent players at those positions that will be on the free agent market?

by Gone Savage on Nov 10, 2009 9:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

O-Line?

3 Free Agent signings isn’t attempting to address the problem? They just didn’t work out, leading to the current problem.

by SJS_illini on Nov 11, 2009 8:25 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My super happy plan to save Bears 100%!

1. Bring in a DC. We need an actual, full time Coordinator. Preferably someone with fire and discipline. While Lovie is HC he’ll never keep his nose completely out of the defense so we don’t even need someone who can implement a whole new system. We really just need a babysitter for the defense, someone who can watch over them full time which Lovie can’t while he’s HC, DC, and apparently working on offense too. Adjustments, reviews, ass-chewing. These things need to happen during the game and apparently Lovie’s too busy or glacial to do them.

2. Free agency. Still kind of up in the air depending on whether there is a new CBA. If there isn’t the available pool shrinks. Either way we need to grab 2 each of the best OL and DL we can get on the phone with. OL market is pretty thin so may have to grab a guard and look for another in the draft. DL has a good spread of people available. And some have injury problems so Angelo should be able to find a few he likes. IMO everything else is secondary as far as free agency. If we can find a good, youngish LB or DB for a reasonable price then huzzah but I don’t think those are as important as OL and DL atm.

3. Draft. Honestly way too early for me to think much about specific players in the draft. I’ll start paying attention in March or so. Generally we need a backup RB and at least one OL (or more depending on free agency) and the usual DL, DB prospects. And for the love of all that is orange and navy hire some outside consultants. At least someone to say “Hey Jerry that guy’s in a wheelchair.” And please draft people for the actual position they play. For some reason either Lovie or Angelo or both are obsessed with drafting “athletic” people at one position and then moving them somewhere else.

There’s a few other points but I feel like this would go a few more pages if I started on them.

Nothing really short term there except possibly the DC. No idea what the precedent is for adding a coordinator mid-season. Either way it’s mostly next season stuff that would require some bold leadership. It’s that last part that has me worried. Debate their competence all you like but bold definitely doesn’t apply.

by SaintCee on Nov 11, 2009 12:14 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Without Urlacher=

What a licking the rest of the LBs & DBs are getting by opposition power RBs & OTs. Man I feel for Hillenmayer… by 2010 he’ll be part steel/part human…& Roach will probably looking for his books again in NU…probably need binoculars to find WR/TE (Gonzalez)…Manning seems to be catching the bus home(Benie Wells)…Bowman is waiting to see who’ll tackle first before the WR gets to the touchline…Al Alfalava dreamin’ bout Wikkiki…on & on…Can’t som1 replace Urlachers wrist with a “Hellboy” hand for the remaining season…the rest of him seem to be moving unlike last season!

by AKK on Nov 11, 2009 2:06 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

We've all been tinkering this season about what needs the Bears have...

First and foremost, Lovie and co. have to go. Even if he were a great coach, he’s lost this team and that cannot be fixerated. JA should follow him as I have witnessed a plethora of stupid draft moves and bad FA signings. Ted Phillips may have to fire his ego to get a HC that can run GM duties and that may be what the big hangup ends up being. IMO, it’s a post-Ditka thing; the owners do not want strong leaders, but competent subordinates.
My vote would be for Cowher, but Shanny is intriguing dark horse if he brings along a good DC.

The o-line needs retooling. To best know where to proceed, we need to see Omiyale at RT and Williams at LT. Plus, Beekman needs some C reps and Louis needs a look at LG. Still a FA o-lineman is a likely need no matter what, my guess is at LT. Other than that a short yardage back and a primary WR are needed. I think Knox, Hester and Bennett are good as the 2, 3, and 4 spots for some serious depth at WR and this offense could put up some obscene points.

On defense, first and foremost, a singularly destructive force at the DT is a must. The DEs that remain are good enough if they move Brown to the left (strong) side and get anything out of G Adams and Anderson and Melton. Gilbert need to see the field and we need to see what he can do. If the Bears can get the DT solidified, Gilbert might just be better at DE. The LBs are fine and deep, but some yong talent to develop late in the draft may not hurt. The second biggest defensive need is the FS spot. This needs to be addressed just after the DT. It’s gonna have to be a FA because, like WRs, a FS takes time to develop. Lastly, we need to see more of Graham, Moore and Manning (at the CB) to get a sense if they can play at this level, but another FA DB will likely be necessary.

To sum up, the Bears need 3-5 players on offense and 3-5 players on defense and a changing on the coaching staff. There is a core of talent on this team that could be the nucleus of a serious SB contender for the next 3+ years if Ted Phillips can check his ego at the door. The Bears cannot waste the talent they have in Cutler because this team may not see a QB this good for decades again.

When you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!!!

by LostInSTL on Nov 11, 2009 7:35 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

When was the last time the McCaskey's ever ate large salaries?

I think that answer to that question is mostly never, if not at anytime in the past. They’ve always been cheap, and they always will be – why else do they always hire co – ordinators instead of proven commodites at HC?

by Waylon on Nov 11, 2009 9:08 AM CST reply actions 0 recs