Why Fire Lovie Smith?

by axthelm on Nov 25, 2009 8:08 PM CST Comment 28 comments

If you’re just going to screw up when you hire his replacement? If that’s the case you might as well just leave him there. Eventually he might figure it out (and win it all). I mean the great Bill Cowher took 14 years to finally win the Super Bowl. Mayber after 14 years Lovie can win one too.

It’s just that simple.

The McCaskey’s have hired three (almost four) HC’s post Mike Ditka:

1. Dave Wannstedt

2. (almost hired Dave McGinnis)

3. Dick Jauron

4. Lovie Smith

See a pattern here? I sure do.

All were DC’s . All were considered ‘Nice Guys.’ And all were more suited to be coordinators, not HC’s.

All of those guys were missing the ‘it’ factor: The ability to lead their team. To demand excellence. To get the very most out of their players.

Many love Mike Ditka. Many bash him. This fact, however, remains. He took over a team with some talented players and some players just picking up paychecks. Iron Mike came in (all red faced with veins bulging) and got rid of the trash on the team. The players who were remained knew exactly who was running the show in Chicago. He left Zero dounbt about that. And he also led the Bears to their dominating Super Bowl victory in 1985. Yes they had Walter Payton. Jim McMahon. Buddy Ryan. Mike Singletay. etc, etc etc.

But Mike Ditka was front and center there (for the record, I'm not the biggest Mike Ditka fan in the world. Far from it. But I give credit where credit is due. And Iron Mike was the 'straw that stirred the drink' for the '80's Chicago Bears.

The incomparable Dan Hampton was once asked this question:

“What kind of coach was Mike Ditka?”

Hampton: “What kind of coach? He was a prick. But he was OUR prick!”

Higher praise has rarely been spoken about an NFL HC. (Hampton also said that in all his years in football, he was never around a coach who motivated his troops as well as Mike Ditka).

Mike McCaskey and his family got rid of Iron Mike and set out to hire the “Anti-Ditka.” Yeah, that makes sense.

The botched hiring of Dave McGinnis is all one needs to know about the incompetence of the McCaskey’s (most notably Michael).

A little background here. After firing Dave Wannstedt after the 1998 season, McCaskey interviewed Dave McGinnis for the HC’ing job. McGinnis used to be the LB coach for the Bears (under Bear DC Vince Tobin) and was now the DC for the Arizona Cardinals (undern Arizona HC Vince Tobin).

McCaskey wanted to hire McGinnis as his new HC and announced that fact to the media. Unfortunately, he hadn’t reached contractual agreement with McGinnis beforehand. McGinnis felt embarrassed and betrayed and decided that he wouldn’t be a part of the Chicago Bears after that. That botched hiring ultimately cost Michael McCaskey his place as the GM of the Chicago bears (so some good came out of it).

But here’s the best part. Dave McGinnis was a CRAPPY HC! After his botched hiring by the Bears he went back to Arizona as Vince Tobin’s DC and eventually replaced Vince as the HC of the Arizona Cardinals when they fired Tobin in 2000.

McGinnis was 17-40 before the Cards fired him after the 2003 season. 17-40! That’s a .298 winning percentage! Pathetic. (Hell any blogger here could've probably gone .298)!

Cardinal fans cried when McGinnis was fired. Why? Cause they loved old Dave. He was as nice a guy as humanly possible. People in Arizona felt really bad when he was fired. Oh, they wanted him gone. No doubt. He was a terrible HC. He was a great cheerleader. But a terrible HC. They wanted him gone. No two ways about it. But they felt really bad cause he was such a nice guy.

This is the guy who Michael McCaskey tried to hire, and it cost him his job.

When it comes to hiring HC’s, the McCaskey’s have proven themselves to be almost completely clueless.

There's an old saying: "Nice guys finish last."

There's another old saying: (HOF'er Dan Hampton: "What kind of coach was Mike Ditka? He was a PRICK. But he was OUR prick!)

(That quote from Dan Hampton was stated on an episode of the program "Beyond The Glory - Mike Ditka" which ran on Fox Sports).

Here's an idea. How 'bout hiring a HC in the vein of a Mike Ditka, or a Buddy Ryan, or a Mike Singletary, than (nice guys )like Dick Jauron and Lovie Smith, among others. Just a suggestion.

What a joke. (Poor Papa Bear is probably tired from rolling over in his grave).

0 recs | Comment 28 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

why fire lovie?

Smith’s percentages vs Cowher’s:

Smith: W/48 L/38 PCT: .558 Post Season .500 Lost one SB
Cowher: W 149 L/90 T/1 PCT: .623 Post Season .571 Won one SB

In Cowher’s first six seasons his teams won the AFC central 5 times and came in second once.

In Smith’s first six seasons his teams won the NFC north twice, second once, third once and fourth once.

"I am not an animal!" - Merrick

by Maelvampyre on Nov 25, 2009 9:16 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I am missing your point Maelvampyre

and beyond that what does Bill Cowher have to do with this post about the McCaskeys?

by axthelm on Nov 25, 2009 10:42 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'll be a little more clear

Your headline was “Why fire Lovie Smith”.
You also went on to say, “the great Bill Cowher took 14 years to finally win the Super Bowl”
Therefore I compared Smith’s won/loss record to Cowher’s.
In my opinion the differences between Smith and Cowher are quite clear and would indicate a reason to fire Smith. I chose not to address the McCaskey issue for various reasons. If the main thrust of your post was the McCaskeys, you should have headlined them.

"I am not an animal!" - Merrick

by Maelvampyre on Nov 25, 2009 11:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry Maelvampyre

I forgot the Cowher reference.

I was being facetious regarding Bill Cowher. He’s a good coach who had the great fortune of coaching for maybe the most stable franchise in the NFL and maybe the most patient franchise in the NFL.

Most teams would’ve canned him long before the 14th year it took him to win the Super Bowl.

Sometimes people make him out to be another Vince Lombardi. That makes me laugh.

Again, I apologize. I missed that.

And yes, the main point was the McCaskeys (Michael & Virginia, et al).

In the ’80’s we dominated footabll like nobody else ever has. This happened because of a great owner ( Papa Bear) excellent GM’s (Jim Finks and Jerry Vanisi) and tough demanding coaches (like Ditka & Ryan).

Since Michale took over (and thereafte)r I see no ‘excellent’ GMs’ and quiet, easy going, nice guy head coaches, like Wanny, Dick and Lovie (and almost Mac).

Not a dominant personality like Mike Ditka and/or Buddy Ryan anywhere near that group.

by axthelm on Nov 25, 2009 11:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

,,,Geomak 2.0?

"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 25, 2009 10:10 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Bc were all sick and tired of him!In his defense though Ron Turner should be the first to go,I mean really just a terrible terrible OC.

by bears rock on Nov 25, 2009 10:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

for the record, I’m not the biggest Mike Ditka fan in the world

Them’s fightin words…..

Ditka Avenger and Original WCG Power Poster!!!!

Want to be a blood donor? Insult Chuck Norris.

by Ditkavsworld on Nov 25, 2009 10:52 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Ditka had his good points and his bad points

but there’s no denying this: The Bears dearly needed an attitude adjustment when Ditka took over and few did that as well as Mike.

After their Super Bowl victory, however, Ditka went too far overboard concerning publicity and endorsements. He more than anyone on the team let his focus wonder.

Mike Singletary loves Mike Ditka and has the highest respect for him, but Singletary himself has publicly said as much about Mike Ditka.

Ditka did a great job getting the Bears over-the-hump. Not so much afterwards.

by axthelm on Nov 25, 2009 11:07 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's the only problem I have with Ditka and the '85 Bears

They still made it to the NFC title game after they won it all in ‘85 – but they never made it back to the Super Bowl. They were an incredibly talented team, needless to say… I don’t even know how many hall of famers played on that team, but I think the ’85 team had 8 or 9 Pro Bowlers.

It seems like they should’ve won at least one more Super Bowl.

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

by JimmyMack on Nov 27, 2009 4:20 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They didn't handle themselves well off the field.

It falls mostly on Ditka, but also on the veterans because they all got more caught up in their individual agendas for endorsements, etc. and lost focus. You’re right they were unbelievably talented and that, by itself, got them into the playoffs after that season but they weren’t as hungry.

Another major reason, in my opinion, were the injuries to McMahon and their backup choices (Steve Fuller and Mike Tomzcak) weren’t very good. They also lost Buddy Ryan and some of the defensive coaches, which was huge. Statistically, the ‘86 defense was even better than the ’85 team in several categories, but they didn’t have the same aggressive scheme that Ryan’s teams had. It was a textbook example of how stats don’t tell the whole story.

by BearFan611 on Nov 28, 2009 8:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gesiakob's Top 11 Reasons To Fire Lovie Smith.

1. His continued stubborness to admit his Tampa 2 Defense is exposed and needs to be retired.
2. His termination of Ron Rivera and the replacement Bob Babich who was his friend and now washes his car.
3. His decision to turn Devin Hester into a Receiver
4. His decision to sign key free agents Orlando Pace and Frank Omiyale.
5. His decision not to sign free agent Chris Chambers when he was cut from San Diego
6. His decision to stick with Ron Turner on the Offensive side of the ball
7. His decision to let Marc Columbo go to the Cowboys when he was cut.
8. His decision to cut Cedric Benson because he had 2 alcohol related charges that he was never found guilty of.
9. His decision to trade Thomas Jones to keep Cedric Benson as his number #1 guy.
10. His decision to sign Archeleta the Defensive Back from St. Louis that was a horrible player.
11. His continued blame on the players for not executing his scheme properly whenever we lose. And saying we will get better, and we still have next week, and we still have a lot of season left, and we believe in what we’re doing, and we still play the Vikings twice.

by Gesiakob on Nov 26, 2009 4:44 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

When he says "we still have a lot of season left"

I’m not sure he understands.

The way they’ve been playing, that’s not (repeat not) a good thing.

As Cub fans are programmed from birth to say: “Wait’ll next year.”

by axthelm on Nov 26, 2009 7:18 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

His decision to cut Cedric Benson was an amalgam

of all of the things that were wrong with Cedric, not just the alcohol charges. His sense of entitlement, the fact that he didn’t work hard, the fact that he wasn’t very good while he was here. In addition, there was a lot of organizational pressure to start Benson—they’d given him a bazillion dollars. I’d be willing to bet the McCaskeys and Angelo had more say in the cutting of Cedric Benson than Lovie did.

That said, I agree with points 1,2,5,6,10,11, pretty strongly, and the others reasonably strongly. Things like signing Pace aren’t solely on him.

"I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule."-Randal Graves

by KDoggers on Nov 27, 2009 10:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

True

You probably have to throw his BFF Jerry Angelo in there with a lot of the personnel stuff… The Tampa 2 is definately on Lovie, though.

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

by JimmyMack on Nov 27, 2009 4:25 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Under The Lovie/Angelo Regime

I figure for whatever reason, we have 2 first round draft picks we never developed properly and received no compensation for. That would be Columbo and Benson. They are both thriving on other teams and that’s the bottom line. I was nice enough to not throw in 1st Round busts Michael Haynes and Rex Grossman because they are not thriving in the NFL. They were just a couple of bad 1st round picks so we can just throw them into the mix.

by Gesiakob on Nov 28, 2009 8:40 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

somebody else here

pointed out that we could have had sidney rice instead of dan bazuin

by reefermadness3 on Nov 28, 2009 3:01 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lovie

Has lost authority over the football team. A perfect example is the 2 Tommie Harris incidents, one being the coverup of the injury/suspension, and the other when he was indecisive to take disciplinary actions before the league after Arizona. That is not an NFL coach. Smith does not deserve such a title.

by GriggsBriggs on Nov 27, 2009 9:55 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lovie Smith

is a complete mess of a head coach. This guy shows no emotion and he has no fire. This team has zero motivation with him leading them. I am not to sure if Lovie is just a lump of coal molded to look human out there, is there any other head coach in this league who does his best to look like a statue on the sidelines? I dont think so. He has the same tired, uninterested, confused look on his face, no matter what the situation.

Lovie fire your team up every once in a while!! if you do it once, it will be your first, When Cutler throws 90% picks in the redzone, get in his effing face! when the Bears are up or down 3 in the 4th, act like you know what is at stake! remind you team that you are actually still there. Sometimes I wonder if you are hiding in the Gatorade cooler. Every single Bears fan has forgotten about your Super Bowl appearance, you do not hold that get out of jail free card anymore.

It is time for this team to move on and get a Head Coach who has a clue, because apparently, Lovie, is missing every quality that makes a good coach.

by BigDanz2000 on Nov 26, 2009 9:05 AM CST reply actions 1 recs

You can look like a statue

if you are a HOF coach like Tom Landry or a Bill Belichick.

Lovie ain’t no Tom Landry or Bill Belichick.

by axthelm on Nov 26, 2009 11:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I'd love to see Smith get in Cutler's face after a red-zone pic

But that’ll never happen. Lovie is going to be too busy trying to hold Jay’s hand and be his friend. Can you imagine if Cowers or Parcells was our HC and Cutler threw 5 pics in a game? LOL He’d probably be riding the bench the next game. And, rightfully so!

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

by JimmyMack on Nov 27, 2009 4:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Parcells was absolutely brutal to Phil Simms

listening to Simms talk about that experience is enlightening to say the least.

The three dominant NFC QB’s in the 80’s were Montana, McMahon and Simms.

Montana had it made. He played in warm weather for maybe the best pure QB coach in NFL history, Bill Walsh. He played in the innovative WCO.

Both Simms and McMahon played in cold weather cities for Neanderthal head coaches (not that there’s anything wrong with that) who would raher have a root canal than throw the ball.

The only difference between Simms and McMahon is that Simms usually bit his tongue and kept his mouth shut. McMahon often told Ditka to F==K off.

If either Jim McMahon or Phil Simms had played for Bill Walsh and his SF 49ers, they’d be considered one of the greatest QB’s in NFL history. Not Joe Montana.

by axthelm on Nov 27, 2009 10:56 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

This guy shows no emotion and he has no fire. This team has zero motivation with him leading them.

by GriggsBriggs on Nov 27, 2009 9:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

it infuriates me that Singletary is the head coach of a team other than the Bears

by No It All on Nov 26, 2009 1:26 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

even though all the niners fans I know disagree

I still think the Bears can win him away from the Bay Area. I have to believe that even though the niners gave him his first shot at HC duty, if the Bears came calling, he’d say yes. He’s a loyal guy, but do his loyalties lie with SF or Chi-Town?

by BBANGUS on Nov 27, 2009 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You couldn't be more wrong BBANGUS

He called the Bears first when he wanted to get into coaching. They (stupidly) rebuffed him.

Mike Singletary’s loyalty only exists in two places:

A) To his coaches and teammates from his 80’s Bears team. Unfortunately, they have almost nothing to do with NFL football today.

B) The HATED SF 49ers.

The McCaskey’s? No F’ing way!

by axthelm on Nov 27, 2009 10:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the bears were indeed stupid to not give him a shot

yes it’s nitpicky but your point a is off base

there are several 85 bears who are coaching it up nicely in the nfl today. jeff fisher, ron rivera and leslie frazier are the first couple of names that come to mind. i vaguely remember singletary professing a pantload of respect for bill walsh in several interviews awhile back.

by reefermadness3 on Nov 27, 2009 11:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Singletary was a wonderful player

but the jury is very much out on his head coaching prowess, so it is way too soon to start moaning and groaning over what might have been. Yes, Singletary is more intense and colorful than Smith, but that does not make him a better coach.

I always turn to the sports section first. The sports page records people's accomplishments; the front page has nothing but man's failures.
~Earl Warren

by lookingdeadred on Nov 28, 2009 11:05 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs