Sporting News Survey - The Chicago Bears
by GeoMak on Jul 31, 2009 11:33 PM CDT
64 comments
The Sporting News surveyed 21 former Bears for answers to these questions.
Here are some of the questions and a few Bear responses.
#1: Is Jay Cutler the right answer at QB?
Yes: 15
Wait and See: 5
No: 1
"Cutler has the Tools. Let's see if he has the leadership and the head." Robin Earl.
#2 Is Brian Urlacher still at the top of his game?
Yes: 8
No: 13
"If the top is a 10.0, Brain is a 9.0." Ted Albrecht.
#3 Matt Forte is the best Bears RB since . . .
Neal Anderson------9
Thomas Jones-----6
Walter Payton-------6
"Since (Payton), there hasn't been a Bears RB to strike real fear into the opposing defense, the kind of fear that makes coaches stay up late at night game-planning against - until Matt." Erik Kramer.
#4 Lovie Smith: Thumbs up or thumbs down?
Up: 13
Jury is out: 5
Down: 3
"Total thumbs down. Football is a game of emotion; he has none." Kurt Becker.
0 recs |
64 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
coaching football
when you see a coach rant and rave on the sidelines, a. has he lost it. b. is he giving the opposition an advantage by showing his emotions. or,c.when he is calm and collective whichever the game is going is he in command or panicking. all of the above is emotion and you cannot be in charge without any of the above. we are all different and not stereotypicle.
Let's not confuse intensity with emotion.
Personally, I feel the most successful coaches all have intensity. Emotion can be viewed in different ways, the screaming or ranting, which gets old, but it can also be the tearful, sobbing, kind of coach which I think is ridiculous (all due respect to Dick Vermeil).
I’ve said this several times since I’ve joined WCG that Lovie just doesn’t show the kind of intensity to bring a team to the top. Tom Landry, Bill Walsh, Bellichek, and they’re ilk were very intense without the histrionics of a Ditka, Madden, Halas, etc. All of them were very intense and their players respected, and yes, even feared them to a point. Obviously, not many players were worried that Landry, Walsh, or Halas were going to physically kick their a$$, but they were absolutely sure there would be consequences for their actions if they didn’t stick with the program or play hard.
A team with championship aspirations needs that role model and, in my opinion, Lovie does not possess that quality. Again, I’ve said this before, teams take on the personality of their head coach/manager in every sport. Lovie is a nice man who wants to win, but I just don’t get the impression he hates to lose. That’s how I’ve viewed this Bear team throughout his tenure as well.
How do you judge a coach?
A coach is judged on wins and loses first, and secondly on the rapport and respect he gets from the players.
An emotional fired up coach that loses games will be fired.
An emotional coach that wins game but alienates players will get the benefit of the doubt because he’s winning.
A coach with a clam sideline demeanor and is a loser will get fired.
Lovie Smith (love him or hate him) has a pretty good winning record in comparison with the other coaches. And to a man you’ll never hear a player bad mouth him. He has the respect of his team, and he wins more than he loses.
How can one tell if he “hates” to lose? The rah rah of high school or college football doesn’t always translate to a locker room of grown men.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Aug 1, 2009 1:17 PM CDT reply actions
I've never heard any former players say anything bad about Jauron either, but he sucked as a HC, in my opinion.
You’re correct, it ultimately comes down to W/L and no one called for his firing. It was a response to Q #4 and is nothing more than my opinion. I said that it was “my impression” that he hates to lose because he seems to never put up an argument when calls don’t go his way or a player screws up, etc. I’m not saying he should be screaming or yelling, but if you look at the coaching examples I listed (Landry, Walsh, Belichek) I think most people can tell when they’re upset or don’t like the outcome of a situation. Lovie has a deer in the headlights look about him, again, in my opinion.
Not exactly true
George Seifert & Barry Switzer won SB’s and had great records. The fact that they took over Walsh’s & JJ’s GREAT teams had a whole lot to do with that.
Seifert went to Carolina and sucked. Switzer was a joke. Rich Kotite took over Buddy Ryan’s Eagles and did alright with an excellent team he inherited from Ryan.
He then went to the Jets and went 4- 28 in two years there. He was exposed in NY as an absolute JOKE (without a group of GREAT players like he had when he took over Buddy Ryan’s team).
Whe judging a HC, you first have to separate the HC’s who PICK the players (like Bill Walsh, Jimmy Johnson, Mike Shanahan and Buddy Ryan in Philadelphia) from the HC’s who basically just coach the players (like most.many others).
Tony Dungy was fired in TB becasue he let the offense lapse. Warren Sapp (who loves Dungy) said as much. He then went to Indy where he inherited Peyton Manning, arguably one of the greatest QB’s in NFL history.
The GM (Bill Polian) pretty much has the best drafting record in the last decade, if you go by first rounders (he’s almost perfect there).
Dungy, with an All-Universe QB and great talent won ONE SB (against you-know-who).
When Mike Vanderjagt criticized both Manning & Dungy as being too passive, I completely agreed with him.
Yeah, Dungy/Manning won ONE SB. With all that talent, they underachieved. They should’ve won more. Their playoff record, especially early on, is pretty bad)
Lovie has done a good job in Chicago. And that’s it. Good. He’s been blessed with some of the best players at thei position (Urlacher, Harris) and he hit the PowerBall with Devin Hester.
Take Hester off of the 2006 team, they almost assuredly don’t make it to the SB.
Beyond the Won/Loss record (which, of course matters) the biggest measuring stick for HC’s is this:
Did he:
A). Get the Most out of his players.
or
B). Did he NOT get the most out of his players.
Vince Lombardi took over the league laughingstock and turned them into the league’s Dynasty.
Every player from those teams that are in the HOF were there when Lombardi took over (except Herb Adderly). When those ‘potential’ HOF’ers were there before Lombardi, the Packers sucked.
After Lombardi got there, they became a dynasty and entered the HOF.
Lombardi is the ‘gold standard’ of getting the absolute MOST out of his players in the NFL.
To me, guys like Dungy and Lovie just don’t squeeze the most out of their players. Good/Very good coaches? Yes.
Excellent or Great HC’s? No way!
Matt Millen as the Lions GM
…had some of the worst drafts ever.
An argument could be made that Rod Marinelli got the most out of his players, he had the respect of the locker room, and yet he was canned because his record sucked.
At the end of the day all a franchise cares about is winning
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Aug 1, 2009 7:01 PM CDT up reply actions
Going by 'records' only is just a little short-sighted
Archie Manning was a great QB, who happened to play most of his career for one of the worst franchises in NFL history, the N.O. Saints.
Steve Young was floundering in TB. He gets rescued by Bill Walsh in SF and goes to the HOF.
Same Steve Young.
Judging any player or coach strictly by the record is very short-sighted.
Context is always needed.
We are talking about coaching here right?
Steve Young and Archie Manning were not head coaches. An origination wants to win, you can look for context or call it short sighted, but that’s the way it is. It’s not my rules or criteria, a franchise wants to win.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Aug 2, 2009 8:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Coaching/players it doesn't matter.
Going ‘strictly by the record’ is somewhat short sighted.
The quality of the team matters also. If the HC isn’t choosing his own players (like most don’t) then he’s going to be somewhat helped or hurt by who the GM gets him.
Tony Dungy had some of the best players at their respective divisions as a HC, with guys like Peyton Manning, Dwight Freeny, Bob Sanders and Edgerrin James. He SHOULD have had a better record than teams like the Titans and Jags.
By general consensus, the Cowboys and Chargers had two of the most talented teams in the league. Many predicted either one or both in the SB.
Wade Phillips underachieved the Boys to 9-7. Turner the Bolts to 8-8.
One could easily make the argument that Jim Zorn did a better job getting his Redskins to 8-8 than did Phillips or Turner.
Virtually the same records, but two guys clearly underachieved and one didn’t.
The W/L record is of course important. But when talking about the HC (or others) a little context is necessary.
Otherwise some people come up with asinine comments like this: Barry Swtizer was a better HC than guys like Bud Grant and Marv Levy cause Switzer win a Super Bowl and the other guys didn’t.
I don't make the rules
teams fire coaches based off won loss record all the time… teams fire GM’s all the time too… it is what it is, no point arguing reality
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Aug 2, 2009 4:00 PM CDT up reply actions
Sure
Bill Walsh——2-14 opening season.
Chuck Noll—-1-13 opening season
Jimmy Johnson—-1-15 opening season
Bill Parcells—- 3-12-1 opening season
Barry Switzer—-12-4 opening season
A little context goes a long way when looking at coaches and their records.
opening seasons...
99% of coaches get a 1st season to work out the kinks…
Do you really think team owners really look at “context”?
Looking at “context” Dave Wannstedt had a ton of injuries to his players during his time in Chicago.
Dick Jauron was loved by his players (and coach of the year in ’01), but his poor overall record did him in.
Switzer inherited a good team, but was a less than stellar NFL coach, and his 6-10 led to him being let go.
If your point is “team owners should look at more than won loss record” then I’m there with ya… but they don’t, which is my point.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Aug 2, 2009 6:42 PM CDT up reply actions
Switzer inherited a good team?
Actually he inherited a SB winning team. He inherited the BEST team in the league.
The most succesful team in NFL history is the Pittsburgh Steelers.
They have the most SB trophies and they have spanned the greatest number of years (1974-2008) between those SBs.
They went through a stetch with Bill Cowher from 1998-2000 where they went 7-9, 6-10, 9-7.
The natives were restless and called for Cowher’s firing.
The Rooney’s stayed the course.
Of course all teams want to win and the W/L record is an obvious sign of a coaches aptitude and ability.
But there’s more to the story.
It’s why Tony Dungy was FIRED after going 11-5, 10-6 and 9-7. The Glazers paid a King’s ransom for Jon Gruden and won a SB the next year.
Dungy was fired even though he was 30 and 18 in his last three seasons there.
He was fired because, in the words on Warren Sapp, he didn’t have enough discipline and control over his offense.
Most coaches don’t get fired after going 30-18 (that’s one game better than Lovie Smith the last three years).
Dungy did and the Glazers have a Lombardi trophy to show for it.
Context.
Actually
Looking at "context" Dave Wannstedt had a ton of injuries to his players during his time in Chicago.
Dick Jauron was loved by his players (and coach of the year in ’01), but his poor overall record did him in.
All teams have injuries. That’s NOT why Wannstedt SUCKED.
Jauron? Jerry Angelo inherited Jauron and wanted to bring his guy (Lovie Smith) to the Bears.
You’re smarter than this wilt. Really.
I know that you are.
I really don't get your argument?
I’m just stating what most owners do. Most owners only worry about the wins and loses. Pittsburgh has good ownership, which is why they have the most Super Bowls. They stick with the guy they believe in, through good and bad.
Dungy was fired because he didn’t win a Super Bowl. When you consistently win, but can’t get over the hump, ownership looks on that as losing.
Hell I AGREE with you, but I don’t own a team. There is more than just wins and loses. If I did own a team I’d like to think I’d be like the Rooney’s.
If patronizing me is really the way you want to go then more power to you.
Do you really think most owners don’t care about wins and loses?
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Aug 2, 2009 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions
I NEVER said
that owners don’t care about W/L’s.
Of course they do. I’m just saying that one has to apply some context into the mix.
That’s all.
Look at Lovie:
2004 – 5-11
2005 – 11-5
2006———————13-3
2007 – 7-9
2008 – 9-7
Five seasons
For a monent, suspend reality and takeout the 2006 season.
If you (for the sake of argument) take out 2006, you have a 500 record (32-32).
Now, let’s look at 2006.
The year of Devin Hester. One of the greatest single season performances in NFL history.
Most teams are lucky if they get one TD in the return game (Tampa Bay went some 20 years before their first).
Hester had six.
He averaged 85 yards on his six TD’s.
The Bears RB’s had 14 TDs in 2006. All told, the RB’s TOTALED 84 yards in their 14 TD’s.
One of Hester’s return TD’s was more than FOURTEEN RB TD’s!
Devin Hester was a gift from God, in 2006.
He wasn’t spectacular because of Lovie.
Take out Hester’s INCOMPARABLE 2006 season and Lovie’s a 500 HC.
Or, let’s look at it this way.
In 2007 (and 2008) Lovie had the second best team in the NFL . . . and went 7-9 (and 9-7).
FIVE HUNDRED!!!!!
Is Lovie a Bad HC? No.
Is he a good HC? Yes.
Is he an above average/excellent HC? No way!
That’s all.
I would rate Walsh ahead of St Vince of Lombardi
Like Lombardi, Walsh turned a moribund franchise into a dynasty, but he did it during a time when I believe it was harder to do it. In fact, I would put Chuck Noll on the same level at least as Lombardi. Also, Landry deserves much consideration for his ability to keep the Cowboys at or near the top for so many years.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
by lookingdeadred on Aug 2, 2009 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions
Why was it harder to do in the 80's
than in the 60’s?
A couple of reasons,
Free agency and the nature of the modern pro athlete.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
by lookingdeadred on Aug 2, 2009 11:30 AM CDT up reply actions
Free agency was in it's
infancy at that point. That worked well for owners like Eddie D who spent liberally, in getting the occasional player like Deion Sanders.
Teams like the ‘84 Niners, ’85 Bears and ’86 Giants were able to build their teams, year after year,piece by piece, without much threat (if any) of losing players to FA, unlike in today’s game.
Montana, Rice and Lott left SF not becasue they wanted to. It was becasue they weren’t wanted anymore in SF.
As far as the nature of the modern pro athlete, that really doesn’t wash with me.
It’s pretty simple. No team can win without great players. (Montana, Rice, Lott etc in SF).
You can find players like that on all winning teams in the 80’s (like Simms and LT in NY).
(Payton, Singletary, Hampton with the Bears).
And all of those kind’s of players would have fit in perfectly well in the 60’s. Without enough great players, who played for the love of the game and to win, no team won anything.
Besides, there were far less teams back then so there was no dilution of talent like you probably have now.
Vince Lombardi always has been (and probably always will be) considered the Gold Standard as far as NFL HC’s.
Lombardi, after a one year retirement from Green Bay, became head coach/GM of the Washington Redskins
and gave them their first winning record in 15 years. Great teams are only great if they have great players and great coaches, but a great coach can make a group of average players into a good team.
When you’re talking about the pros, in any sport, the talent level is fairly even from top to bottom. It’s attitude, work ethic, and commitment that make great players standout from the rest. A great coach can recognize what makes that “want to” come out of players on a consistent basis. Sometimes it’s by patting some guys on the back and sometimes it’s by kicking guys in the ass, but knowing when and how much is what makes a great coach.
That’s why you see players who don’t necessarily shine on one team move to another and become tremendous contributors. When that happens, it’s often because the coach and rest of the players make sure that everyone on the team “wants to win”. New England is a perfect example of that. Green Bay in the ’60s was also that way, true they had players who are now considered immortals, but from a pure talent perspective, Hornung/Taylor were not Jim Brown/Gale Sayers, Bart Starr was no Joe Namath, Boyd Dowler/Carroll Dale were not Charley Taylor/Bob Hayes, but the whole atmosphere that Lombardi created made them a team for the ages.
Lombardi is the Gold Standard
for all coaches because he accomplished the most important thing a coach can accomplish:
He got his players to play better for him than they had played before, for someone else.
Bum Phillips used to say this about Don Shula:
“He (Shula) could take hizz’en and beat your’in or take your’in and beat hizz’en.”
What he meant was that Shula could take his team and beat yours, or turnaround and take your team and beat his.
Didn’t matter which team he was coaching. He was going to win becasue he was able to get the players to play at their absolute best.
He said that about Shula because they were contemporaries. That ability, of course goes all the way back to Vince Lombardi.
Didn't GeauxBears get on your case several days ago for
living in the past? He’ll have a cow over this latest exchange!!!!
I know.
Actually I opened up my Sporting News the other night and decided to share their survey on the Bears.
They did have multiple comments (pro & con) about all four questions and I only picked one for each.
I FREELY admit I chose the most negative about Lovie.
I admit it. And I believe it.
I’m currently reading Phil Simms’s book and he (of course) talks a lot about Lombardi disciple Bill Parcells.
Anybody that doesn’t think that these players DON"T need to be poked and prodded and kicked on the ass and then patted on the ass is CRAZY!!!
Hell, that’s the coaches job. Not to walk around ‘robotically.’
It’s to roll up your sleeves, open your mouth and fire away. It’s to teach them and inspire them to work their asses off for you.
Interestingly, Simms says ALL of the assistants on that staff (Al Groh, Bill Belichick, Crennel, Pope, Ron Erhardt and Tom Coughlin) were all rough as sandpaper and generated FEAR amongst the players.
It worked pretty well for those players and coaches.
(I expect to be banned any day now for having the nerve to criticize Lovie Smith here).
I agree with you 100% about Lovie and coaching in general...
if they make the playoffs and go past the first round, then he stays. I really hope that the ownership makes a move if they have another disappointing year, though. The worst thing about the Wanny and Jauron eras was my total apathy toward the team I’ve grown up idolizing after a couple seasons with each Head Coach. Lovie just seems too close to that same approach. I don’t want to “not care” about the Bears, but if they miss the playoffs again……..
The McCaskey's are IDIOTS
especially Michael.
Life’s not real complicated. When you find something that ‘works’ you (hopefully) attempt to recreate it.
The greatest moment in Bears history was the ’85 Bears.
The coaches? The fiery, tough Mike Ditka and (more quiet) just as tough, former Korean War Master Sergeant Buddy Ryan.
Who do the McCaskey’s replace those guys with?
The overmatched (and overrated) Dave Wannstedt and the ‘tough as pasta’ Dick Jauron and Lovie Smith.
Ok. Got it. Thank you. Let’s not have anybody that even remotely resembles Ditka/Ryan roaming the grounds of Halas Hall.
Got it. (Pure Stupidity).
Let’s run as far away from the ’85 Bears as possible.
Unbelievable.
BTW: AS proof of the McCaskey STUPIDIITY, these are the same people that wouldn’t give Bear great Mike Singletary a job in 2002.
A year or two from now, EVERY Bear fan will be saying the exact same thing: “Why in the F+++ is OUR Mike Singletary coaching the hated 49ers? Why isn’t he coaching OUR Chicago Bears?”
That too
What kind of NFL team doesn’t have cheerleaders?
One that
focuses more on the sport than what’s on the sidelines. I love that the Bears are serious enough to not have cheerleaders.
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
-1
:-(
Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear.
Sorry.
:( Besides, I don’t know if my name would mean as much if there actually were HoneyBears now.
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
Come on 'Honey'
All the other teams that have cheerleaders aren’t serious.
Is that what you’re saying?
When I’m at a game, do I ever look at the cheerleaders during ‘game action?’
Never.
During the almost constant stream of TV timeouts?
Guaranteed!
Lol
I’m not trying to start an argument. I understand what you’re saying, but I hate when I’m watching a game and they keep flipping to the girls – who cares? I want to watch football, not some girls in skirts and skimpy tops. Obviously, I’m sure a lot of you would disagree, but we’ll agree to disagree. :) I just don’t think we’re missing out on anything by not having them.
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
i think it would've given you some street cred...
Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear.
LOL
Nice.
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
well...
that’s about as hard-core as i could possibly imagine you being… no disrespect, but you’ve become notorious for your “AWWW’s”…
Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear.
Haha.
I’m not insulted. I don’t think I’m very scary either! Lol
"A lot of fans were drawn to me because they knew that whatever the score was, I was going to run as hard as I could on every play. You don't have that now, you have guys waiting for next week or even next year." - Walter Payton
Game Action/Cheerleaders
That’s a perfect world to me.
When the clock is stopped, they SHOULD put the little ladies on camera as much as possible.
(Hell, half the players are watching them too)!
Ha.
- Smudgers
"Newbie, if the next two words out of your mouth aren't 'See ya' then the third word will be 'Oh my god. My crotch. You've punched me in my crotch." - Dr. Percival Ulysses Cox
by David Taylor on Aug 3, 2009 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions
Where to start
Free agency may have been relatively new, but it still was a factor and something St Vince never had to concern himself with. His players either played for him or they did not play at all. That made things a lot simpler and easier for him.
You dismiss the nature of the modern athlete? How convenient for you. Players are nothing like they were in St Vince’s time. St Vince could never coach today’s players like he coached players in his day.
BTW, there were a few less teams back then not far less, or have you forgotten the AFL did exist for much of Lombardi’s tenure at GB?
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
by lookingdeadred on Aug 3, 2009 8:26 AM CDT up reply actions
Free Agency
Show me where it HURT the 49ers? Where?
I don’t ‘dismiss’ the nature of the modern athlete. Of course they are different now. Everything is to a certain degree.
But this:
Players are nothing like they were in St Vince’s time. St Vince could never coach today’s players like he coached players in his day.
is laughable.
Ever hear of Tom Coughlin? Won the SB in 2007. He’a a Bill Parcells disciple.
Bill Parcells is a Lombardi disciple (he grew up in Lombardi’s neighborhood).
Get it? Lombardi begat Parcells who begat Coughlin.
Coughlin ‘coaching’ today’s players and winning the SB would be almost EXACTLY like Vince Lombardi doing the coaching. I’m not saying that Coughlin is as good as Lombardi. I am saying that their styles are virtually the same.
The AFL? So what? Lombardi coached in the NFL. Two separate leagues.
The NFL did start to lose some prominent players in the draft to the AFL which is why the leagues merged in 1970.
What was happening in the AFL had very little effect on Lombardi. There were half the teams in the NFL in Lombardi’s time than there are now.
I think...
the truely great coaches could coach in any era
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Aug 3, 2009 9:52 AM CDT up reply actions
maybe so
but Lombardi coaching today would be quite different than the one we remember … at least those here old enough to remember him like me.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
by lookingdeadred on Aug 3, 2009 9:59 AM CDT up reply actions
Larry Fitzgerald
Do some research.
Todd Haley, his OC in Arizona and a strict Bill Parcells disciple.
Read about how Haley was ALL over Fitzgerald before the 2008 season, cause Larry used to almost fall down like a girl after catching a pass.
Haley refused to let Fitzgerald rest on his laurels.
Read about how, after winning the NFC Championship game against Philadelphia, Fitzgerald thanked Haley by saying “Thanks for keeping your foot on my throat. You did it. You made me great.”
That’s a DIRECT quote.
St Vince
1. Never said free agency hurt the 49ers, I am saying it is a challenge that Walsh had to deal with that St Vince never had to worry about.
2. Parcells and Coughlin are at best Lombardi-lite. Today’s player would not accept the “motivational techniques” of St Vince.
3. You say the AFL didn’t matter because you either forgot about it when you made you earlier comment, and/or you got caught. Apparently it doesn’t matter because it works against your argument.
To wrap up, Lombardi was a great coach, I am not saying or even suggesting otherwise. I am saying Lombardi could not be Lombardi in today’s NFL. Other great coaches that followed him like Noll, Walsh and Belichek have had to deal with challenges St Vince never had to. It is harder to be a head coach now than it was in Lombardi’s time. Could he have dealt with the challenges of the modern game? I doubt it. You disagree. It happens.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
by lookingdeadred on Aug 3, 2009 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions
How was it a challenge that Walsh
had to deal with? That’s absurd.
2. OMG. Son, you are clueless. Read some of the many books about Bill Parcells. He’s not ‘Lombardi-lite’ at ALL. You just don’t know what you are talking about.
3. The AFL? For virtually ALL of Lombardi’s career in Green Bay, they DIDN"T matter. They were looked and viewed as a junior league.
Players didn’t dream of playing in the AFL. They dreamed of playing in the NFL!
4. Right. NO KIDDING. Things evolve. And coaches like Belichick (another Lombardi/Parcells disciple) have MANY, MANY benefits that Lombardi DIDN’T have.
Like videotape and computers to scout other teams and your own. Way, way more sophistctaed than back then. Enhanced nutrition. Easier traveling. And so on.
Eras are different. Deal with it.
I forgot something
Rule #1: GeoMak is never wrong
Rule #2: When Geo Mak is wrong, see Rule #1.
Just because you disagree with me, does not make you clueless, but I guess people who disagree with you are, by your definition, clueless. How convenient for you.
C ya around, GeoMak.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
by lookingdeadred on Aug 4, 2009 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think anyone can make definitive statements about
what any coach from the past could do now or vice versa. There were unique challenges in every era which the coaches had to deal with that their counterparts might have difficulty in handling. In my opinion, it’s wrong to infer that “the modern game” is more difficult to deal with when there is no way to gauge it. It would be just as wrong to say that players and coaches from the 50’s/60’s, etc. were tougher or better for the same reason.
In Lombardi’s case, his style wasn’t just a screamer and yeller, but his real expertise was relationships with his players and having the respect (sometimes fear) of those men, so they would go beyond their normal capabilities for him and the team. That translates to any era.
Well said BearFan611
And beyond his ‘yelling and screaming’ Lombardi was an accomplished OC with the NY Giants and his ‘X and O’ acumen was a vital component in transforming the Packers from laughingstock to Dynasty.
Lovie has a deer in the headlights look about him, again, in my opinion.
You either:
A) Are ‘calm’ because you’re a quiet, coaching genius (Like a Walsh, Noll or Landry)
OR
B) You better show SOME emotion to fire up your team (ala Lombardi, Ditka, Cowher).
When Kurt Becker gives Lovie a THUMBS DOWN, he’s basically saying that Lovie Isn’t a calm, coaching genius (like Walsh, Noll or Landry) and therefore . . .
. . . he doesn’t compensate for that by being emotional enough to inspire his men (like Lombardi, Ditka, Cowher, etc).
It’s that simple.
He did get 13 thumbs up
and only 2 thumbs down
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Aug 1, 2009 6:58 PM CDT up reply actions
If the Bears fail to make the playoffs,
Lovie has to go.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
by lookingdeadred on Aug 2, 2009 9:32 AM CDT up reply actions
agreed
Lovie has to produce this year, no playoffs and the franchise will fire him
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Aug 2, 2009 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions
That's really unfair.....
That’s my coach….(pouting)……..And if you guys do that, it’s unfair.
Passion For The Game, Loyal To The Name, Chicago Bears, I Trust In Thee, Standing Strong Since 1983.
Minnow
I love ya brother!
Passion For The Game, Loyal To The Name, Chicago Bears, I Trust In Thee, Standing Strong Since 1983.
Geo, right back at ya.
It’s been a while, huh? It’s been hard for me to stay in touch lately but it looks like I should be getting some time off so, heads up : )
Passion For The Game, Loyal To The Name, Chicago Bears, I Trust In Thee, Standing Strong Since 1983.
You kill me dude.
Even though we often disagree, I have TOTAL respect for you!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on Windy City Gridiron
Related FanShots on Windy City Gridiron
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
