The Bears kept Lovie for reasons other than money. Oh, and I'm the tooth fairy.
Well there's been a couple of days now since the Bears announcement of massive changes while things aren't changing all that much. I don't quite subscribe to the theory that nothing has happened--changing two coordinators and minimizing Lovie's role is indeed substantial. The changes, I think, will prove to be more than superficial if it comes to pass that we don't get "his guy" in the role.
However, there is one fact that is sticking out to me as almost a slap in the face to intelligent Bears fans. The continued insistence that Lovie Smith was kept around because the organization "really thinks they can turn it around quick."
I'm excited to remain in my position as head football coach of the Chicago Bears. I think I'm remaining in the position because ownership, administration, the powers that be have confidence that I can, that we can get the Bears back on top.
That was Lovie Smith in Tuesday's super-special big change press conference, where Ted Phillips, Jerry Angelo, and Lovie Smith all expounded on the new changes to the system. Obtaining two new coordinators is a rare thing, and it will be very interesting to watch the situation develop.
Ted Philips continued on Wendesday to insist the same thing while talking to ESPN 1000's Afternoon Saloon Show:
If I didn't think that Lovie could get the job done again, he wouldn't be here, regardless of whether there is one month or one year left on his contract.
That's all well and good, Mr. Phillips, but there's a problem with that. There's not one month, or one year left on his contract. There's two. Those two years are worth roughly $11,000,000. You're also in a very unique situation.
I don't think that it surprises anyone here that historically, the Bears are viewed as something of a stingy organization, much like Homer Simpson sorta likes Duff beer. They often seem hesitant to pay big money for things, and when they do, they're often paying it to the wrong people. (Though I hear Cedric Benson is enjoying his renaissance in Cincinnati.)
That being said, the organization is looking at a head coach owed $11 mil, and the possibility of not even playing football in two seasons. When looking at it from a business standpoint, I can definitely understand avoiding paying two people for a year when they aren't doing anything. If that's going to be the case, though, don't pander to us with cliches, indirect answers, and misdirection.
We know that things cost money, and giving it up in very large chunks hurts. Anyone who's ever had to get their car repaired in an emergency, or had damage to their home, or even been to an emergency room. We pay these amounts, though, because that's what has to be done.
Even this very morning, while on with 670 The Score's Mully and Hanley, when asked by Hanley specifically:
Ted, a lot of people, you know the perception's out there, a lot of people believe that the only reason Lovie's still here is he has two years $11 million or so left on his contract. My question to you would be, and I think most Bear fans would want this asked, if Lovie had been out of contract, if Jerry had been out of contract, and if given the season you just had, would they have been brought back just because it's continuity and the right thing to do?
Phillips then spoke about how he was asked this before, and reiterated the "if we didn't think they could do it, they wouldn't be here" line. He then spoke about how he knows fans want to win, and they want to win too.
Then Hanley asked to clarify, that Phillips would indeed offer them a contract if they had been out of it. Phillips then said (emphasis mine):
I, I can't answer a hypothetical question. But I can tell you that I believe that, where we're at with Lovie and Jerry, that they can turn this around. That working together is our best chance at turning it around quickly.
Unfortunately, Mr. Phillips, you should be able to answer that hypothetical question, but the party line has been chosen, and I understand that. If you truly believe that these are the two who can get it done, you can unequivocally answer "Yes, I would give them a contract." I know that saying "No, I wouldn't" suggests that you're making the wrong choice now. Many believe you are. But at least give us the benefit of the doubt.
So as for me personally, I'm taking a wait-and-see approach. I am, to a fault, always optimistic during the offseason. There will be no one happier than me if this group and the new changes do return us to the playoffs, or even the Super Bowl. I will be willing to admit that I was wrong about this group.
I just wish the team could at least admit that financials, among other things, will always play in their decisions.
59 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Could you at least give my kids
more than a lousy quarter per tooth? Good write up.
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
You will have to fill out requisition form 54-BU
Then it takes 6-8 weeks for your form to be processed and approved. Then it will take 4 weeks to put the new figures into the system.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
I want and/or need followers. http://www.twitter.com/kdoggers
I think
it was 75% about the money… 25% wanting to not make radical changes…
But, if they were all at the end of their contract, no way in hell do they come back.
by Lester A. Wiltfong Jr. on Jan 7, 2010 1:24 PM CST reply actions
That's for sure
cause Phillips refused to answer the hypothetical question.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - Dexter season 4....I mean Lovie season 6.
LOL
I heard him tell someone on the Score I think it was… “No trick questions” when they asked him about if it was Lovie’s last year would things be different.
You are all gentlemen (and ladies) and good judges of cheap whiskey.
here is the bottom line
Bears fans will sell out Soldier Field almost regardless of the quality of the product, and the owners know that. It is indeed about the money and owners know they can put a mediocre product on the field and keep a coach who has worn out his welcome and not have to take a hit on his salary by firing him. If the fans started to vote with their feet, change would have happened this year for sure. The McCaskeys know we won’t.
"I am not an animal!" - Merrick
Stingy organization
The Bears are 5th on the payroll list for the entire NFL. I like to think they’re just not very good with the money they allocate.
"But it doesn't matter what I do, what I choose. I'm what's wrong. This is fate" - Dexter season 4....I mean Lovie season 6.
And of course, the mother of all ironies
The Bears are noted for their cheapness and yet pay their HC more than even Bill Belichick makes.
The Sporting News recently ranked the 50 greatest coaches from all sports of all time.
The only active NFL coach was Belichick who came in at #20.
Lovie makes more than Bill.
Go figure!
Ah, but consider why Lovie got his money.
The organization thought they’d found that perfect guy. When he was getting the cash, he had the “prototypical Bears” thing going to a T.
We were destroying our division, playing amazing defensive football, and had a superb running game. That’s what he earned his money on—his team at the time was doing all the things we as Bears fans always talk about. The organization thought it was perfect, and we are where we are today.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
I want and/or need followers. http://www.twitter.com/kdoggers
Yup.
Jauron went 13-3 in 2001, then the next two seasons went 4-12 and 7-9.
Lovie comes in 2004, has a “rebuilding year” that they kept referring to, and goes 5-11.
Next year, BAM, 11-5. Year after that, BAM 13-3 and Super Bowl. And at the time, was the lowest paid HC in the NFL. Just like the Bears always do, they reward their own.
Lovie had a good thing going when he wasn’t calling the plays. Maybe, just maybe, if we get the right coordinators in here, Lovie can do it again.
Honestly, I think he can. He knows Chicago football, he knows the players, and I really think he can be a good leader. I reckon we’ll see…
You are all gentlemen (and ladies) and good judges of cheap whiskey.
The Bears had a lot of talent on the defensive
side of the ball, Lovie’s area of expertise. They had an excellent RB in Thomas Jones. And in 2006 drafted one of the most electric players in NFL history, Devin Hester.
It started coming together under Lovie in 2005 and fully got there in 2006.
Since then, pure mediocrity.
Personally, I think Lovie’s ship has sailed in Chicago. Unlike a guy like Bill Belichick, I don’t think he’s anywhere a good enough HC to put this team back on track quickly.
In fairness to lovie, I will also that few are (comparable to Billy Belichick).
Aren't you forgetting about the 2 years immediately following the SB when he wasn't calling plays?
He sucked then and had no excuses.
Well, I wouldn't exactly say that
Bob Babich was fit for the play-calling duties. He is a good position coach, no doubt, but the promotion just didn’t work out.
Rivera was capable, and Lovie may have been capable if he didn’t have other responsibilities as well.
All I’m saying is, if we get someone who can effectively call plays, Lovie may end up being a good HC again.
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Official_WCG
You may be right, I just have never been impressed by his abilities as a HC.
His clock managment, lack of adjustments, teams that come out flat in big games, terrible challenges, and virtually no success in developing players over the years have been part of his regime from the beginning.
There is certainly an argument for Angelo’s inability to judge talent, but maybe it isn’t a coincidence that the core players that helped get us to the SB, with the exception of Harris and Hester, were around before Lovie showed up. As they got older, injured, or whatever, the players that tried to take their place, or even those players themselves, never got any better, in fact even regressed. To me that points more toward coaching and if you wanted to use the argument that the coordinators and position coaches didn’t do their jobs, it was still responsiblity to pick those guys and make sure they were doing their jobs. Lovie strikes me as kind of a “Teflon Coach”…nothing sticks to him.
Can't argue w/ the
penalties/ lack of preparation. The Falcons game blew my mind.
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Official_WCG
No argument
but still . . . Belichick ditched his first round QB (Bledsoe) for a sixth rounder. And the rest is history. Both Belichick and Lovie were former DC’s. And that’s where the comparison ends.
Lovie can ACT like a HC. Bill Belichick IS a HC.
yeah but
at the time the rest of the division was weaker. if we had the same team from that year this year, we would be 9-7 at most. Lovie and Angelo were content to stay with what they had after the Super Bowl as opposed to improve like most team’s do. And that is what cost us in the end
by frenchbears113 on Jan 7, 2010 3:52 PM CST up reply actions
Oh, I didn't say it was smart.
Just said that’s what happened.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
I want and/or need followers. http://www.twitter.com/kdoggers
Here is the thing
It most certainly was about the money BUT no way would I recommend they/he admit that. He would be crucified much worse than what he will get this off-season. You just can’t admit that yes – this was a money move. Fans know the deal and sometimes a fan has to be content with knowing the unmentioned truth.
Kev H
I nominate you for the Bears Communications Director.
The Bears managements continual lying and downplaying things, along with just acting like the fans are clueless when being spoon fed this bs is just vomit inducing.
You come out, give us a good car analogy and you know what, I could take that from the management. Along with the typical we feel he can do it in coordination with 2 new coordinators and we need someone to lead the newbies. Whatever BS they want to throw in.
Beyond the money
There is this.
The McCaskey’s are clueless when it comes to hiring a HC.
Their resume’ (Wannstedt, Jauron, (almost Dave McGinnis) and Lovie Smith).
All DC’s, all, for the most part considered nice guys, and none of them with a fraction of the leadership skills of a Mike Ditka and a Buddy Ryan, the only two Bear coaches to bring the Bear a SB or a George Halas.
I posted this a few months ago. It doesn’t do any good to fire Lovie Smith and hire another guy just like him and the others.
This all goes back to Michael McCaskey. Like his idol (Jerry Jones) he was jealous of the popular HC (Mike Ditka – as Jones was jealous of Jimmy Johnson) so the decision was made to hire more of a nice guy, puppet type of HC that could be controlled . . . instead of a controlling type of HC (like a Mike Ditka of Jimmy Johnson) that could actually whip a unit into good enough shape to kick ass every Sunday.
The history on this is crystal clear.
Great minds think alike.
I tell any and everyone who will listen the exact same thing. You bring in a no nonsense coach and let him do his job. I mean really, The list of Bears coaches since Ditka are nothing more than puppets like you said.
You get it too Ike
Honestly, some others here do too but I feel that most really don’t understand why this all such a losing battle.
It’s really no more complicated than this.
It’s like a guy who had a hot looking girlfriend. Yeah she’s a knockout, but she gets all the attention when they’re out in public, and he constantly has to worry about other guys hitting on here and so on and so forth.
So he eventually gets rid of her and his next three girlfriends aren’t hot at all, but he has a lot less headaches.
F++K it!!!!
I want another hot looking woman. In 1985 we had the hottest looking woman on Planet Earth.
In 1985 we had the hottest looking woman on Planet Earth.
Not quite the words I would use to describe Da Coach, but each to their own. Don’t forget the snazzy threads, either !

"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
I see that picture and i just think of the song
“Bad to bone..duh nuh nuh nuh nuh..bad to the bone duh nuh nuh nuh nuh..Baaaad….Baaaad”
by Chitownproduct on Jan 8, 2010 6:55 AM CST up reply actions
My favorite quote so far
By Phillips and not an exact quote…:
“When is the last time a coach has replaced both coordinators? I don’t think it has ever happened.”
There is a reason for that dumbass, because it is a bad idea that clearly does not address the real problem(s) ie GM and HC.
by No It All on Jan 7, 2010 2:33 PM CST reply actions 3 recs
BTW
There’s no reason to be rude here.
I feel strongly that Ted Phillips should be referred to as ‘MR. Dumbass!’
Watch whatever OC & DC we get, it will be a two contract at best...
Once again way pay anyone to sit at home, let alone two people who are getting paid to do the same job.
Also if they don’t come out in support of keeping Lovie, like what they did with Fox in Carolina telling him he can comeback for one more year, then the team knows he is a lame duck coach. And what happens if Lovie does turn it around and wins the SB? Now you have a ticked off coach, because you came out and said that keeping Lovie was do to money only, who is coming up on an expiring contract. Think Lovie would come back?
That’s not true!!! WHY THE F*CK WOULD YOU SAY THAT YOU AHOLE!! Ok maybe your right but you gotta give a little something here for it to work. I don’t know what I’m going to do this is the worst thing I’ve ever read, this day could not get any worse. Fine, F*ck it, you’re right.
by Ditkavsworld
OT
Rich Gannon reached out to Al Davis to offer his assistance in guiding JaMarcus Russell, the Raider responded by stating that Gannon’s the one that needs help.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=4805387
We just need to execute better - Lovie Del Negro
I think Al Davis
has been gone far too long, imho.
I'm a firm believer in the philosophy of a ruling class. Especially since I rule. -Randal Graves
I want and/or need followers. http://www.twitter.com/kdoggers
It really is the perfect
example of staying around too long or out living his usefulness. Whichever way you want to look at it. At one time he was considered one of the best. It really is a shame and must be hard on older Raiders fans who can remember when he was great.
Russell
is a bigger bust than Leaf. The guy seriously believes he is not the problem in Oakland, even though his backup played ten times better than Russell has ever played. He never studies film, doesn’t workout and goes to vegas after skipping practice due to “personal reasons.” I have always despised Russell because he was severely overrated and of course Mr. Senility over there refuses to acknowledge that. So Bears fans it could be worse, we could have JaMarcus Russell as our QB
by frenchbears113 on Jan 7, 2010 3:56 PM CST up reply actions
JaMarcus Russell
really is a bust. The perfect offensive figurehead for a deteriorating organization.
OT
Would a recent player be a horrible OC hire? With no coaching exp?
I was thinking Steve Young?
Don’t attack me.
You moronic blithering little.....
J/K Couldn’t resist.
If you can't laugh at yourself you must not be very funny.
is there even the slightest fragment of a chance...
…that we endure one more bad-to-mediocre season with Lovie, fire him, and then hire Bill Cowher next year? Rumors right now say that while he is interested in returning to coaching, none of the vacancies available this year are really grabbing his attention.
But if we get rid of Lovie next year, it seems to me Cowher would be a natural fit. During his days in Pittsburgh they were all about strong defense and a strong run-first offense…which is also the classic Bears style. In addition, he knew how to take that and combine it with a young, talented QB (Rothlesberger or however he spells his name)…just like now we have Cutler here.
The style seems to be a match made in heaven.
Seems like
as legitimate of a possibility as any others. If the Bears bring in Bates and Fisch and the offense really explodes next year. I would think for better or worse that Bates might be the front runner for the HC position at that point. He would most likely sign cheaper than Cowher and I’m sure that would appeal to the McCaskeys.
It would be entertaining to see Cowher roaming Chicago’s sideline during games.
If Angelo sticks by what he said in 2004,
which was saying that he’d never do it again (hire a HC), and that the next autopsy would be his own… then that tells me, if Lovie is canned, so is Jerry.
Listening to Ted Phillips talk, he also puts them together as a pair… as a team.
SO, if Cowher holds out til 2011, and Angelo and Lovie are axed, it might be an interesting situation brewing, especially if the Bears tell Bates he could be on the fast track in order to bring him here.
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Official_WCG
It is hard
to imagine a scenario where Angelo stays and Lovie goes. Especially if the Bears are going to consider someone like Cowher. Cowher will want control over all personnel decisions wherever he ends up.
I would think that after the owners and players union negotiate a CBA that the McCaskeys would be less hesitant to pull the trigger on a buy out of Lovie’s and Angelo’s contracts. Plus another year will have passed and the buy out would be for less. I believe that Angelo is under contract for at least one year longer than Lovie.
If Bates is here and the offense really does do well and the defense has improved enough that we are more competitive, they might just let Lovie finish out his contract, buy out the remaining year on Angelo, then promote Bates and go from there. Maybe?
I agree for the most part
but I think in that scenario, Bates would just be a holdover as OC, like Halas did with Ryan. Is that what you meant or that Bates would become HC and Cowher as GM?
Wonder if
Cowher would be happy as just the GM. I was under the impression that he wants to coach too. That could be an interesting scenario indeed. Cowher as GM with Bates as HC. If we bring Bates in now, then consider hiring Cowher as HC/GM in 2011, do we risk having a Cutler problem if Cowher for some reason doesn’t want Bates as OC or Bates is offered an HC job with a different team then?
I guess what I meant was
2009: Hub Arkush says that a high-ranking member of the team told him that they reached out to Cowher. The team disputed it, but Arkush fired back that he was 100% certain, and then it went away. Either way, we have to assume there would be interest in Cowher.
End of season, Lovie is told he will return in 2010, but needs to win.
Let’s say right now, we tell Jeremy Bates he would be on the fast track to becoming HC, if he joins us now, as OC, and the offense explodes in 2010, and if Lovie is fired after 2010.
That leaves us in an interesting situation. Lovie + Jerry are fired, Bates has been led to believe he’d be the next guy up, and 2011 rolls around with Cowher looking to coach/ manage.
I know it’s a lot of “what-ifs”, but I’m bored. And it might actually happen.
Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Official_WCG
The only problem is what if Bates isn't very good at OC...
I hope they don’t make any stupid longterm promises….similar to their stupid longterm contracts.
And again, the problem just goes on and on
Let’s say that Lovie fails and that Bates does a good job as OC.
Does that mean Bates is qualified to be a HC?
Not at all. Cam Cameron & Scott Linehan are but two recent examples of very good, experienced OC’s that failed as HC’s. And there are a million other OC’s and DC’s too who fit this bill.
Until people (like owners and GMs) start to understand that the essential criteria for success as a HC is leadership first, and not playcalling, the problem will go on and on and on.
I’ve been saying this for years. Michael Lombardi just wrote an excellent column about this the other day.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?id=09000d5d81580cb2&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true
I'm Being Pulled In Multiple Directions
For one I have to agree, how could paying $11 Mill for a person that is no longer with the team and then having to pay someone new not make a difference?
For the other direction….. Does it really make sense to completely clean house and bring in a bunch of new people that, more than likely would resemble what we already have? Underperforming, innexpierienced coaches?
Trust me im not a fan of Lovie Smith…. and i dont buy into the Chicago Bears propoganda…. but Its hard to believe that the Bears org. does not care about winning. Everyone wants to be the best, no matter what they do.


























