What has our record been over the last five years? decade? Yeah, so with that in mind ...why are we upset about Lovie? It's not like he's Dungy of the 90s, he was 10-6 a couple season ago
Considering Smith's Bears missed the playoffs 6 out of his 9 years, and Dungy's Bucs missed the playoffs 2 out of his 6 years, it is true that Smith isn't like the Dungy of the 90's (and into the 2000s).
However, he has a 84–66–0 regular season record and is has a NFC championship title and 3 NFC North, damn good
What has our record been over the last five years? decade? Yeah, so with that in mind ...why are we upset about Lovie? It's not like he's Dungy of the 90s, he was 10-6 a couple season ago
Considering Smith's Bears missed the playoffs 6 out of his 9 years, and Dungy's Bucs missed the playoffs 2 out of his 6 years, it is true that Smith isn't like the Dungy of the 90's (and into the 2000s).
I was referring to philosophy but fair point, not sure how their actual records look side by side
What has our record been over the last five years? decade? Yeah, so with that in mind ...why are we upset about Lovie? It's not like he's Dungy of the 90s, he was 10-6 a couple season ago
Considering Smith's Bears missed the playoffs 6 out of his 9 years, and Dungy's Bucs missed the playoffs 2 out of his 6 years, it is true that Smith isn't like the Dungy of the 90's (and into the 2000s).
However, he has a 84–66–0 regular season record and is has a NFC championship title and 3 NFC North, damn good
getting his team into the playoffs 1/3 of the time is not damn good. and don't forget he finished in 3rd or 4th place 5 out of those 9 years.
To be fair, Lovie had a 10-6 season where they didn't make the playoffs (incredibly rare, as we know). He also had the Cutler injury season, where they were 7-3 and Caleb Hanie QB'd them to 4 straight losses (point totals of 20, 3, 10, and 14), before McCown took over and they split the final 2. Only one season below .500, and that was 7-9.
People hate to admit it, but lots of things depend on circumstance and injuries. For a team without a franchise QB he was pretty damn impressive. It's not like he was the OC for that team. And he wouldn't be the first guy to struggle with one team and then rock it with the next.
What has our record been over the last five years? decade? Yeah, so with that in mind ...why are we upset about Lovie? It's not like he's Dungy of the 90s, he was 10-6 a couple season ago
Considering Smith's Bears missed the playoffs 6 out of his 9 years, and Dungy's Bucs missed the playoffs 2 out of his 6 years, it is true that Smith isn't like the Dungy of the 90's (and into the 2000s).
However, he has a 84–66–0 regular season record and is has a NFC championship title and 3 NFC North, damn good
getting his team into the playoffs 1/3 of the time is not damn good. and don't forget he finished in 3rd or 4th place 5 out of those 9 years.
I'll take 84-66 ALL day every day even on Sundays!!
That or better. Preferably better.
Ha - watch this be a return to the Gruden years. A perpetual 6 to 10 win team.
Ha - watch this be a return to the Gruden years. A perpetual 6 to 10 win team.
--or a Lovie coached Bears team, which missed the playoffs 6 out of his 9 years there, but they won a lot of regular season games.... ???
Ha - watch this be a return to the Gruden years. A perpetual 6 to 10 win team.
--or a Lovie coached Bears team, which missed the playoffs 6 out of his 9 years there, but they won a lot of regular season games.... ???
One pretty clear difference is that Lovie took over a team that was sub .500 during the prior coach's (Jauron?) tenure and I think had only one playoff appearance (?). Lovie took that team to a Super Bowl within a couple years and finished with an 81-63 record, overall. By comparison, Gruden took over a winning team with three or four playoff appearances under the prior coach and a hall of fame defense in place . . .he immediately won a SB, but then went 57-55 overall. You could certainly make an argument that Lovie did more with less, so if we are choosing between those two options now . . . and we don't have a Dungy-esque team right now . . . . I think Lovie has the advantage, right? I would think that Dungy fans would love having Lovie, but so should Gruden fans if we are just going off records, right?Given our record over the last 5-10 years, why is Lovie's Chicago record a bad thing? We are more like the Jauron-led Bears than the Dungy-led Bucs, right?
Ha - watch this be a return to the Gruden years. A perpetual 6 to 10 win team.
--or a Lovie coached Bears team, which missed the playoffs 6 out of his 9 years there, but they won a lot of regular season games.... ???
One pretty clear difference is that Lovie took over a team that was sub .500 during the prior coach's (Jauron?) tenure and I think had only one playoff appearance (?). Lovie took that team to a Super Bowl within a couple years and finished with an 81-63 record, overall. By comparison, Gruden took over a winning team with three or four playoff appearances under the prior coach and a hall of fame defense in place . . .he immediately won a SB, but then went 57-55 overall. You could certainly make an argument that Lovie did more with less, so if we are choosing between those two options now . . . and we don't have a Dungy-esque team right now . . . . I think Lovie has the advantage, right? I would think that Dungy fans would love having Lovie, but so should Gruden fans if we are just going off records, right?Given our record over the last 5-10 years, why is Lovie's Chicago record a bad thing? We are more like the Jauron-led Bears than the Dungy-led Bucs, right?
Based on our team's last 5 years or so, just about anything is better. however, imo, we are going right back to Dungy-land. Where Sam Wyche left Dungy with Sapp, Brooks, Lynch. Whereas the Raheem/Schiano era is leaving Lovie McCoy, David, and Revis as building blocks, with possible good pieces like AC, Foster, Barron and maybe even Banks. We are now getting a coach who knows defense, like Dungy, and will capitalize on that.I don't understand why people are so happy about a coach who missed the playoffs 6 out of 9 years, but delivered 8+ wins 7 out of 9 years. --People were fed up with 9-7, 10-6 records out of Dungy, because he couldn't win the big game/provide an offense that could get us over the hump.I can see the hope, in producing a better team and winning a few more games, but I have a bad feeling that if Tedford turns into a Mike Shula or Clyde, Lovie will stick with him, and we will be back in the 99-01 years all over again. A top three defense, a bottom third offense, and the inability to get to the big game.Basically, have we reached such lows that a winning season is good enough now?
Well, if you're getting the Bear's Lovie - it's a bad thing. His performance in Chicago, at the end of the day, was unsatisfactory. Yet the expectation (and hope) is that Lovie will be a better coach than he was. He was a very good coach, now the hope is that he's great. It's very possible he's made the changes necessary for that to happen.
Well, if you're getting the Bear's Lovie - it's a bad thing. His performance in Chicago, at the end of the day, was unsatisfactory. Yet the expectation (and hope) is that Lovie will be a better coach than he was. He was a very good coach, now the hope is that he's great. It's very possible he's made the changes necessary for that to happen.
I hope so, but his comments about how a defense (probably not getting this right), but a good defense gets you 8 wins, a good special teams gets you 2 more wins, and the rest is on offense. That doesn't sound to me like a coach who is going to change from what got him to where he was.I hope I'm wrong, but seems like history is about to repeat itself with the old regime leaving a foundation, and a good defensive coach is coming in to build a defensive legacy (like Dungy did with the pieces Wyche left).--I'm not expecting Air Coryell, but part of me feels like we are going to see a lot of 15 pts or less games.
Well, if you're getting the Bear's Lovie - it's a bad thing. His performance in Chicago, at the end of the day, was unsatisfactory. Yet the expectation (and hope) is that Lovie will be a better coach than he was. He was a very good coach, now the hope is that he's great. It's very possible he's made the changes necessary for that to happen.
I hope so, but his comments about how a defense (probably not getting this right), but a good defense gets you 8 wins, a good special teams gets you 2 more wins, and the rest is on offense. That doesn't sound to me like a coach who is going to change from what got him to where he was.I hope I'm wrong, but seems like history is about to repeat itself with the old regime leaving a foundation, and a good defensive coach is coming in to build a defensive legacy (like Dungy did with the pieces Wyche left).--I'm not expecting Air Coryell, but part of me feels like we are going to see a lot of 15 pts or less games.
This was talked about in another post, so I'll quickly rehash it. I, and others, are of the opinion that Lovie was trying to emphasize the importance of offence. Even with a great defence and great special teams - you can only get 10 wins which often isn't good enough for the playoffs. I also think Lovie is right. It also was likely a comment on his last year where he had dominating defence and special teams but little offence. So I took his comment a different way.
Well, if you're getting the Bear's Lovie - it's a bad thing. His performance in Chicago, at the end of the day, was unsatisfactory. Yet the expectation (and hope) is that Lovie will be a better coach than he was. He was a very good coach, now the hope is that he's great. It's very possible he's made the changes necessary for that to happen.
I hope so, but his comments about how a defense (probably not getting this right), but a good defense gets you 8 wins, a good special teams gets you 2 more wins, and the rest is on offense. That doesn't sound to me like a coach who is going to change from what got him to where he was.I hope I'm wrong, but seems like history is about to repeat itself with the old regime leaving a foundation, and a good defensive coach is coming in to build a defensive legacy (like Dungy did with the pieces Wyche left).--I'm not expecting Air Coryell, but part of me feels like we are going to see a lot of 15 pts or less games.
This was talked about in another post, so I'll quickly rehash it. I, and others, are of the opinion that Lovie was trying to emphasize the importance of offence. Even with a great defence and great special teams - you can only get 10 wins which often isn't good enough for the playoffs. I also think Lovie is right. It also was likely a comment on his last year where he had dominating defence and special teams but little offence. So I took his comment a different way.
If that's the case, and he truly understands he can't rest on avg, like Grossman, Barrian, Wade, and Clark, then maybe we'll see some great things. I want to jump in both feet and believe, but there is just that part of me that screams.... DUNGY-CLONE and I get nervous about having "Trent Dilfer/Eric Zier/Shaun King" all over again.
