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?
fair points well made. we will have to see it play out, but my thought would be that supporting the current version of Lovie as our HC is not an indication that "have we reached such lows that a winning season is good enough now." Even if current Lovie is Bears-era Lovie, Bears-era Lovie took an underperforming Bears team with a marginally-talented QB to the Super Bowl in two or three years. He's actually done what we want to have happen . . . even if he has not learned a thing. On top of that, for all the change that people say has taken place in the league . . . we've been watching playoffs with defense and running game winning.If Lovie is here for, say, 5 years and he develops the team into a winner, taking the team to a Super Bowl . . . and then gets fired, it will be a much better 5 years as a fan than the last 5 years . . . or even the last two 5 years. if he has learned, he should do better . . but even the baseline is not bad considering where we are.
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?
fair points well made. we will have to see it play out, but my thought would be that supporting the current version of Lovie as our HC is not an indication that "have we reached such lows that a winning season is good enough now." Even if current Lovie is Bears-era Lovie, Bears-era Lovie took an underperforming Bears team with a marginally-talented QB to the Super Bowl in two or three years. He's actually done what we want to have happen . . . even if he has not learned a thing. On top of that, for all the change that people say has taken place in the league . . . we've been watching playoffs with defense and running game winning.If Lovie is here for, say, 5 years and he develops the team into a winner, taking the team to a Super Bowl . . . and then gets fired, it will be a much better 5 years as a fan than the last 5 years . . . or even the last two 5 years. if he has learned, he should do better . . but even the baseline is not bad considering where we are.
If he takes us to a Super Bowl, then I have nothing to complain about. Because that would hopefully mean we have a capable offense to go along with a strong defense (I can't see any scenario where the d doesn't get better under Lovie), and if Barth comes back we should have a solid weapon on special teams.Like you said, we'll see how it plays out, and time will tell.
Charles Davis loves the Lovie Hire, but especially Tedford. https://www.pewterreport.com/index.php?option=com_k2&Itemid=20&view=item&layout=item&id=9578
Depending on the personnel acquired in the off season will determine what Tedford's offense will look like.
One thing is most of the coaching hires have coached multiple players to pro bowl status or have been head coaches themselves. That's a good indicator the ownership has newfound urgency to field a better product going forward. As a long standing fan, that excites the hell out of me.
