Week 11: Vikings (4-5) @ Bears (suck), Noon CBS/780

[jersey cubs fan]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

 

Kruetz was a 6 time pro bowler. He had his day as a leader, even if he was credited as being a leader past his best years

The team also sucked when he was at his best.

 

FWIW, I didn't mean he was a terrible player. I meant he was a terrible leader. All bluster. He was a leader for the sake of saying he was leading, not to accomplish anything meaningful. He had some good years as a lineman, however, him being the best lineman on the team was neither good for any other lineman, or the team. Kreutz was the type of guy that said we dip our balls in the rookies mouths because somebody dipped their balls in his mouth when he was a a rookie, not because he thought it helped the team grow together.

[minnesotacubsfan]

 

Yeah, Lovie always had everybody ready and willing to play hard on gameday. He was a talk softly and carry a big stick kind of coach that players respected. Nobody was going to respect the goofy Trestman unless he came in and turned the offense into an elite squad. He made them better, but that ended quickly. In my opinion he "lost" the defense last year but it really became the issue it is today when the offense took a step back. Without a 28+ point offense, Trestman doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

i think Lovie just delegated all the leadership to Urlacher and Kreutz and let them deliver the tough messages. Lovie himself was just nice to everyone.

 

That's completely wrong. Please stop praising Kreutz.

 

Do you miss Benson?

[minnesotacubsfan]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

 

Kruetz was a 6 time pro bowler. He had his day as a leader, even if he was credited as being a leader past his best years

The team also sucked when he was at his best.

 

FWIW, I didn't mean he was a terrible player. I meant he was a terrible leader. All bluster. He was a leader for the sake of saying he was leading, not to accomplish anything meaningful. He had some good years as a lineman, however, him being the best lineman on the team was neither good for any other lineman, or the team. Kreutz was the type of guy that said we dip our balls in the rookies mouths because somebody dipped their balls in his mouth when he was a a rookie, not because he thought it helped the team grow together.

 

Ball dipping is something I (thankfully) wasn't aware of

 

 

Eta: and yes, the team sucked a good portion of those years, but he did go to the PB the year of the SB, and the pivotal 2 years leading up to the SB year. So, he was good AND a leader when the team was good.

 

 

And [expletive] Benson

[RynoRules]

Yeah, I never bought the notion that Kruetz was some was Patton-like leader. It seemed more to me that no one else on offense during that era was any good or deserved the gig.

 

Lovie definitely had the love and respect of his players. He's living proof that you don't have to be a consistent winner to earn that. I think it has to do more with style and pedigree (i.e., he recently had coached with and for some well thought of individuals).

 

Since Ditka we certainly seem to hire some dud personalities though. Wanny, Jauron, Lovie, and Trestman. Not exactly the Harbaugh's of the world.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, I never bought the notion that Kruetz was some was Patton-like leader. It seemed more to me that no one else on offense during that era was any good or deserved the gig.

 

Lovie definitely had the love and respect of his players. He's living proof that you don't have to be a consistent winner to earn that. I think it has to do more with style and pedigree (i.e., he recently had coached with and for some well thought of individuals).

 

Since Ditka we certainly seem to hire some dud personalities though. Wanny, Jauron, Lovie, and Trestman. Not exactly the Harbaugh's of the world.

 

Lovie was a consistent winner, and he was not a dud personality. He was a strong personality where it mattered, with his players. The problem was simply he did not win enough due to offensive blind spots.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Yeah, I never bought the notion that Kruetz was some was Patton-like leader. It seemed more to me that no one else on offense during that era was any good or deserved the gig.

 

Lovie definitely had the love and respect of his players. He's living proof that you don't have to be a consistent winner to earn that. I think it has to do more with style and pedigree (i.e., he recently had coached with and for some well thought of individuals).

 

Since Ditka we certainly seem to hire some dud personalities though. Wanny, Jauron, Lovie, and Trestman. Not exactly the Harbaugh's of the world.

 

Lovie was a consistent winner, and he was not a dud personality. He was a strong personality where it mattered, with his players. The problem was simply he did not win enough due to offensive blind spots.

 

Yes. Getting to the SB in Chicago seemed to give him too much power, or Angelo was week and let go of too much power. I actually like Lovie as a HC a lot, Trestman as an OC under him? Could that work?

[Sammy Sofa]

Do you miss Benson?

 

No?

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, I never bought the notion that Kruetz was some was Patton-like leader. It seemed more to me that no one else on offense during that era was any good or deserved the gig.

 

Lovie definitely had the love and respect of his players. He's living proof that you don't have to be a consistent winner to earn that. I think it has to do more with style and pedigree (i.e., he recently had coached with and for some well thought of individuals).

 

Since Ditka we certainly seem to hire some dud personalities though. Wanny, Jauron, Lovie, and Trestman. Not exactly the Harbaugh's of the world.

 

Lovie was a consistent winner, and he was not a dud personality. He was a strong personality where it mattered, with his players. The problem was simply he did not win enough due to offensive blind spots.

 

Yes. Getting to the SB in Chicago seemed to give him too much power, or Angelo was week and let go of too much power. I actually like Lovie as a HC a lot, Trestman as an OC under him? Could that work?

 

It could have, although it obviously never will now.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Do you miss Benson?

 

No?

 

I was just being a knucklehead...didn't really mean anything

[minnesotacubsfan]

Yeah, I never bought the notion that Kruetz was some was Patton-like leader. It seemed more to me that no one else on offense during that era was any good or deserved the gig.

 

Lovie definitely had the love and respect of his players. He's living proof that you don't have to be a consistent winner to earn that. I think it has to do more with style and pedigree (i.e., he recently had coached with and for some well thought of individuals).

 

Since Ditka we certainly seem to hire some dud personalities though. Wanny, Jauron, Lovie, and Trestman. Not exactly the Harbaugh's of the world.

 

Lovie was a consistent winner, and he was not a dud personality. He was a strong personality where it mattered, with his players. The problem was simply he did not win enough due to offensive blind spots.

 

Yes. Getting to the SB in Chicago seemed to give him too much power, or Angelo was week and let go of too much power. I actually like Lovie as a HC a lot, Trestman as an OC under him? Could that work?

 

It could have, although it obviously never will now.

 

dream killer

 

but i agree

[Guest]

i'd rather day dream on what could've been with mccoy or arians which is who i wanted

 

i was on the clements bandwagon too but there's nothing to lament there yet

[RynoRules]

Yeah, I never bought the notion that Kruetz was some was Patton-like leader. It seemed more to me that no one else on offense during that era was any good or deserved the gig.

 

Lovie definitely had the love and respect of his players. He's living proof that you don't have to be a consistent winner to earn that. I think it has to do more with style and pedigree (i.e., he recently had coached with and for some well thought of individuals).

 

Since Ditka we certainly seem to hire some dud personalities though. Wanny, Jauron, Lovie, and Trestman. Not exactly the Harbaugh's of the world.

 

Lovie was a consistent winner, and he was not a dud personality. He was a strong personality where it mattered, with his players. The problem was simply he did not win enough due to offensive blind spots.

 

You and I may define

'consistent winner" differently. He made the playoffs three times in nine years. I realize that includes a 10-6 finish in his final season, but the reason they didn't make the playoffs that year is that they were 3-5 in their final eight games.

 

By "dud personalities" I meant their public personas. I acknowledged that Lovie was great with the players and in the locker room.

[WrigleyField 22]

Yeah, I never bought the notion that Kruetz was some was Patton-like leader. It seemed more to me that no one else on offense during that era was any good or deserved the gig.

 

Lovie definitely had the love and respect of his players. He's living proof that you don't have to be a consistent winner to earn that. I think it has to do more with style and pedigree (i.e., he recently had coached with and for some well thought of individuals).

 

Since Ditka we certainly seem to hire some dud personalities though. Wanny, Jauron, Lovie, and Trestman. Not exactly the Harbaugh's of the world.

 

Lovie was a consistent winner, and he was not a dud personality. He was a strong personality where it mattered, with his players. The problem was simply he did not win enough due to offensive blind spots.

 

Yes. Getting to the SB in Chicago seemed to give him too much power, or Angelo was week and let go of too much power. I actually like Lovie as a HC a lot, Trestman as an OC under him? Could that work?

It would have worked and it almost did, but fell apart and we ended up with Terry Shea for Lovies first season.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

why? i don't care if he was a meathead jerk in the mold of an alpha beta enforcer.

 

So was Urlacher, but despite that he still knew how to manage the team, and especially when it came to managing the defense during the game. There's nothing to indicate Kreutz had anything along those lines. Both were sadistic dickheads, but one actually (accidentally?) also knew how to lead a team.

Pretty sure Kreutz was an all-pro who called all the protections at the line. He had street cred, he wasn't some limp dick off the street.

[jersey cubs fan]

Yeah, I never bought the notion that Kruetz was some was Patton-like leader. It seemed more to me that no one else on offense during that era was any good or deserved the gig.

 

Lovie definitely had the love and respect of his players. He's living proof that you don't have to be a consistent winner to earn that. I think it has to do more with style and pedigree (i.e., he recently had coached with and for some well thought of individuals).

 

Since Ditka we certainly seem to hire some dud personalities though. Wanny, Jauron, Lovie, and Trestman. Not exactly the Harbaugh's of the world.

 

Lovie was a consistent winner, and he was not a dud personality. He was a strong personality where it mattered, with his players. The problem was simply he did not win enough due to offensive blind spots.

 

You and I may define

'consistent winner" differently. He made the playoffs three times in nine years. I realize that includes a 10-6 finish in his final season, but the reason they didn't make the playoffs that year is that they were 3-5 in their final eight games.

 

By "dud personalities" I meant their public personas. I acknowledged that Lovie was great with the players and in the locker room.

He won quite a bit, just not enough. All those amazing leaders weren't enough.

[jersey cubs fan]

He averaged 9 wins a year with only 2 sub .500 after his first season taking over a bad squad with his "teaching" staff. In the end it wasn't enough because they were good but rarely great. There is value in being consistently good, but you run the risk of never replenishing with top end talent and falling short along the way. A good OC at any point probably results in 2-3 more playoff opps but he failed in that area. Trestman is more of an all around failure right now.

[Sammy Sofa]

why? i don't care if he was a meathead jerk in the mold of an alpha beta enforcer.

 

So was Urlacher, but despite that he still knew how to manage the team, and especially when it came to managing the defense during the game. There's nothing to indicate Kreutz had anything along those lines. Both were sadistic dickheads, but one actually (accidentally?) also knew how to lead a team.

Pretty sure Kreutz was an all-pro who called all the protections at the line. He had street cred, he wasn't some limp dick off the street.

 

Yeah, he ran the OL, not the team or the offense or the defense. Whoopedy-[expletive]. He was a good player who was a mook and got his kicks intimidating his own teammates.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Sammy Sofa

[jersey cubs fan]

Nothing like a complete [expletive] of a mid season flop to get the blood boiled and game threads on record pace before Wednesday.

[minnesotacubsfan]

post lots u guys

[chuckywang]

Wait, why is this game on CBS?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Wait, why is this game on CBS?

 

They stopped doing the strict conference thing.

[gscool89]

Wait, why is this game on CBS?

ESPN 8 passed on it

[Guest]

why? i don't care if he was a meathead jerk in the mold of an alpha beta enforcer.

 

So was Urlacher, but despite that he still knew how to manage the team, and especially when it came to managing the defense during the game. There's nothing to indicate Kreutz had anything along those lines. Both were sadistic dickheads, but one actually (accidentally?) also knew how to lead a team.

Pretty sure Kreutz was an all-pro who called all the protections at the line. He had street cred, he wasn't some limp dick off the street.

 

Yeah, he ran the OL, not the team or the offense or the defense. Whoopedy-[expletive]. He was a good player who was a mook and got his kicks intimidating his own teammates.

\

 

for years, Kreutz WAS the offensive line. i remember watching him block his man, the guard's man, and then pull and block the tackle's guy on the same play. he knewfootball, and that commanded respect.

 

no one is saying he's a "Patton-like leader", he's more a Gregor Clegane, Vargo Hoat or Maelys the Monstrous. But he was good at what he did, others knew it, and he kept the offense in line.

[USSoccer]

 

FWIW, I didn't mean he was a terrible player. I meant he was a terrible leader. All bluster. He was a leader for the sake of saying he was leading, not to accomplish anything meaningful. He had some good years as a lineman, however, him being the best lineman on the team was neither good for any other lineman, or the team. Kreutz was the type of guy that said we dip our balls in the rookies mouths because somebody dipped their balls in his mouth when he was a a rookie, not because he thought it helped the team grow together.

 

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/1259197/i-wanna-dip-my-balls-in-it-o.gif

[Guest]

Its a necessary, win or lose. Too often, because of the sports lexicon of dumb jocks, it's chalked up as meatheads bullying. Incognito was an ass, Kruetz was not

Kreutz was terrible and the team was a complete joke for half his time on the roster.

 

 

There's always a need for leadership and Briggs was also a horrible option for that role. Urlacher filled that role and was a star impact player who made a difference. Kreutz was a freaking center, one of the least important jobs on the starting offense. His leadership was based on being a dick and didn't make anybody any better. He was the face of the offense when the team couldn't play offense.

 

Kruetz was a 6 time pro bowler. He had his day as a leader, even if he was credited as being a leader past his best years

The team also sucked when he was at his best.

 

FWIW, I didn't mean he was a terrible player. I meant he was a terrible leader. All bluster. He was a leader for the sake of saying he was leading, not to accomplish anything meaningful. He had some good years as a lineman, however, him being the best lineman on the team was neither good for any other lineman, or the team. Kreutz was the type of guy that said we dip our balls in the rookies mouths because somebody dipped their balls in his mouth when he was a a rookie, not because he thought it helped the team grow together.

What is your point about him being the best player on the line and that not being a good thing? It's totally irrelevant to this discussion.

 

He didn't make the personnel decisions or draft shitty players. He played his ass off and ruled the locker room like a sellsword company.