Banedon

This doesn't bother me. Some of the stuff Lovie has said indicating they were "close" this year does, but they have so many other areas that need fixing...draft a QB, let him sit behind Orton and learn. This team can be successful with Orton as QB.

have you paid attention to the way the nfl works? nobody loses 5-10 years in a row unless they are completely dysfunctional in the front office (cardinals, raiders). hell even the raiders were in a super bowl not that long ago. people were saying the falcons were going to be a disaster for years after their star qb ended up in jail and their head coach ran out on them, and they're back in the playoffs a year later. Teams with at least 5 consecutive losing seasons since 2000: Lions 49ers Cardinals Raiders Texans Buffalo could be added to this list next year. Cincinnati had was in the middle fo a 5 season losing streak when 2000's started. This list gets much larger if I either: Cut the criteria down to 4 consecutive seasons, or Count 8-8 seasons So it's rare, but 5-6 losing seasons in a row is gonna be on the long side. I don't think above 6 is probably realistic.

The coaching staff helped produce the best team in the NFC that year. But they were probably 4th or 5th overall that year, and that was 3 years ago, not to mention not even the same staff. That ship has sailed. It was a fleating moment of glory that was unsustainable. How many seasons of mediocrity will it take for you to think the past continues to outweigh the present. More than two. You should be in the Bears front office then, because apparently they agree with you.

Axing coordinators does not equal a half-measure. But what are you for? You don't want Lovie fired, you don't want coordinators fired. Are you for anybody getting fired? Is your preference to keep Lovie and fire literally everybody else? The coordinators are very important position. Combined, they are probably equal to, if not greater than the head coach in terms of importance to the team. Firing the coordinators is going to result in other changes in staff, as new guys are going to insist on bringing in some of their own. A coordinator purge would be a hell of a lot more than a half-measure. And it is far better than sticking with the status quo. My preference is to keep the management team intact. I like it, I believe it is capable of winning championships, and I believe any replacements are likely to be worse. If you don't agree with the direction or philosophy of the team, then Smith should be fired. If you do, leave them be, because this wasn't a bad season. The defense has sucked for 2 years in a row now. Since Bob Babich took over the DC role. Is that a coincidence? Do you think that will magically change? I think if they can get a good pass-rusher DE and above average DT for the rotation, and are in some way able to get pressure with just the front 4, I do think the defense will improve drastically in passing situations. They're already a dominant run-stopping D when they don't have to focus so much on creatively applying pressure to stop the pass. But it's still possible for the DC to affect the pass rush. Be more creative and varied in your blitzing schemes. Run some stunts with the linemen. I won't pretend to be an expert on defensive schemes...I'm not. But I find it very difficult to believe that the entire defense stopped playing well at the same time, just because they all stopped performing well. Maybe there's some of that, but I really think a new DC could make a difference. I'll freely admit, if they change and there's no improvement, that I was wrong on that.

Axing coordinators does not equal a half-measure. But what are you for? You don't want Lovie fired, you don't want coordinators fired. Are you for anybody getting fired? Is your preference to keep Lovie and fire literally everybody else? The coordinators are very important position. Combined, they are probably equal to, if not greater than the head coach in terms of importance to the team. Firing the coordinators is going to result in other changes in staff, as new guys are going to insist on bringing in some of their own. A coordinator purge would be a hell of a lot more than a half-measure. And it is far better than sticking with the status quo. My preference is to keep the management team intact. I like it, I believe it is capable of winning championships, and I believe any replacements are likely to be worse. If you don't agree with the direction or philosophy of the team, then Smith should be fired. If you do, leave them be, because this wasn't a bad season. The defense has sucked for 2 years in a row now. Since Bob Babich took over the DC role. Is that a coincidence? Do you think that will magically change?

Axing coordinators does not equal a half-measure. But what are you for? You don't want Lovie fired, you don't want coordinators fired. Are you for anybody getting fired? Is your preference to keep Lovie and fire literally everybody else? The coordinators are very important position. Combined, they are probably equal to, if not greater than the head coach in terms of importance to the team. Firing the coordinators is going to result in other changes in staff, as new guys are going to insist on bringing in some of their own. A coordinator purge would be a hell of a lot more than a half-measure. And it is far better than sticking with the status quo. He said earlier that he thinks a good draft gets the division title next year.

If you want to argue that Kreutz is incredibly overrated, we'll I've been on that one for years. I'll get on that bandwagon.

I'm not sure how you measure that, but they dominated the NFC Championship game and won the NFC by three full games. That's dominating enough to make up for a weak conference. LOL, they most certainly did not. They were back in forth with the Saints for a good part of that game and would have probably lost in the dome. The week before that they just barely squeaked by the Seahawks. 39-14 isn't dominating?

Well if they're gonna start axing coordinators, they didn't feel like they needed to do it first thing this morning, huh?

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game. The GB win serves as a counter-balance to the Atlanta loss. Back to 9. I see your GB, and raise you the week 2 Carolina game. What, no Tampa game with the single most ridiculous penalty of the year in OT? I was saving that for later in the exchange. :D

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game. The GB win serves as a counter-balance to the Atlanta loss. Back to 9. I see your GB, and raise you the week 2 Carolina game.

Yeah, I think we can debate whether it's coaching or not, but that's missing the point. Even if it IS coaching, it's crummy coaching. And that's where we disagree. It got us to a Super Bowl we had a chance of winning, it got us nine wins this season in a down year, and if we have a good draft it'll win us another division title next season. Good defense was slightly involved in the SB run. That was missing this year, and here we are.

I don't think that he's ever said that. I think he's said that they want to be good at that, but he's said they want to be good at defense and offense too, and they aren't. When you wanna be good at everything, and you're good at one piece...I don't think worth high praise.

No, not true. Relying on turnovers in this scheme is simply relying on athletes making things happen. It is essentially playing for luck. It is not outscheming or outcoaching the opposition. True, but the Bears do that better than anyone else. They coach to create turnovers...swarm to the ball etc. Granted, there's a whole lotta luck involved too. There's a coaching aspect there though. I just wish it wasn't the entire coaching plan. Emphasizing turnovers and swarming to the ball does not equal coaching, but as you point out, that's the whole plan. They will give up 5-15 yard plays all day long, and now a couple 50-90 yard plays just for fun, in hopes of eventually getting a turnover. That isn't coaching, that is waiting. Yeah, I think we can debate whether it's coaching or not, but that's missing the point. Even if it IS coaching, it's crummy coaching.

Don't you think that Olsen has the potential to be an elite TE? He had 2 or 3 TD passes there near the end that only got away because of some fantastic plays by the Texan's D. I dunno...I really like the guy. I might not be impartial there.

Well...yeah. Everybody looks good when the do good things and bad when they do bad things. But I get your point...when he messes up, he messes up big. But so did Grossman, and he got a few years at QB to try to iron it out. I don't think Manning has played a full season at the same position.

I don't see the point in an incremental (if any) upgrade from Orton. Draft someone, trade for someone, or get a big name FA (not sure there are any) if you wanna replace him. I think there's a lot of other places to address outside of QB, but I don't think Anderson is the answer.

No, not true. Relying on turnovers in this scheme is simply relying on athletes making things happen. It is essentially playing for luck. It is not outscheming or outcoaching the opposition. True, but the Bears do that better than anyone else. They coach to create turnovers...swarm to the ball etc. Granted, there's a whole lotta luck involved too. There's a coaching aspect there though. I just wish it wasn't the entire coaching plan.

Should've been at least 10 with that Atlanta game.

Manning as safety may happen more than you'd like depending on Mike Brown's situation. Frankly, I'd like to see Manning get consistent time at FS and see if he can actually develop there. I know he's had some big blown assignments, and apparently Urlacher got on him after he got burned yesterday (although I think Urlacher better worry about his own stuff)...but I think Manning still could develop if the Bears would put him somewhere and leave him there.

I'm surprised that Bill Cowher isn't mentioned as a possible Lovie replacement. I don't think Lovie is going anywhere, but if he where, Cowher would have to be on the list. Looks like the Browns are thinking along those lines.

The problem is Marinelli was promoted directly from DLine coach to HC. He doesnt have a DC resume to fall back on like Dick LeBeau did. I would be fine with him as DLine coach, im not sure what upgrade he would be over Babich at coordinator. He was also assistant head coach for 4 years in TB.

Lovie got all kinds of perks out of the 2006 season, including far too much decision making power for both coaches and personel. Angelo needs to completely take away that control, but the problem is once that happens in the NFL, the coach rarely stays on much longer. Odds are, if Angelo tries to force chances, it's going to cause friction with the very stubborn Smith, and next year could easily be a disastrous end of each of their tenures in Chicago. I think that's an increasingly likely scenario.

I think Babich will be gone. Maybe as soon as today. I hope Turner too. Either Marinelli or Mangini would work as DC. Not sure who would take over as OC though. I think a change in defensive scheme could really help this team.

I dunno...it gave them some excitement to start the year...maybe the low at the end is even lower...but at least they had some kind of high to start the year off with. I remember Mike Greenberg hardly being able to contain his excitement.