ATT: LOVIE NUTHUGGERS - please return to reality

FatBabiesHaveNoPride · Nov 18, 2014

bearmick said:
Correct, they didn't win the SB, so they weren't ultimately successful. They were a heck of a lot better than the current crock of shit though. Hosting two NFC championships, a SB appearance, and a team with an identity which was respected around the league. Compare that to the train wreck we have now, despite all its talent.

What? Aren't you about 50? Why do you talk like a college frat boy? The answer is that if they're intelligent, both are worth more than a skinny airhead who's nothing but hair and teeth. Hope this helps.

And none of that matters. 3 playoff appearances in 9 seasons. 5 of those 9 seasons finishing 3rd or 4th in the division. That's not success.

As for me - not 50. I'll be 44 on Friday. I expect a gift.

FatBabiesHaveNoPride · Nov 18, 2014

SlickWilly said:
3 playoff appearances in 9 years is actually worse than mediocre. He also had records of 5-11, 7-9 twice, 9-7 and 8-8. Very mediocre.

The stat I look at the most - 3rd or 4th in the division in 5 of the 9 seasons he coached.

That is worse then mediocre.

Broc · Nov 18, 2014

I wouldn't get so wrapped up in winning % as the end all be all here... Hell, Barry Switzer has a .625 win % in the NFL, does that mean he's was a great NFL HC? Or did he just inherit a loaded Dallas team? Jim Harbaugh's % is up there with Lombardi and Madden but would you honestly say he's as good of a coach as they were?

Lovie currently sits at #69 on the list at .539% which will likely drop a bit after however long he lasts in Tampa. Is that mediocre? I dunno, I'd say being slightly above .500 is pretty mediocre, but that's just me.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/

Mongo_76 · Nov 18, 2014

FatBabiesHaveNoPride said:
One season.

And they win a SB?

Lovie was fired because he couldn't put a competent offense on the field - i.e., a complete football team. Surely you know this.

Not arguing why he was fired or how many times he did it. Arguing anyone who says that he didn't put together a complete team.

He did.

Surely you know this.

Broc · Nov 18, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
Arguing anyone who says that he didn't put together a complete team. He did. Surely you know this.

LOL only if you're arguing that he was able to construct a team the consisted of 53 people to comply with NFL roster rules, then yes it was complete.

Mongo_76 · Nov 18, 2014

Broc said:
LOL only if you're arguing that he was able to construct a team the consisted of 53 people to comply with NFL roster rules, then yes it was complete.

I'm arguing that the #2 scoring offense, #1 ranked ST's and #3 defense is a pretty complete team.

How are you not getting that?

HeHateMe · Nov 18, 2014

hey broc, which head coach is better, Lovie or Trestman?

Mongo_76 · Nov 18, 2014

HeHateMe said:
hey broc, which head coach is better, Lovie or Trestman?

Broc: "Cutler"

HeHateMe · Nov 18, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
Broc: "Cutler"

I think he posted about moving on from whiteknighting for Cutler and his new mission is Trestman. It's good to have charity in this world.

jc456 · Nov 18, 2014

FatBabiesHaveNoPride said:
Yes, and for all of his 'elite defenses', he won jack shit.

'Elite defenses' don't win Superbowls. Complete football teams do.

In 9 years, Lovie Smith was never able to put a complete football team on the field.

We can just toss all those stats out and look at one stat that matters the most:

In 9 seasons as the coach of the Chicago Bears, Lovie Smith's Bears finished the division in 3rd or 4th place five times. 5 of 9 seasons at 3rd or last in the NFC North.

That's not mediocrity. That is failure.

Lovie Smith is not a HC. 2 and 8 this year, laughable that someone gives his shlt the time of day. Hope all you nuthuggers got his undies on ya so you stay warm. LOL, Trestman is as bad as smith. He has no creativity. Lovie had zip!, couldn't evaluate talent to save his job. Doh!!

Broc · Nov 18, 2014

Mongo_76 said:
I'm arguing that the #2 scoring offense, #1 ranked ST's and #3 defense is a pretty complete team.

How are you not getting that?

LOL wow, 1 cherry picked season out of a 9 year tenure. Never mind the 8 other years the offense was ranked 32, 26, 18, 14, 19, 21, 17, 16... yeah lets just ignore those seasons and just focus on the one season he lucked into having the #2 ranked scoring offense and pretend that is somehow an accurate representation of his tenure here... silly me. :bizarro::bizarro::bizarro::bizarro::bizarro:

iueyedoc · Nov 18, 2014

ClydeLee said:
Mediocre in WHAT SENSE? That makes absolutely no point until you describe what layer of standard you are judging someone off of... it's not mediocre in comparison to the general NFL HC. Mediocre is a term based off being moderate, he had more success than the moderate/average NFL HC ever does.

His winning percentage in his tenure with the bears was top 50 of all time in NHL HCs.. you think then that the top 50 of coaches of all time in the NFL are mediocre! The whole point is that is a horrible usage of concepts of mediocre

You can say YOU demand more and it's not good enough.. it's not by a logical means mediocre for an NFL HC though.

Lovie ranks 50th in games coached and 49th in games won. Pretty average results over a pretty long haul.

He is 14th out of 19 in winning percentage of active coaches with enough games (50) to qualify for the ranking.

He is 23 in average division rank of active coaces with at least one complete season and 96th overall.

And 69th in all time winning %.

I honestly don't see the argument for anything but mediocre, and even that is being slightly generous.

Mongo_76 · Nov 18, 2014

Broc said:
LOL wow, 1 cherry picked season out of a 9 year tenure. Never mind the 8 other years the offense was ranked 32, 26, 18, 14, 19, 21, 17, 16... yeah lets just ignore those seasons and just focus on the one season he lucked into having the #2 ranked scoring offense and pretend that is somehow an accurate representation of his tenure here... silly me. :bizarro::bizarro::bizarro::bizarro::bizarro:

Not cherry picked.

The comment I was responding to was:

In 9 years, Lovie Smith was never able to put a complete football team on the field.

Try reading before making as ass of yourself.

Broc · Nov 18, 2014

HeHateMe said:
hey broc, which head coach is better, Lovie or Trestman?

Neither. They're both coordinators that should of never been made head coaches.

But that said, I do however prefer Trestman over Lovie simply because I agree with guys like Steve Young when they say the most important thing in today's NFL is the relationship between the HC and QB. This franchise badly needed to get someone in the building that understood the importance of protecting the QB and enabling him to have success. Lovie is the 100% opposite of that philosophy. Trestman at least get's it and made his first order of business rebuilding the OL and places importance on giving the QB a clean platform to throw from.

I'd like to see Trestman get a chance with a better DC and another offseason focused on bringing in more defensive playmakers before we blow it up and start all over again. Sue me. Not sure what the fuck your problem is with me now either but whatever.

DaaBears · Nov 18, 2014

iueyedoc said:
Lovie ranks 50th in games coached and 49th in games won. Pretty average results over a pretty long haul.

He is 14th out of 19 in winning percentage of active coaches with enough games (50) to qualify for the ranking.

He is 23 in average division rank of active coaces with at least one complete season and 96th overall.

And 69th in all time winning %.

I honestly don't see the argument for anything but mediocre, and even that is being slightly generous.

Now you I thought was smarter than this, unless of course you are genius and presenting these stats that most won't realize are warped.

You start out by saying he is 50th in games coached and 49th in games won, presenting mediocrity. Of course, the 50 coaches that coached and won the most games in the history of the NFL are pretty much the top 50 coaches ever. It is like saying if a guy is the 10th leading passer in the history of the NFL, out of those 10, he came in tenth or last. Of course all 10 are well above average, and of course the top 49 coaches in the history of the NFL are just that, the top 49 coaches ever. The same with the other stats.

However, if I ever need an attorney, or am being audited by the IRS, I could certainly use your expertise is finagling the numbers.

bearmick · Nov 18, 2014

FatBabiesHaveNoPride said:
And none of that matters. 3 playoff appearances in 9 seasons. 5 of those 9 seasons finishing 3rd or 4th in the division. That's not success.

As for me - not 50. I'll be 44 on Friday. I expect a gift.

You said you'd been playing drums for over 40 years, so I assumed 50.

Your gift is a sense of persepctive with regards to Lovie's moderately successful head coaching career.

RacerX · Nov 18, 2014

SlickWilly said:
If you don't think Lovie Smith is better than mediocre = you're a moron. Brilliant logic there.

Pretty sure I'm not a moron, but I do know this: Lovie's teams were above-average during his tenure in only two respects, players loving the HC, and W-L. The W-L is great, truly, but I never felt his teams could match up with true playoff-caliber teams, I don't feel he could out-coach anyone, and he sure didn't game plan or make any in-game adjustments.

In every other respect Lovie is less then mediocre, I'm thrilled that Wooden Indian is gone. He has never been mistaken for an innovator or a smart man.

bearmick · Nov 18, 2014

Broc said:
I wouldn't get so wrapped up in winning % as the end all be all here... Hell, Barry Switzer has a .625 win % in the NFL, does that mean he's was a great NFL HC? Or did he just inherit a loaded Dallas team?

Lovie didn't inherit a good team though. He inherited a crap team and almost immediately made them competitive. Pretty much the polar opposite of what Tretman has done (inheriting a 10-6 team and making them awful).

Thomas31 · Nov 18, 2014

Broc said:
Neither. They're both coordinators that should of never been made head coaches.

But that said, I do however prefer Trestman over Lovie simply because I agree with guys like Steve Young when they say the most important thing in today's NFL is the relationship between the HC and QB. This franchise badly needed to get someone in the building that understood the importance of protecting the QB and enabling him to have success. Lovie is the 100% opposite of that philosophy. Trestman at least get's it and made his first order of business rebuilding the OL and places importance on giving the QB a clean platform to throw from.

I'd like to see Trestman get a chance with a better DC and another offseason focused on bringing in more defensive playmakers before we blow it up and start all over again. Sue me. Not sure what the fuck your problem is with me now either but whatever.

lol...love this stupid argument while Cutler's numbers are marginally improved under Trestman all the while leading the league in turnovers. What an impact Trestman has had over the "horrible" Lovie...lol....

BEARS

bearmick · Nov 18, 2014

Cutler played his best football here in that 5-game winning streak before he got hurt in 2011. The most impressive thing Trestman has done with QBs in Chicago was with McCown.

ATT: LOVIE NUTHUGGERS - please return to reality

Doors that go like this.

Doors that go like this.

well baked

Well-known member

well baked

Well-known member

He/Himz/Hiz

Well-known member

He/Himz/Hiz

Well-known member

well baked

Variant Also Negotiates

My favorite teams

Well-known member

well baked

CCS Donator

Captain Objectivity

Silicon Valley CA Bears H

Captain Objectivity

Well-known member

My favorite teams

Captain Objectivity