David Haugh has declared that it's put up or shut up time for Lovie Smith, with the 2009 Bears to be his most talented team ever.
That's saying something, given the success of the 2006 squad that went to the Super Bowl. That team had Mike Brown, Bernard Berrian, Muhsin Muhammed and Thomas Jones as key contributors in place of Al Afalava, Devin Hester, Earl Bennett and Matt Forte. Only one of those players is arguably an upgrade, and I'm not convinced Forte vs. Jones isn't a push (to be clear, I think very highly of Thomas Jones' performance as a Bear).
On the other hand, Greg Olsen plus Desmond Clark is a better tight end combination than that 2006 squad had. Jay Cutler is worlds better than Rex Grossman. Pisa Tinoisamoa is probably better than Hunter Hillenmeyer, and the offensive line has the potential to be better than it was in 2006, especially at tackle.
But really, what it comes down to isn't talent, it's age. The key members of the defense - Tommie Harris, Lance Briggs, Brian Urlacher, Adewale Ogunleye - all of them are older and have more wear on them than they did in 2006. That's why I think Haugh's article is a little disingenuous. This Bears squad may very well be more talented, but I'm not sure it's better.
Haugh makes a good point that Smith is the NFL's sixth-longest-tenured head coach, and that in the NFL it's rare to get a few chances to make the playoffs and fail. And I'm not a huge fan of Smith's. I don't understand why the coaching staff makes some of the personnel decisions it does - for example, Corey Graham's position on the depth chart - or some of the in-game decisions it does. Nor do I understand running Ron Rivera out of town.
But if Jerry Angelo really believes Lovie is the guy, the mere success or failure of this year's team shouldn't have anything to do with whether he sticks around to finish up his contract. Smith may have been handed a talented team, but he's been handed one with an aging defense and a lot of new contributors on offense. It may be that there's a nice core with which to go forward, but it's easy to imagine the defense succumbing to multiple injuries. In a division with Aaron Rodgers and Adrian Peterson, that may keep the Bears out of the playoffs altogether. If that happens and it's because of Smith's decision, great, get rid of him. If it happens because of Angelo's decisions, I'm not sure why Haugh is so eager to cast Smith as the villain in this drama.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I'm always surprised by how short most NFL coaches' tenures are. It doesn't feel like that long ago that they hired Lovie.
This is a good point Vlad. Injuries will be the main concern. More so than most teams because of the injury prone nature to a few of their key players.
I'm the opposite about you about Lovie though. really like Lovie, he doesn't rely on complex formations, but instead focuses on executing a few things very well (ala Tony Dungy). Some of the personnel decisions have been a bit weird, but overall I think he's been good. This defense has been pretty good every year he's been in Chicago.
If you find a good coach a few down years shouldn't be enough to fire him. I would like it if Lovie was here for a good long time.
The only area where this team is stronger than 2006 is Cutler. That's a huge upgrade at the most important position but both lines are older and weaker. The defensive back field is much weaker due to age at corner and inexperience at safety and Urlacher isn't as good even if he has a bounce back season. I don't think special teams is better either because of Hester's reduced role.
Lovie has gotten the most out of his talent. I give him credit because players do seem to want to play for him. It's amazing to me that they were 9-7 last season considering their talent level. I'm really interested to see how this defense looks with Lovie running it as I think he's an excellent coordinator.
It would make no sense to fire Lovie unless someone better was available. The list of guys I would consider better is pretty short; Mike Shannahan, Jeff Fisher, Bill Cowher, and Bellichek.
Mike Shannahan, Jeff Fisher, Bill Cowher, and Bellichek.
That's pretty much my opinion as well. I'd take Shanny or Cowher and thrilled to have Bellichek, but I'd rather keep Lovie. I'd like to keep him because, as a fan, I enjoy a few things that are consistent on a team that you root for year in and year out.
I don't mind high turnover if it leads to winning, but I prefer connecting with long time players (even though it's completely fake and constructed on the fans part).
I didn't realize Shanahan was so well regarded. He is pretty good at building RBs out of nothing I guess
I didn't realize Shanahan was so well regarded. He is pretty good at building RBs out of nothing I guess
He's also good at teaching cut blocking (dying laughing)
Melissa, I think I like this line better than the 2006 line. The 2006 line with their ages:
Tait (31) - Brown (34) - Kreutz (29) - Garza (27) - Fred Miller (33)
2009:
Pace (33) - Omiyale (26) - Kreutz (32)- Garza (30)- Williams (24)
I threw the ages in there just because I wanted to point out that they had worse players than Pace in 2006 who were about his age. But it's amazing Grossman survived that season without an injury given that a 31-year-old Tait, playing out of position, was guarding his blind side.
I do think they're better at TE now, too. Olsen/Clark is a better combination than Clark/John Gilmore.
I think the defense is worse but with a good QB I expect the offense will be better, so the defense doesn't have to dominate. And keeping them off the field will help.
vlad, I don't know that Pace is the Orlando Pace we've seen in the past. I actually think that 06 Tait was probably better than Pace is right now but we'll see. I also think Kreutz and Garza were better then than they are now not to mention that Rueben Brown was better than the unknown in Omiyale. Fred Miller was serviceable and Williams may be better but we don't know that yet. If the Bears were confident in Williams he would be the left tackle as that's what he was drafted to be. I just don't see how this new O line that hasn't played together as a unit (supposedly a big deal to experts) is better than the unit we had in 06.
Post a Comment